The Five Worst Arguments (or Claims) Made By Internet Theists

The Five Worst Arguments (or Claims) Made By Internet Theists June 13, 2019

Some arguments are so bad, nobody should make them. In fact, making them slaps a clown nose on us and nobody this side of Robin Williams ever did anything good in a clown nose.

Theistic philosophers deeply impacted my view of the world and the careful work of thinkers like Edward Weirenga, always reminds me to do better than I have done. My errors are my own. They tried to teach me well! I have also had Jewish mentors and mentors that were non-theists or whose views are unknown to me!

Just as Internet atheists# let down my non-theist mentors by proposing outlandish arguments, so Internet theists@ make miserably bad arguments or claims. Try to write a dissertation on these ideas at an accredited school and the likeliest outcome is being asked to leave the department!

Here are the worst I hear routinely that come from people that social media feeds take seriously. Theists are vastly more numerous globally (and in America) than atheists, so there is a wider range of people from which to choose. I have chosen arguments I hear a good bit, are very bad, but are not so obviously foolish that they lack followers. These arguments also are not defended by anyone Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant that I know and respect.

All atheists are atheists due to a desire to be immoral. 

Many very moral people are atheists. I cannot, of course, prove they did not have some hidden vice that made them decide to be atheists, but as far as I could tell they were atheists because they had no experience of God and arguments for the existence of God were not persuasive.

In some Christian theologies, of course, any wrong action or idea comes to us through our brokenness. We all (including) theists fool ourselves about our motives.

Maybe.

This explanation does not help us understand why people are atheists as this would also be why all of us are theists. If we all have mixed (and mostly bad) motives, then our motives in being theists are also bad. We may wish a “get out Hell free” card.

In short, a brief familiarity with actual atheists shows this is false or only true in the sense that it applies to theists too.

If only people read this “silver bullet” argument, book or watched this mic drop YouTube with an open mind, they would not be an atheist. 

An argument is not an experience of God. Arguments are good for opening a door, when persuasive, but they are not enough. Second, atheism (or more properly secularism) is an ancient and complicated worldview. It cannot be refuted easily. I once heard a man claim his pamphlet refuted the “problem of evil.

You can kill a werewolf (if they existed) with a silver bullet, but not a complex worldview.

Having shown the God of the philosophers exists, JESUS! 

There is value in showing God exists. If the classic arguments for the existence of God work, then progress has been made for theism. However, the God of the philosophers could be the God of Aristotle: most assuredly not a God who loves humankind.

More work must be done. You cannot get from arguments compatible with deism and just say “so Jesus.”

Stalin was an atheist, so atheism is FALSE. 

That Stalin was an atheist and that anti-theist atheists# with power govern horrifically should give us pause, but this does not mean atheism# is false. We might have a reason to hope some ways of being an atheist are wrong (given atheisms# murderous track record) or be hesitant about giving some kinds of atheists political power yet atheism might still be true. 

After all, some forms of theism always govern badly too.

Again, if a worldview (atheism# or theism@) turns out badly, almost always we have a reason to pick against it if the arguments for and against leave us unsure. When in reasonable doubt between hope and despair, the rational person bets on hope.

Sadly, for the theist and the atheist critic of theism@ and atheism#, the argument against the ideas must also be done. One cannot just say: Stalin.

People get “saved” if we exaggerate the evidence/force of arguments, so we should.

I once met a man who was (as far as I could tell) fabricating pieces of Noah’s ark. I spoke out against this and he said: “People are saved.” I went to a Christian school in Texas and suggested the apologetics arguments made were very shoddy (not just on grade level, but essentially false). The pastor agreed, but said “at least they are saved.” He did not care that his students left the church afterwards, because they were saved.

This is repulsive.

One cannot lie for Jesus. We might be wrong, but we owe everyone our best work, doubts, caveats and all.

(Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.)

Bonus: Atheism is foolish, because the Bible says so.

When the Bible says “the fool” says there is no God, the verse refers to theists who claim God exists and then sin as if God did see their sin. God sees. (Lord have mercy.) This has nothing to do with the ideas of modern atheism. Nothing.

Double Bonus: Fake Degrees

Ask to read the dissertation.

 

————————————————

#An Internet atheist# is someone who makes arguments that no or almost no serious trained atheist would make and make them as if they are obviously the case.

@An Internet theist@ is someone who makes arguments that no or almost no serious trained theist would make and make them as if they are obviously the case.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!