An Atheist’s statement + my reply

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods.And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by theists that a god exists. To be clear, these are not premises for an argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I take into account when evaluating the claim.

1. I personally have never observed a god.

2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.

3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.

4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.

5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.

6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.

7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered vice versa.

8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.

9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created ex nihilo – that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.

10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.

ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented – and that is the fact that there is no good reason for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones.

I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

Theo

My Response:

Hi Theo—Thanks for your exceptionally thoughtful series of comments, and especially for your thoughtful, peaceful tone of voice. I respond in peace, and I hope you will please forgive me for this delayed response.

So, with respect: your comments boil down to a materialistic or naturalism philosophy (natural as opposed to supernatural) perspective. You are a well-trained skeptic; you have learned your lessons well, but you exclude too much, and I don’t get the sense you are truly seeking to consider whether God might exist.

For example, number 8: you have never experienced the presence of a god through the intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or an occurrence of a supernatural event.” To experience such, you would need to recognize or acknowledge that something supernatural could exist, and your current materialist mindset prohibits any consideration of the supernatural.

Question 3—you know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god…etc. Most of the new testament is exactly that—accounts of individuals who claimed to have observed God in the flesh—Jesus. The historicity of those documents has been authenticated—there’s more proof that Jesus existed than Homer, for example, but you don’t question Homer, do you? And why not? Because Homer doesn’t question you.

To accept Scripture’s authenticity as a historical and accurate record of history, you would need to accept the historical standards of how documents are authenticated.

Scriptures contain accounts of hard-core doubters. How about the historical accounts of the Pharisees and religious leaders who saw Jesus in the flesh, who saw him perform miracles – and yet argued bitterly against them?

Example: Jesus healed a blind man whom everyone in town knew was blind. The entire village knew this man was blind—and when his vision was restored, the “was blind/now sees” man flipped out in excitement. The religious leaders did not believe him, questioned the blind man extensively and repeatedly, questioned his identity, asked him repeatedly how he was healed—even brought his parents in to confirm his identity–and every time he told them what happened, they refused to believe it. Their final decision: they threw him out of their offices with derisive insults and refused to acknowledge the miraculous healing had occurred.

Why? for if they acknowledged the miracles, they’d be obliged to acknowledge Jesus as being ‘authorized by God’ —and that would have inflicted some serious changes to their personal preferences.

Same with you, friend. The same with me.

Have you read the Bible? Have you studied the historical claims for the veracity of the bible? Have you read Jesus’ words? Have you asked God personally to reveal himself to you?

Do you not wonder about the glories of nature? Can you consider the creation and yet claim there is no creator?

Could it be his thoughts and his ways are so far above us that we don’t comprehend how these things work?—by the way, did you even watch or listen to this video? If you did, then you have observed a person who claims to have encountered God. But you may not accept my testimony because your next question will be: prove it. You are demanding proof in the material sense. And if/when you see material proof, you will question that and say prove that that’s from God. I might ask you: to prove that it is not from God. You then might say, “if God is true, make him appear to me right now, “at the snap of a finger, as if God was your magic genie, to appear at your beck and call.

Since God is the creator and we are the created, surely you will acknowledge his innate right to do or not do, to manifest himself as he pleases.

And manifest himself he has. Look at the blue sky, green grass, majestic trees, and the infinite variety of human beings, and try to convince me that creation was not created by a creator. Again: could it be his thoughts and his ways are so far above us that we don’t comprehend how these things work?

Do you have a sense of right and wrong? How do you define right or wrong? Presuming you do, who is the arbiter, and what is the benchmark of your sense of justice? And how about that conscience of yours? you know, the one that dings you when you do something wrong, the conscience that causes you to see some wrong committed, modest or otherwise, and decry it is “not fair,” e.g., someone cuts in line and you exclaim, “That’s not fair!” Where did that sense of fairness and unfairness come from?

In light of said justice, do you have a sense of your personal sin or wrongdoing? Presuming you do, do you have a sense of expected accountability for your sins?

Should you be held accountable for your sins? And if yes, to whom do you account? And if not, should others be held accountable for theirs? Who will extract or hold us accountable for our sins? Or do we get away scot-free? And if the latter, how do you feel about evil in the world and other people committing evil? Should wrong-doers (i.e., all of us!) be held accountable for their sins? If yes, by what standard? And who should hold them accountable? The answer, of course, is our creator, God.

Remarkably and in the act of incomprehensible grace, he gave birth to his son through a virgin (what?!), thus birthing a lineage that was without sin (huh?); Jesus lived a sinless life, the model prototype life which God would have us emulate—he loved his Father God, he loved people, he healed the sick, he taught Truth, he confronted wrong-doing, told us to repent of our sins and turn to God.

The biggest surprise: Jesus came to pay the price for sins by accepting the punishment for our sins, suffered and dying for our sins, and proving he had the authority to redeem our sins and had authority over death, rose from the dead. (What?!) Yes, Jesus rose from the dead: the absolute ultimate material, natural proof that Jesus is God. The ultimate dynamo voice in how we should live, and not live—and therefore, the ultimate enemy of those who want to do things their own way.

If you see an effect but cannot discern in material nature the cause of that effect, are you open-minded enough to consider a cause beyond the natural to the supernatural? To be willing to explore beyond the material might be a prerequisite for a proactive encounter with God. Or, God may impose himself (graciously or otherwise) upon you in a most unexpected moment.

Thanks again for your comments and your patience with my delayed response.

In love, with love,

Dirk