Rusty Atheists Refuse to see the Evidence
It seems that the days of reasonable discourse between professing atheists and Christians have gone away. Instead, atheists act like they are charging in with their suits of armor to save reason and science from "religion". Their armor is rusty and their reasoning skills are sorely lacking.
I recently saw an astonishing display of bigotry and terrible logic from a rusty atheopath who is seething with hatred for God and Christians. Essentially, she demands evidence for creation, God's existence, the Genesis Flood, and more — but refuses to look at any when it's presented. When challenged on this, she says, "I don't want to waste my time on fairy tales". After prejudicial conjecture and other fundamentally flawed reasoning, ridicule continues. Christians and creationists are portrayed as idiots. In reality, she is the fool (Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 1:7).
People like this clearly show that they do not want evidence, and will dredge up any possible excuse to avoid honestly examining it. In fact, they do know that God exists, it is quite clear, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-23).
Atheists want to control the narrative and limit the discussion. Bluntly, they're control freaks. Science and scientists are redefined as naturalism and evolutionary scientists. Therefore, through this corrupted, self-serving manner, science is actually atheistic naturalism and scientists are expositors of fish-to-fool evolution.
The previously mentioned atheopath also insists on receiving material in "respectable scientific publications" and "peer-reviewed journals" (although she has not shown knowledge of science and logic). By making the rules, only publications promoting evolution will be considered, so biblical creationists need not apply despite having their own journals and stringent standards. We have previously seen how secular peer review has become biased and unreliable, so this demand is a way to hide from reality.
One of her followers let fly with the "creationists are not scientists" canard, and was challenged by links to creation science technical publications and a call to refute them. "I can't, I'm not a scientist". He just affirmed that creationists are scientists, contradicting what he had previously said.
Ridiculing creationists and Christians does not make atheism less foolish and incoherent.
Here are three related articles based on letters to a ministry. While the replies focus on Answers in Genesis, other creation science ministries could easily agree with the replies. The first one is typical of angry atheists who are trying to justify their rebellion against God.
The previous article received a response from another unbeliever that was more civil, but still indulged in prejudicial conjecture and other fallacies. Scoffers do not do their homework. People who engage in formal debates will actually know the material of their opponents, and attempt to dismantle the strong points of those positions. Instead, angry atheists and evolutionists not only ignore what biblical creationists actually believe and teach, but use ridicule and straw man arguments. Sometimes, they can be subtle.
Before we get to that, I think some people use the word skeptic when they should use mocker or scoffer. This is because skepticism is often healthy, and modern usage implies that someone is willing to be courteous and hear the other side's arguments. Modern internet atheists are seldom civil or tolerant.
When someone demands proof for God's existence, they are rejecting the evidence that is seen all around them, requiring instead scientific or empirical evidence. That is the category error (or category mistake), where categories are assigned improper qualities. You cannot assign a color to a number, for example, except when it is visible: that number five is blue.
It is folly to expect that God, who is a spirit, can or will respond to physical empirical testing based on human philosophies. Also, the love of God that they trample underfoot is not something that is subject to materialistic testing. Jump through hoops for unbelievers, Sovereign Creator God!
Atheists claim that they want evidence for God, evolutionists demand proof for the Genesis Flood, and so on, but we see that they seldom actually want such evidence. Even so, there is no such thing as different evidence for different people; yours or mine. We all have the same facts available, and it depends on worldviews and presuppositions.
Atheists and evolutionists presuppose naturalism, and if they look at facts, their vision is distorted by their atheistic naturalism spectacles. Regular readers have seen numerous examples of how the narrative of naturalism takes precedence over actual evidence, so anything that does not fit (especially if it indicates recent creation, the Genesis Flood, or God) is rejected out of hand.
 |
| Modified from a graphic at FreeImages by Glenn Kiser |
People like this clearly show that they do not want evidence, and will dredge up any possible excuse to avoid honestly examining it. In fact, they do know that God exists, it is quite clear, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-23).
Atheists want to control the narrative and limit the discussion. Bluntly, they're control freaks. Science and scientists are redefined as naturalism and evolutionary scientists. Therefore, through this corrupted, self-serving manner, science is actually atheistic naturalism and scientists are expositors of fish-to-fool evolution.
The previously mentioned atheopath also insists on receiving material in "respectable scientific publications" and "peer-reviewed journals" (although she has not shown knowledge of science and logic). By making the rules, only publications promoting evolution will be considered, so biblical creationists need not apply despite having their own journals and stringent standards. We have previously seen how secular peer review has become biased and unreliable, so this demand is a way to hide from reality.
One of her followers let fly with the "creationists are not scientists" canard, and was challenged by links to creation science technical publications and a call to refute them. "I can't, I'm not a scientist". He just affirmed that creationists are scientists, contradicting what he had previously said.
Ridiculing creationists and Christians does not make atheism less foolish and incoherent.
Here are three related articles based on letters to a ministry. While the replies focus on Answers in Genesis, other creation science ministries could easily agree with the replies. The first one is typical of angry atheists who are trying to justify their rebellion against God.
You people are morons to think the earth is only 6000 to 10000 years old. Just because you're too stupid to understand, or too lazy to find out the truth about, scientific FACT, doesn't make it untrue. Give me one iota of SCIENTIFIC truth concerning the existence of a god and maybe I'll revise my views, otherwise shut your mouths about knowing the truth—a concept that is obviously over your puny minds, as is abstract thought.Wow, he sure told AiG! They may as well close up shop and get respectable jobs in light of such devastating reasoning... Actually, to read the response, click on “You People Are Morons”. Come back for the follow-up.
The previous article received a response from another unbeliever that was more civil, but still indulged in prejudicial conjecture and other fallacies. Scoffers do not do their homework. People who engage in formal debates will actually know the material of their opponents, and attempt to dismantle the strong points of those positions. Instead, angry atheists and evolutionists not only ignore what biblical creationists actually believe and teach, but use ridicule and straw man arguments. Sometimes, they can be subtle.
We received the feedback above [found at the link] regarding a previous article. That article answered the accusation that young-earth creationists are “morons.” This response deals with new accusations that actually prove the point of the original article.You can see the entire letter and response at "Skeptics Often Don’t Want the Answers". One more link follows, and I reckon it's the best of the lot.
Before we get to that, I think some people use the word skeptic when they should use mocker or scoffer. This is because skepticism is often healthy, and modern usage implies that someone is willing to be courteous and hear the other side's arguments. Modern internet atheists are seldom civil or tolerant.
When someone demands proof for God's existence, they are rejecting the evidence that is seen all around them, requiring instead scientific or empirical evidence. That is the category error (or category mistake), where categories are assigned improper qualities. You cannot assign a color to a number, for example, except when it is visible: that number five is blue.
It is folly to expect that God, who is a spirit, can or will respond to physical empirical testing based on human philosophies. Also, the love of God that they trample underfoot is not something that is subject to materialistic testing. Jump through hoops for unbelievers, Sovereign Creator God!
 |
| Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click to enlarge) |
Atheists and evolutionists presuppose naturalism, and if they look at facts, their vision is distorted by their atheistic naturalism spectacles. Regular readers have seen numerous examples of how the narrative of naturalism takes precedence over actual evidence, so anything that does not fit (especially if it indicates recent creation, the Genesis Flood, or God) is rejected out of hand.
“Give me evidence that God exists.” This is usually the response from atheists when engaging with Christians. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with this, as we should not believe anything without satisfactory evidence (cf. John 20:24–29). The Bible does not place faith or belief against evidence, but rather it uses faith to refer to a conviction or confidence in that evidence (i.e. the resurrection, Romans 10:9).1 The suggestion from the atheist, however, is that belief in God is not supported by any evidence. While it is good to give evidence for the existence of God, it is important to understand that we do not all read evidence the same way and that evidence is not taken in a neutral fashion by those who are presenting and accepting it.To conclude our lesson in rejecting evidence based on worldviews, click on "Atheism and the Evidence for God".