tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Atheism's Theistic Concepts

Despite their dogmatic assertion that there is no God, Atheism has, nonetheless, produced a plethora of theistic concepts. These concepts have one thing in common-they are not theological concepts in the strict sense but are rather conveniently concocted concepts that are built in order to be torn down (a straw man argument).

Statements such as “Why would God allow_” and “Why does God do nothing about_” are commonplace in atheism’s arguments. Not surprisingly, considering the source, these are anthropomorphic concepts of God, in other words they seem to premise their arguments thusly, “If God isn’t the way that I think God should be then God must not be God and if God is not God then God is simply not.” This is the “God according to me” concept, a concept that does not allow God to reveal Himself to us but attempts to force God to be made in our image (this is theological eisegesis/isogesis rather than exegesis).

One such example of atheism’s theistic concept is the argument that calls God’s existence into question due to the idea that God would “send people to hell.” This appears to be, to whatever extent, based on an idea of God as a pushover, yet not just a pushover but the ultimate pushover. The concept seems to be that, for example, if a person spends a lifetime proving every day in every way; in thought, deed and word that they have no regard for God whatsoever then when they die God should bow down before them and beg them to enter heaven. Or perhaps the person would meet God after death and shove God aside and stomp into heaven. Although for a person who does not love God an eternity with Him in heaven would be tantamount to being in hell (which is the place that they would go in order to have their lifelong wish realized; to have nothing to do with God).
Atheism makes much of their concept of a good God that would never do such a thing as to condemn, while in reality it is God’s very goodness that demands that He allow some people to condemn themselves to hell by their own freewill choice. Atheists employ a self-serving definition of what “love” and “hate” mean. See our essays On Hell and Why Would Your Lord Send You to Hell? for more about the concept of hell. Atheists complain about God allowing evil and then complain about what God does about evil.

It is also God’s very goodness that necessitates justice. According to atheism’s concept of the afterlife (or lack thereof) the atheist Joseph Stalin will, in his afterlife, be no worse off than Mother Theresa. Stalin enjoyed his power on Earth, he slaughtered some twenty million people for his own purposes and yet after death he will be annihilated, just like Mother Theresa and all of humanity. Atheism offers no ultimate justice for people like Stalin. Hitler escaped the courts of Earth when he chose to take his own life and so he simply got away with murdering ten to twelve million people.
Please note that atheism cannot viably make a statement about, or against, injustice, evil, immorality or any other concept that requires absolute standards. Individual atheists usually make up their own standards by which to judge, and make statements about, injustice, evil, immorality, etc. But these are not strictly based on atheism since atheism ultimately has no such absolutes, no standards for behavior (no morals/ethics) since they have no foundation upon which to build such concepts. Rather, when they want to condemn those with whom they disagree they must borrow morality from theistic worldviews.

Another aspect of a good God conflicting with the concept of hell objection is the denial of the Biblical model of salvation. Atheists ask about people who have never heard of Jesus. There are missionaries all over the world who literally risk their health and life in to rectify this situation. Atheists are a burden to people who try to make sure that the world knows about Jesus. Clearly, atheists are not the least concerned about people who do not know Jesus their point is to besmirch those with whom they disagree.

Note what the Bible states:

“He has made all nations of men of one blood to dwell on all the face of the earth, ordaining fore-appointed seasons and boundaries of their dwelling, to seek the Lord, if perhaps they might feel after Him and find Him, though indeed He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:26-27).

God has arranged when we are born, where we are born, to whom we are born, from the silver spooned to the desolate, in order to give us every possible chance to come to Him. The silver spooned aught to thank God for all he has and ask God how to share it with those in need and the desolate aught to recognize his utter dependence on God instead of using hard times as an excuse to curse God.

Atheism’s rejection of God is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. The individual atheist will concoct a concept of God and then reject the concept that they have just concocted. The atheist thus conceptualizes a theistic concept, then they compare this concept against the facts of life, and then cast the final judgment: “Since God is not what I think that a God would be like, then God must not exist.” However, they have not disproved God’s existence but have only proved themselves wrong, proved that their concept is faulty, proved that they do not know enough about God to appropriately describe God.

It is not an appropriate premise to make a claim to the likes of-if God cannot be experienced with all of our senses then God must not exist, or if God cannot be observed by every scientific means then God must not exist. If the premise was accurate then we would be right in stating that Helen Keller’s parents did not exist because she could not see them, could not hear them, and could not speak to them. She did not know what they looked like nor what they sounded like. In fact, she only thought that they were her parents because that is what they communicated to her later in life when she learned to communicate.

Atheists have done a good job in arguing against their own theistic concepts, but in doing so they have only discredited their own self-serving theological straw men.


Posted

in

by

Tags: