![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/12\/PeterPan.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist<\/span>\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>\u00a0runs the influential<\/span>\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,<\/span>\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He added in June 2017<\/span>\u00a0in a combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d Delighted to oblige his wishes . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But b<\/span>y\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following<\/span>\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog, he banned me from commenting there. I also banned him for violation of my rules for discussion<\/a>, but (unlike him)\u00a0provided detailed reasons<\/em><\/a> for why<\/em> it was justified.<\/span><\/p>\n Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds.<\/span>\u00a0On 6-30-19<\/a>, he was chiding someone for something very much like his own behavior:\u00a0<\/span>\u201cSpoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, \u2018Let me retract my previous statement of X\u2019 or something like that.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0Bob<\/em>\u00a0could!<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a>\u00a0to \u2014 now \u2014 67 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.<\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on <\/span>12-21-20: \u201cI love people who can make cogent arguments against mine or point out data I hadn\u2019t considered before. What I dislike (and ban) are $#&*%@s who . . . refuse to learn\/adapt . . . ignore compelling arguments against their position, and so on.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s words will be in<\/span>\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, follow this link:\u00a0<\/span>\u201c<\/span>Seidensticker Folly #\u201d<\/a> or see all of them linked under his own section on my<\/span> Atheism page<\/a>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n In his post,\u00a0<\/span>How Christianity Infantilizes Adults<\/a> (12-20-13; update of a post from 1-13-12), Bob pontificated:<\/span><\/p>\n Reinterpreting events through a Christian lens can be comforting, and it patches holes in the Good Ship Christianity where reason leaks in. But this is simply a rationalization to support a presupposition, not an honest following of the evidence, and when you stop to think of what you\u2019re actually saying, you\u2019ll see that the reality you\u2019ve invented not only makes no sense but is actually repulsive. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [F]or someone to become an adult, that person must grow up. We leave behind wishing wells, Santa Claus, fairies, and other false beliefs as we become independent. No longer are the necessities of life given to us; as adults, we must fend for ourselves\u2014indeed, we\u00a0want<\/em>\u00a0to fend for ourselves. The parent who sugarcoats reality or keeps the child dependent for too long is doing that child no favors.<\/span><\/p>\n Reality is better than delusion, happy though that delusion may be. Hearing the doctor say, \u201cYou\u2019ll be just fine\u201d feels a lot better than \u201cYou have cancer,\u201d but if I really have cancer, which one allows me to take steps to improve my future?<\/span><\/p>\n Religion infantilizes adults and keeps them dependent. That\u2019s a good thing for the 100-billion-dollar-a-year U.S. religion industry, but what is best for the individual\u2014a pat on the head or reality?<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve dealt with this sort of patronizing, condescending, arrogant anti-Christian bigotry many times (see my<\/span> Atheism<\/a>\u00a0and<\/span> Philosophy & Science<\/a> web pages), and it\u2019s not my present purpose. Rather, I\u2019d like to turn the tables, as I often do in my apologetics, and submit some of the many irrational fairy tales, held in blind faith, that atheists labor under. I will be using an accepted philosophical \/ logical form of argument known as a\u00a0reductio ad absurdum<\/a>.<\/em> Unless this is understood before the following is read, it\u2019ll never be properly comprehended. But in the second portion below I explain exactly what I was trying to accomplish, and how I reasoned.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Matter essentially \u201cbecomes god\u201d in the atheist \/ materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything\u00a0by itself<\/i>: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.\u00a0The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter \u2013 arguably\u00a0far<\/i>\u00a0more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone.<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed, this is a profound faith of the\u00a0utmost non-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, \u201cfairy tale,\u201d gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described \u201crational, intellectual, sophisticated\u201d atheists.\u00a0Atheist\u00a0belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the\u00a0colorful\u00a0worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. <\/span><\/p>\n They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.\u00a0The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is\u00a0far<\/i>\u00a0more religious than\u00a0that<\/i>. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely\u00a0everything\u00a0<\/i>in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.<\/span><\/p>\n One might call this Atomism\u00a0<\/i>(\u201cbelief that the atom is God\u201d). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason\u00a0that anyone\u00a0can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a \u201ctrue believer.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Oh, and we mustn\u2019t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist\u2019s wonderfully varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the \u201cZeus\u201d of Atomism). One might call this belief\u00a0Temporalism<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it \u201cmust<\/em>\u00a0be\u201d what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only \u201cevil\u201d (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent.\u00a0Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which<\/em>\u00a0god could do\u00a0what<\/em>, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.<\/span><\/p>\n Within the Atomist faith-paradigm and bubble, everything, no matter how ludicrous or utterly unlikely, makes perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (just to warn the devout, faithful Atomist that others of different, much more rational, faiths may not think such things as \u201cobvious\u201d as they do). The Atomist \u2013 ever-inventive and childlike \u2013 manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the unnecessary addition of mere explanation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWhy\u201d questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can\u2019t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, \u201cWhy do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?\u201d is meaningless and ought not be put forth. It\u2019s bad form, and impolite. We know how\u00a0sensitive<\/i>\u00a0overly religious folk are.<\/span><\/p>\n Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Atomism in dumbstruck adoration and awed silence, like the Magi at the baby Jesus\u2019 manger, offering our\u00a0unquestioning\u00a0\u201cscientific\u201d and \u201cphilosophical\u201d allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrrh. The very inquiry is\u00a0senseless and\u00a0\u201cintrusive.\u201d\u00a0Mere\u00a0rational examination is precluded from the outset.<\/span><\/p>\n In a certain remote and limited sense, we Christians (since we ourselves possess and value faith) stand in awe of such Pure Faith, with its sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in Design via trillions of atom-gods. It is, indeed, an ingenious, self-contained, even elegant system,\u00a0admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity and innovation, if nothing else.<\/span><\/p>\n It may be (at least for certain sorts of childlike minds) an immensely enjoyable\u00a0game\u00a0<\/i>to play, but like much of modern philosophy,\u00a0at bottom it is\u00a0hopelessly irrational, self-defeating, and ultimately incoherent. For that reason, the Christian must reject it, since we believe\u00a0(very unlike the Atomist)\u00a0that irrational and non-rational beliefs are untrue and unworthy of anyone\u2019s allegiance.<\/span><\/p>\n Yet we can\u2019t help \u2014 almost despite ourselves \u2014 recalling with fondness the wonders and fancies and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists seek very hard to maintain those marvels, and perhaps\u00a0that\u2019s not all bad. We must be tolerant and open-minded. Atomists are (we might say) the \u201cadult children\u201d among us: like Peter Pan!\u00a0Who can\u00a0resist<\/em>\u00a0Peter Pan, after all? This (arguably) gives them their charm and appeal: evident in so many Christian discussion threads, where they suddenly enter\u00a0and \u2014 seemingly\u00a0oblivious to the existing discussion \u2014 start incongruously preaching their rather fantastic fideistic faith.<\/span><\/p>\n **********<\/p>\n Explanatory Note for the Above<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The nature of my argument above is a humorous, sarcastic version of the fabled (or notorious)\u00a0<\/span>reductio ad absurdum<\/em><\/a>\u00a0argument (in logic).\u00a0What the\u00a0reductio<\/em>\u00a0is, can be read in the (very heavy, dry, philosophical) link I just provided, or the much more popular-level page about it\u00a0on Wikipedia<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n The reduction was designed to force atheists to concede, that they, too, exercise a profound faith in unproven axioms, just as Christians do.\u00a0Reductio ad absurdum<\/em>\u00a0arguments often (but not necessarily, or by nature) involve generalization, non-literal statements, exaggeration, and overstatement to make the point. \u00a0All the atheist has to concede in accepting my\u00a0reductio<\/em>, is that they exercise every bit as much faith as any Christian, when it comes to the origin of the universe and the marvelous processes by which it came to be. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s\u00a0it<\/em>! That\u2019s not even painful. They don\u2019t have to give up atheism. This isn\u2019t an argument against atheism per se. It\u2019s a turn-the-tables argument against the notion that Christians are somehow uniquely gullible and subject to blind faith with no evidence. Bob the Bible-Basher milks that false assertion for all it\u2019s worth (which ain\u2019t much<\/em> at all) in his paper on<\/span>\u00a0Christianity Infantiliz[ing] Adults.<\/a><\/p>\n Technically, this present paper of mine could (or should?) be described as a\u00a0reductio ad absurdum<\/em>\u00a0argument that has elements of turning-the-tables, and heavy use of sarcasm, satire, and rhetorical exaggeration to make a point. Humor (of a tweaking \/ provocative sort) is fundamental to it. In the past, I have heard many boorish atheist statements (reacting to basically the same reductio<\/em> arguments of mine) saying that \u201catheists don\u2019t worship atoms as gods!\u201d etc.: which showed a complete lack of grasp of the\u00a0fundamentally humorous nature<\/em>\u00a0of my arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n Reductio ad absurdum<\/em>\u00a0(not necessarily or in essence, but often in practice) involves sarcastic exaggeration to make a point (as does the turn-the-tables methodology). This is an examination of what I believe atheism\u00a0logically reduces to<\/em>, even though no atheist would ever put it this way. Unless these sorts of basic characteristics of the piece are understood, it\u2019ll never be grasped. It\u2019s difficult for anyone to endure a strong critique of their view as it is. But it must always be realized that making arguments against positions<\/em> is not \u201cattacking\u201d people<\/em>. The equation of people with their beliefs is very common today, and is the death of good constructive discussion.<\/span><\/p>\n Nothing is more \u201cmagical\u201d than believing that something came from nothing, for no reason, and created itself, with every conceivable power to endlessly create all that there is, and all because of the inherent capabilities of matter: for which we don\u2019t have the slightest scientific or even rational explanation; therefore accept with the most blind faith imaginable:\u00a0far<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0more faith than Christians ever have exercised.\u00a0The atheist has to explain (if he is curious about origins) how matter came to possess its remarkable powers by itself, with no outside source.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t regard atheists as wicked\u00a0or liars or \u201cinsane\u201d\u00a0simply because they are atheists<\/em>. I see it as a flaw in thinking: the sincere acceptance of wrong premises and falsehoods. I have a post up where I say that atheists\u00a0can quite possibly be saved\u00a0(as atheists). But if so, it is because they haven\u2019t truly known God. I don\u2019t think atheists are stupid. They are usually quite intelligent and rational. But they are what we call hyper<\/em>-rational: where reason is placed too high in the scheme of things. Reason ain\u2019t all there is.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course this sort of argument will be felt by many atheists to be merely or simply insulting<\/em>, because it is a hard-hitting\u00a0reductio<\/em>\u00a0(and this is perhaps the hardest-hitting one in any of my voluminous writings),\u00a0with use of sarcasm, and hits the atheist precisely where they are most vulnerable. So it comes off (to the extent that it is truly understood) as a low blow, and we see reactions in accordance with that falsely-perceived \u201d\u00a0insult.\u201d All\u00a0reductio<\/em>\u00a0\/ turning the tables arguments are very hard for the recipient to receive. It requires a person who is very secure in their belief-system to take it and make a rational, non-emotion-based counter-reply.<\/span><\/p>\n Reductios<\/em>\u00a0involve rhetorical exaggeration. That\u2019s why I keep saying that this\u00a0mode<\/em>\u00a0of argument is often not understood. If one understands how the argument and the sub-idiom of language within it works, these things would not be issues, and the atheist who is offended would already understand that I\u2019m not\u00a0literally\u00a0<\/em>claiming all atheists are gullible children. Rather, I\u2019m turning the tables on the usual atheist argument against us, saying\u00a0in effect<\/em><\/strong>, \u201cyou wanna argue that\u00a0we<\/em>\u00a0are gullible and infantile imbeciles? Well, here are some ways that such a description can just as easily be turned back on\u00a0you<\/em>.\u201d In other words,\u00a0you have a childlike faith that it came into existence somehow (since it is here now, and isn\u2019t eternal, as far as scientists can tell); just not possibly<\/em> by God<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n My bottom line point in all this is that atheism requires as much faith as Christianity does (defined in this context as acceptance of unproven axioms or unknowns), specifically\u00a0when\u00a0we\u2019re talking about theories of the origin of the universe. Since that is the case, the atheist should then be \u201cintellectually humble\u201d enough to acknowledge that this area is a level playing field, or a wash, as opposed to the usual hogwash about atheists being smart and scientific, and Christians against science and reason and with infantile beliefs consisting of idiotic fairy tales only.<\/span><\/p>\n If atheists didn\u2019t falsely convince themselves that they have no faith (belief in unproven axioms) at all, then they wouldn\u2019t get so angry when the obvious is pointed out (all<\/em>\u00a0thinkers accept unproven initial axioms, somewhere . . . ). I am not\u00a0literally<\/em>\u00a0claiming above that atheists would consciously say they believed in \u201cgods.\u201d Of course<\/em> they will not say that. My argument was that how they view atoms and cells,\u00a0in effect<\/em>, is every bit as \u201cgodlike\u201d as what we say about our God<\/strong>. How atheists view matter is very much like how we view God\u2019s creative aspects. And so, in the humorous\u00a0reductio<\/em>\u00a0vein, that is expressed as \u201cbelieving in atom-gods and cell-gods.\u201d Atheists (generally speaking) need to lighten up! It\u2019s satirical humor. Have they never read satire?; never watched\u00a0Saturday Night Live<\/em>\u00a0or read the\u00a0Harvard Lampoon<\/em>\u00a0or watched\u00a0Monty Python<\/em>?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Both belief-systems entail evidence\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0faith. It\u2019s untrue that Christianity is all faith, and atheism all rationality. Both systems have both. We have a lot more in common than either side usually realizes. Some<\/em>\u00a0Christians (a very small amount of those who are educated and \u201cthinking\u201d Christians) are fideists or anti-intellectual, but implying that all<\/em> are or that it is a system of blind faith<\/em>, pure and simple, is sheer foolishness and a straw man as high as Mt. Everest.<\/span><\/p>\n Atheists mock us for believing in God as the Creator [I\u2019m not talking about creationism<\/em>, but God as Creator, regardless of the method He may have used; which may have been evolution], as a silly, infantile fairy tale with supposedly no \u201cevidence\u201d whatsoever. But having ruled out God, how does the atheist\u00a0explain the universe coming into being? Virtually all atheists I have discussed such things with, said \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d Now if they say they don\u2019t know, they still believe that the universe is here and came about\u00a0somehow<\/em>, so that is a\u00a0sort<\/em>\u00a0of faith, just as ours is, unless they want to deny that the universe exists, or argue that it is eternal, contrary to presently accepted cosmology. My piece was a sarcastic treatment of what I believe are difficulties in materialism, and ironic similarities to some Christian beliefs, and also to those of ancient polytheists.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>Lalelu2000<\/a>\u00a0(8-14-15)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0<\/span>Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d\u00a0He added in June 2017\u00a0in a combox:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":53550,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124],"tags":[12652,12646,12655,237,11435,4126,5552,12649,1460,238,189,190,191,12658,188,185,193,194,187],"class_list":["post-53544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","tag-atheist-dogmas","tag-atheist-fairy-tales","tag-atheist-true-believers","tag-axioms","tag-blind-faith","tag-bob-seidensticker","tag-cross-examined","tag-dogmas","tag-fairy-tales","tag-faith","tag-fideism","tag-idolatry","tag-idols","tag-irrational-faith","tag-irrational-presuppositions","tag-irrationality","tag-polytheism","tag-true-believers","tag-unproven-axioms"],"yoast_head":"\n