A Christian Response to Atheism is the title of a vid posted to the “Matt Powell OFFICIAL” Youtube channel.
A certain @PA9052 commented
1. 00:00 – “It’s (Atheism) the idea that everything came from nothing, with no god”
The definition of Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deity (god). It has nothing to do withhow they believe how the universe started. Yes, some atheists do believe that, but, if you’re talkingabout atheists who follow science like me, the short answer for how the universe started is simply that we don’t know. Scientists do have hypothesis about what could be there before the Big Bang happened, but we still, and might never know for sure what there was, or even how it happened, and they certainly do not claim that “everything came from nothing”. And, as a side note, just because we don’t know does not confirm that not only a god has created the universe, but that the god of your religion did. Every claim has to stand on its own.
2. 00:22 – “I’ve actually asked certain atheists: “Would you become a Christian if Christianity were true? And they will say no”.”
Have you asked them why that was their answer? Maybe you have, if so could you share their answer(s) to that? You can not just make an assumption of why they would not become Christians if this religion was true.
3. 00:31 – “They’re (atheists) more about emotions, they’re more about feelings and experiences, instead of demonstrated facts”
Could you provide what “demonstrated facts” you are talking about?
4. 00:39 – “Look if you’re an atheist, there’s no way to determine what’s right and wrong”
How so? Do you have any concrete evidence for this claim? I’m assuming you are talking about morality, and if not please correct me, but morality has been explained by science. Explained simply and to my understanding, it’s benificial for a group of individuals to not harm eachother, i.e. assault, kill, r*pe, insult among other things. Infact, morality has been observed on other animals, even other apes.
5. 01:04 – (Hitler was an atheist)
From what I could read, this is most likely false. The things is, no one knows for sure what was the “last” religious stand, if any, of Adolf Hitler. However, according to Wikipedia, he criticised atheism. If that is the case, I would think it’s unlikely that he was himself and atheist. I do also want to point out that, even if he was an atheist, it was nothing to do with the horrors that he committed. He has never declared that his action were “in the name of atheism” or anything like that. It is frankly disgusting to implicitly compare atheists to one of the most horrible person in history. And I could make this argument against christianity; the Crusades happened, and the reason for these wars was religion. So by your logic, I could say that if you’re a christian, you must endorse war and thus don’t have (good) morals.
6. 01:24 – “They (atheists) lead the world in school shootings”
I have honestly not found any statistics or any other forms of information regarding this claim. And also, if this was true, it would not necessarily mean that being an atheist would make you more likely to commit such a crime. For example, there might be an area in the world where people commit this crime often, and it just happened that they were atheists. Again, it seems that you want to make us seem like we’re some evil beings and turn your (christian) viewers against us. If that is the case, and I’m not saying it *is*, but if it is, I ask you: “Why?”
7. 01:44 – “Atheists also lead the world in drug abuse”
From what I could find, this seems to be true. I do have an answer for that: being religious often involves being in a community, where it’s more likely to have more people who care about you, and want to help you. If you’re an atheist, you’re less likely to be in a community like that, making it easier to fall into substance abuse. Now, I want to make it clear that that was purely my opinion and should not be taken as the absolute truth. Also, just because atheists are more likely to fall into substance abuse does not mean your god exists. And another point, people that are part of any religion are less likely to fall into substance abuse, not just christians.
I currently do not have any more time to answer your later points, I might come back tomorrow to answer more.
I, @kenammi355, replied
I will make a comment on your first point and see if we can take it from there:
“The definition of Atheism”: I’m unaware that there’s only one but I am very aware that every individual Atheist demands that they are THE authority on Atheism and only their myopically subjective definition counts.
“It has nothing to do withhow they believe how the universe started”: of course it does, by definition in fact, since according to dogmatheism that God created the universe is anathema, it will get you excommunicated, it’s not allowed since Atheism is thought restricting.
So, you’re cosmogenic myth is “we don’t know” with “we” being “atheists who follow science” but “Scientists do have hypothesis” and there are very strongly evidenced science-based theories–which finally caught up to Gen 1:1, BTW.
I would have to know to what you’re referring to, “know for sure” since different scientific fields have different standards of what can be known with what level of certainty and hiding behind “sure” while ignoring the strongest hypothesis is no way to do world-view–which according to Dawkins, et al, is what Atheism is.
As for, “they certainly do not claim that ‘everything came from nothing’” well, the “they” must refer to a very, very myopically limited few on whom you rely since you can bore yourself reading/listening to how another “they” have been asserting for many, many decades that “everything came from nothing” by nothing to nothing for nothing–even if they have to play word-games by claiming that nothing isn’t nothing but that nothing is something (go figure).
Indeed, “just because we don’t know does not confirm that not only a god has created the universe” nor does is mean that He didn’t but, again, the latest science (not scientist) finally caught up with the Bible.
But, BTW, what does it matter, on your world-view, if an accidentally existing ape made erroneous claims about what a historically few accidentally existing apes believe about accidental reality?
@PA9052
1. “The definition of Atheism”: I’m unaware that there’s only one but I am very aware that every individual Atheist demands that they are THE authority on Atheism and only their myopically subjective definition counts.
How I described atheism is, as far as I know, the official definition. Your point that every individual atheist demands that they are the authority on atheism is false. Yes, some atheists do think that, it might even be the majority for all I know, but saying all think like that? That’s dishonest, or ignorant at best.
2. “It has nothing to do with how they believe how the universe started”: of course it does, by definition in fact, since according to dogmatheism that God created the universe is anathema, it will get you excommunicated, it’s not allowed since Atheism is thought restricting.
I might not have been precise enough on that, I apologise. Yes, obviously, atheists do not believe that God has created the universe, which I guess does count as a belief on how the universe started. What I meant is that every atheist does not have the same belief on how it did start, and a lot simply admit that they don’t know.
3. So, you’re cosmogenic myth is “we don’t know” with “we” being “atheists who follow science” but “Scientists do have hypothesis” and there are very strongly evidenced science-based theories–which finally caught up to Gen 1:1, BTW.
I could not find the theories you’re talking about for what caused the Big Bang. I’m also not really sure what you mean by “which finally caught up to Gen 1:1, BTW.”; English is not my first language, my apologies.
4. I would have to know to what you’re referring to, “know for sure” since different scientific fields have different standards of what can be known with what level of certainty and hiding behind “sure” while ignoring the strongest hypothesis is no way to do world-view–which according to Dawkins, et al, is what Atheism is.
An hypotesis is just that, an hypothesis. It is far from a fact or even a scientific theory. One hypothesis you might have heard of is the Big Crunch, a scenario in which the universe will eventually collapse on itself, eventually recreating the Big Bang. From what we know it could have happened, but we cannot say that we know that’s what happened, hence why I said that we don’t know for sure.
5. As for, “they certainly do not claim that ‘everything came from nothing’” well, the “they” must refer to a very, very myopically limited few on whom you rely since you can bore yourself reading/listening to how another “they” have been asserting for many, many decades that “everything came from nothing” by nothing to nothing for nothing–even if they have to play word-games by claiming that nothing isn’t nothing but that nothing is something (go figure).
Yes, a lot of atheists do believe that “everything came from nothing”, and it could be a possibility. Honestly, if they assert that it is true, either they have a misunderstanding of science, are ignorant on the matter or are simply being dishonest. Personally, I don’t know if everything came from nothing or not, as nothing as been proven so far.
6. Indeed, “just because we don’t know does not confirm that not only a god has created the universe” nor does is mean that He didn’t but, again, the latest science (not scientist) finally caught up with the Bible.
Again, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “caught up with the Bible.”, but if you meant that science finally has an explaination for the beginning of the universe like the Genesis, here’s my answer. The Bible having an answer to the begining of the universe does not mean that they were even close to right. Science evolves and changes over time, as we create new tools and discover new information. Please let me know if I misunderstood your question.
7. But, BTW, what does it matter, on your world-view, if an accidentally existing ape made erroneous claims about what a historically few accidentally existing apes believe about accidental reality?
It is another question that I’m not sure I understood fully. Who exactly is the “accidentally existing ape” and who are the “historically few accidentally existing apes”?
I do want to thank you for your response.
@kenammi355
Wow, you wrote an essay—so glad I only focused on one of your paragraphs ;o)
But I do appreciate the detailed elucidation.
“official definition” as per what or whom?
How could it be that “every individual atheist demands that they are the authority on atheism is false” since I’ve experienced that hundreds of times—and I’m still experiencing it with you right now? But I see that you just wasted time about the word “all.”
As for, “dishonest, or ignorant” I’m not interested in you playing mind-reader sine you’re not good at it. But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with dishonesty and ignorance?
Appreciate the elucidation on the “God has created the universe” thing but the meta point is that Atheism is a world-view so that it does demand that you view the universe, and thus utterly everything in it, in a certain way. Granted, “every atheist does not have the same belief on how it did start” but all of you have the same belief on how it did not start.
As for, “finally caught up to Gen 1:1, BTW” well, the latest hypothesis or theory or evidence about the universe is that it had a beginning and is a time, space, matter continuum. Now, Gen 1:1 states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” as in, “In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].” The oscillating model was debunked back in the 1930s, from what I recall.
Guess that: English is not my first language either.
By “accidentally existing ape” I was referring to a typical Atheist claim about what humans are.
@PA9052
I’m sorry for writing such a lengthy response, I’m kinda new to argumenting online.
For the definition of atheism, I got it from Wikipedia, Oxford Languages and Cambridge dictionary. Granted, it also states that atheism can be the belief that there is no god, not just the lack of belief in a god/gods.
I’ve also never said that I was the “authority on atheism”. I’m sorry if you felt that way, but I’m just a random guy argumenting online. Some people are much more qualified in talking about this topic than I am, and in no way do I qualify myself as an “authority” on the subject. I’m still standing by my point that not all atheists act like that, as that is objectively not true.
It is true that we have the same belief on how the universe did not start, but that’s because, get this, we don’t believe in a god. Why would we/some atheists believe that there was a creator created the universe if we don’t believe in a creator in the first place ?
Again, I’m really not qualified to talk about this subject, but from what I understand, the universe itself did not have a “beginning” that we know of. The universe as we know it did, it started from the big bang, but it’s possible there was something before that, we just can’t “see” further back because the laws of physics as we know them break at a certain point. Also, just because a 2000 year old book described what loosely sounds like what we know of today does not in any way mean that it has any credibility. Also I find it farfetched to say that “earth” could mean all matter, just my opinion.
For the oscillating model, which I assume you mean the Big Crunch, it was indeed debunked, I admit I did not know that. However there seems to be new “oscillating models” that have sprung up recently, which I honestly don’t really understand so you might have to do your own research on that.
Also, humans, like pretty much every living thing, aren’t really accidental. How we evolved was due to random mutations, yes, but the ones that did “live” on did not do so accidentally. The bad mutations resulted in the organism’s death while the good ones resulted in more procreation and thus said mutation stayed. Give that millions of years and we eventually got humans.
And it did not really clear up your previous question. I meant to ask who are the “accidentally existing ape (human)” and “historically few accidentally existing apes (humans)”.
@kenammi355
When you refer to THE definition of Atheism you’re asserting it’s authoritative. You’re, at least, ignoring one of the main denominations of Atheism which, in fact, was the major modern one.
So, now you can admit what I noted which is that you have a worldview and it tells you how to think about things so that, “we have the same belief on how the universe did not start” so I appreciate you backing me up on that. Atheism is thought restricting by definition.
But let’s get to the bottom line since I’m not interested in trading essays anymore: on your worldview humans are accidentally existing apes since we were not created/designed but are just byproducts of a very, very, very long series of accidents.
Ergo, there’s no universal imperative, on your worldview, for accidentally existing apes to exercise their accidental discernment about accidental reality and so there’s literally nothing wrong with (allegedly) misrepresenting Atheism nor (supposedly) misrepresenting (accidental) reality.
@PA9052
I appreciate your response.
From my understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong, you seem to be conflating atheism and nihilism. I believe you’re saying that since from an “atheist worldview” life is meaningless (which is nihilism, not atheism), it doesn’t matter if one group misrepresents another group, whether maliciously or not.
Except it does: it hurts people and turns them against each other. Believe it or not I do care about other people. Just because I believe we were not created for a purpose and a meaning does not mean there are no morals or good or bad. We evolved to have morals for a reason, it helps the survival of our species.
Also, could you please tell me what those “main denominations of Atheism” are? I’m not familiar with those. Again, I used official definitions for atheism, all of which say roughly the same thing, so I can do nothing but assume they are correct. I also realise that I am more of an agnostic than an atheist, as I do not know for sure that a god doesn’t exist, I just live my life as if there was not one due to the lack of evidence.
@kenammi355
“from an ‘atheist worldview’ life is” objectively “meaningless” which is why Atheists insist that they get to find their own subjective meaning and I can do the same: oh, as long as you only do what they impotently demand are ethical dogmas.
You’re an example, “Except” don’t hurt people.
But note that you merely asserted, you merely posted an emotively subjective personal preference du jour, a, “My dear diary, today I feel…” level entry since you jumped to, “it hurts people and turns them against each other” but didn’t bother getting around to THE key issues which are 1) why is there anything wrong with that?, 2) that’s just you but doesn’t proceed forth from your worldview, 3) on your worldview harm is just an accidentally existing organism’s emotively subjective interpretation of accidental byproducts of an accidental mixture of neural-chemicals within their accidentally existing brain and there’s no universal imperative to not do things that might result in such interpretations ergo, you discredited yourself from complaining about it.
It’s not ontologically wrong, you’re just telling me that you personally don’t like it just like you might say you don’t like a certain ice-cream flavor. As you put it when you hit the nail on the head, “I DO care” indeed, that’s your emotively subjective person preference: what of it?
As for, “Just because I believe we were not created for a purpose and a meaning does not mean there are no morals or good or bad” actually, it means exactly just that. Yet, technically you’re right but that’s only because “morals” refers to the “mores” which are mere descriptions of whatever people happen to be doing. So, for example, if a culture decides that causing harm is a good then that’s the morals, the mores, by definition.
As for, “We evolved to have morals” when did we stop?
But you only ever seem to jump to merely asserted conclusions such as, “it helps the survival of our species” but you didn’t bother saying why it’s some sort of universal imperative to help the survival of our accidental species and, BTW, on your worldview our survival instinct is also accidental so there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it.
Feel free to search online for, “Atheism’s Sects – TrueFreeThinker.”
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.