Before this starts, first I will say I have a great many atheist friends. Secondly, I am a Christian (no denomination), but I don’t intend to push my particular beliefs on anyone. I simply wish to explain why I strongly think atheism is a poor choice. It’s up to you as a reader whether you agree or not. When I discuss this type of thing, I intend to do it respectfully and for those who genuinely seek to broaden their mind with different viewpoints. I have no time for people who stubbornly stick to their guns and will not be moved by any amount of reasoning. (I am fully aware that many religious folk are guilty of that too.)
Atheists main argument for their belief is that it is the only rational and logical option.
Some of them may well actually believe that. But probably most of them have heard someone that they consider more intelligent than them say it and are simply parroting it to sound smart.
Of course there are a huge number of religious types who do the same as I have been accusing atheists of. Many will simply recite the verses they have learned or say the things that better people than them have told them to, but these aren’t the people anyone should be attempting to learn or gain deep insight from.
So ignore the raving extremists or the sheeple for a while. Sensible spiritualists don’t like them either.
Let’s try a proper, civilised discussion involving a respectful exchange of ideas.
Atheism Is Illogical And Here’s Why
Ask an atheist why they believe that there is no God.
They will say something like one of the following:
Answer 1 – I’ve thought about it and considering the evidence it seems like the most probable answer.
Answer 2 – Being atheist is the default position. It’s you who are claiming that something exists. Why should I defend myself?
Answer 1
This is the far more illogical answer. Without even looking at any evidence, this statement alone is no reason for someone to call themselves atheist.
It is unclear what ‘evidence’ they have looked into, if any – they may again be parroting other people. You could ask them about every piece of evidence they have uncovered in their quest to find the answer (and maybe give them explanations about how they could be wrong about them in some cases). This would probably be a waste of time however.
The main thing about this answer is that they have said that the idea of there being no God is ‘the most probable’.
Ask any rational atheist if they believe God does not exist, they will say ‘yes’. Ask if they know that He does not exist, they will say ‘no’.
Belief and knowledge are very different things.
There is absolutely no way, using conventional or scientific means to disprove the existence of God.
Because an atheist believes in things like fact and rational thought (which are very good things to believe in), they have to concede that they are not really atheist. They are simply people waiting to see concrete proof either way.
Choosing to be atheist takes as much faith as having a religious belief. You have to make the same decision without adequate proof to choose this lifestyle as you would if were to choose a religion.
Therefore atheism is illogical.
The atheist’s answer to the question works far better for an agnostic or someone who is completely unsure of what decision to make. In which case, they would be someone who can not be sure that there is no God, but they are leaning towards the idea that it’s unlikely.
Answer 2
Answer 2 at first seems to make a bit more sense.
Why should someone explain why they don’t believe in something that they think is fictional or a figment of crazy people’s imaginations? They’re the sane ones that can see things for what they are.
At second glance however, the answer to the question is simply a brush off. It’s saying ‘I don’t want to explain myself. Leave me alone.’ It’s the response of someone who may as well be putting their hands on their ears and saying ‘La la la, I’m not listening’.
Maybe they don’t have a good enough answer for why they so strongly hold their views. Or maybe they’re just being stubborn.
Often you’ll hear them saying things along the lines of ‘You believe in your God, I’ll believe in my Spaghetti monster.’
The difference between God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that everyone knows, as fact, that the Spaghetti Monster is a made up creature designed to be a mockery of religion. That’s why no rational people believe in its existence.
Plenty of rational people believe in God and they all have greater reasons than simply ‘someone told me it was true’ or ‘I read it in this book, you may have heard of it..’.
These rational religionists will often be able to present a nasty non-believer with some tangible evidence to help them. Something about the historical reliability of the Bible or the archaeological discoveries that support religious texts perhaps.
At this stage, if the atheist is still insistent that he has nothing to prove, it’s obvious that they are aren’t worth talking to further and their opinions don’t matter. On the other hand, if they have any relevant or worthwhile evidence to present to the contrary or a well worded rebuttal however, that’s fine (and I apologise for assuming that they were nasty).
If an atheist believes they should not have to disprove a non-entity, then they should at least be willing to make an attempt to disprove actual tangible evidence. Otherwise, they are just a pointless human being.
Considering that there is a huge amount of tangible evidence and no way to disprove it, then the argument goes back to ‘Answer 1’, which as already seen, is illogical.
Therefore, atheism is illogical.
Of course this conversation could also include informing them that atheism is NOT the default position. The default position is not knowing. Take Father Christmas as an example. You are not born disbelieving in him. You are born not knowing anything. Your parents tell you about him, so you believe. They tell you all about how he comes every Christmas Eve, climbs down the chimney, eats the pies and leaves presents and goes around the entire world.
At about ten years old, your parents tell you that he is actually made up. They tell you it’s actually dad who leaves the presents and eats the pies and that Santa manages to get around the world because every mum and dad are doing this. It also explains why richer kids get better presents than poorer ones.
So now you have been given sufficient evidence that he does not exist and can know that. (You might also be left with a distrust of your parents who lied to you for ten years.)
Using logic as your argument means having to use correct facts. You can’t have correct logic without accurate information. If you are starting from the incorrect position of saying that atheism is the default position, your logic will be faulty.
And that’s another reason why atheism is illogical.
Weak Atheists and Strong Atheists
There are two types of atheist labelled ‘Weak’ and ‘Strong’.
The basic difference is that Weak atheists reject the idea that is a deity (or many), while Strong explicitly say that there is no God.
In Answer 1, we essentially see a Weak Atheist argument. They accept the possibility of a God, but choose to ignore it, a decision which requires faith.
In Answer 2, the argument could suit either type. But as a Strong Atheist is someone who adamantly insists on an idea that can not be proven by any means, despite evidence to the contrary, we see that they are at heart illogical beings.
Therefore, Atheism is illogical.
The only logical conclusion for someone who believes in choosing the rational choice, is to sit on the fence and wait for an answer, not committing to either side.
As I said in the small text at the top, I am Christian, but I believe that religion comes from personal proof more than any other kind of evidence. I can imagine that for many, my own experiences will provide no amount of convincing, so they have no place in this article.
