Little more than a gaggle of hacks and geeks.

Posts Tagged ‘atheism

I’d Like Some Unbelief With a Side of Sweat

with 12 comments

hitchens2By Antipelagian
Dec. 22, 2008

Christians are often scoffed at for their “fideistic” approach to origins. It is said that they rely on Sunday School faith spoon-fed from generation to generation (I wish Christians were multi-generational. The notion of covenant succession has evaporated in the last century or so)…after all, there’s nothing more silly than believing that a world of cause and effect should need an initial cause in the first place. Christians, we are told, argue for the existence of God based on their own misappropriation of biology and neuroscience, to name a couple of examples. Christians supplant “viable evidence” with their ignorance. Essentially, it’s the whole “God of the gaps” scenario. What hapless, ignorant Christians are unable to understand, they replace with unicorns. 

Apparently we don’t measure up to Atheistic Materialism’s standard (a standard taken forgranted and accepted as “self-evident”…don’t bother asking anyone to define self-evident. If an Atheist has to present a well thought-out metaphysic that makes such a term meaningful, it sucks all the joy out of their faith). Having never presented a coherent worldview, they go on to assert that their conclusions are the result of the scientific method. Some Atheistic Materialists will go so far as to say all that can be known is accessed through the physical world of sensation, therefore, there is no reason to believe in the supernatural.

‘Reason’ is simply an intellectual tool, rather than an ultimate standard of knowledge, and as such will be affected by the regenerate or unregenerate condition of the man using it

Van Til’s Apologetic, pg 146

How many times have you been told by an unbeliever in the midst of a debate: “Let’s be neutral”? As though taking a step back, breathing deeply, then exhaling will suddenly make things “neutral” and the unbeliever and Christian can get along epistemologically? The truth of the matter is that “neutrality” in the mind of an Atheistic Materialist is an assumed autonomy that is never argued for, it is merely accepted. Atheistic Materialists berate Christians for being irrational and demand we meet the standard of Rationality…as if Logic was supreme, above us and above God (if there is a God).

Reason is a method, not the standard of truth. A way of identifying valid or invalid arguments or thinking processes. In the sense that it is a way of measuring, you can say it is “neutral” if you simply mean “objective”…but our use of it certainly is not neutral. To presume knowledge can be accessed apart from Christ is a slap in His face. Neutrality, in this sense, is far from neutral: it is hostility and rebellion.

The kind of man who is doing the reasoning already determines something about the way in which he thinks about reason and engages in reasoning. Thus Van Til stated, ‘It is impossible to speak of the intellect per se, without taking into consideration whether it is the intellect of a regenerated person or of a non-regenerated person

Van Til’s Apologetic, pg 146

During your next exchange with an Atheistic Materialist who tells you that you’re irrational, and that the impetus is on you to meet the standard of rationality, you need to recognize he means “you need to meet my standards of autonomy”. He has certain beliefs about logic, about reasoning, and he utilizes his faculties in such a way that is controlled by other assumptions. No belief is held independent of another. Each belief is a principle networked among a web of others. We need to evaluate that “web”. It should be a bit clearer now that our Atheistic Materialists are not being neutral. They are, in fact, demanding you follow their bias…so we can’t simply argue brute facts (there’s no such thing), and we can’t discuss evidence as though everyone agrees about what constitutes evidence: We must evaluate the measure. Contrary to what those of the so-called “brights” persuasion may say, Atheists don’t go by evidence and Christian by faith (that is the so-called faith of irrationality we’re accused of)…rather, Atheists reject a certain kind of evidence and adopt a different kindwhether or not their evidence is valid is determined by the validity of their measure for what constitutes evidence.

This necessarily means that metaphysics must enter the arena of debate. For too long it has gone unspoken and the “neutral” position has been assumed to be a humanistic starting point rather the reference point of the Triune God.


Written by antipelagian

December 22, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Am I No More Than A Turtle-Head?

with 4 comments

turtlehead1By Antipelagian
Dec. 19, 2008

From time to time I am known to enter the irrational world of atheism. It amazes me how often atheists concoct new arguments that refute previous assertions that they’ve already made…this should not be surprising, men suppress the truth of the Triune God and will embrace lies and out-right bondage so as to avoid the easy yoke of Christ.

The most militant form of atheism is also the most easily refuted: Atheistic Materialism.

From this worldview, reality is composed of matter in motion. So absurd is this worldview that I’ve come across men who insist that if you cannot “describe” something, it is not a coherent or “positive” ontology.

What is meant by “describe” and “positive”? I’m glad you asked! It means that you must be able to describe something in terms of physical reality. If it is not defined in terms of a physicalist worldview, it is not “positive”. What is so sad about this strategy is that it should be painfully clear to all involved in this sort of a discussion that this is riddled with fallacies.  I’ll give you two (what I find to be the most devastating), though there are many other ways of dismantling this “argument”.

  • It relies on a fallaciously circular argument.

Simply put, when we are discussing ontology, we in the arena of metaphysics. The atheist that is demanding we define God in terms of a physicalist (i.e. materialist) worldview is merely assuming the thing he’s supposed to be arguing. Necessarily, when we discuss something such as God’s ontology, we are discussing existence, which is to say, metaphysics. The only way the atheist’s standard carries water is if he is first correct about his assumption…but seeing the assumption hasn’t been argued and is the very thing we are supposed to be discussing, he’s done no more than restate his prejudice that he doesn’t believe in the existence of anything spiritually based.

  • Secondly, the standard is completely absurd

In asking the Christian to define God in terms of the physical world he is also saying any ontology must be defined through the physical world.

If this is to be true, how are we to meaningfully define the ontology of humanity? Primarily, we are physical (according to the materialist). That’s it! We’re physical. Once the materialist begins classifying (ie differentiating) material objects, he is not able to maintain his materialist standard.

For atheistic materialists, men are not primarily moral or rational. We are physical. Ontologically speaking, we are no different than a rock, a spider, gum stuck to a shoe, or feces. The absurd outcome of atheistic materialism is ontological monism. This means “all is one”, which makes differentiation and classification essentially meaningless. It also destroys value judgements which include morality. Without getting into too many details, I’ll give you an example:

If an atheistic materialist grants that he is an ontological monist (and logically, we’ve already demonstrated this), then how can he say things like pedophilia, necrophilia, or beastiality are wrong? Appealing to morality as if it has some inherent authority over matter in motion contradicts the assumed physicalist worldview.

A rejection of the Triune God always, absolutely always, results in a destruction of unity or plurality. Christians understand that God is essentially One in Essence, and Three in Person. He is not primarily one, and secondarily three…He is ultimately both. A rejection of the Christian God will result in monism or a pluralism whereby unity can never be achieved. Test me on this as you go about your day, especially if you’re in school. Science classes will teach you ontological monism, sociology and psychology will teach you a pluralism where unity is never achieved…you see this especially in the emphasis of man’s sense of “alienation” in literature, absurdism, psychology, philosophy, and Marxist political ideologies.

Here is an audio clip I made on this topic. It’s a refutation of a fairly prominent atheist on You Tube:

Written by antipelagian

December 19, 2008 at 3:41 pm


leave a comment »

It is both an honor and a privilege to announce the addition of Antipelagian to the growing list of arm-chair theorists and professional goons that we here at the Tribune refer to as “contributors.” His excellent writing, sharp wit, to-the-point argumentation, and self-deprecating humor make him just the kind of geek loony enough to jump aboard this crazy train. 

*murmur: He must have lost his mind back in Detroit. Trashy waitresses, grease burns on bare bellies, High Life with breakfast… yeah, he must have lost his mind back in Detroit. Poor guy…*

Here is an old Paleo Radio clip where Anti and I talk about YouTube atheists inability to deal with the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG). For more material on this particular subject, visit  Antipelagian’s YouTube or my atheism playlist

Written by Paleocrat

December 17, 2008 at 11:47 am

Mr. Wizard Misses Mr. Snuffleupagus (3x’s fast)

with one comment

By Velleitaire and Paleocrat
Dec. 15, 2008

“Sir, how much for that woolly mammoth over there?”

I guess woolly mammoths have been extinct for a while now…or so I’ve read. Leave a woman at Green’s Tavern on “Boozeday Tuesday” and one may think otherwise. Then again, woolly mammoths typically had teeth and didn’t wear wife-beater undershirts splattered with week-old stains from coffee and Skoal chewing tobacco.

Crazy scientists announced that they have almost finished sequencing the genome of this wild, harry creature formally seen only in museums, movies, or dope houses on “the other side of the tracks.” Turns out, if these wild-eyed Dr. Wizards get their way, little Johnny Q. and Sally Sue may get to ride one of them at your nearest petting zoo.

Dale McFeatters, a class act of a syndicated columnist, thinks we owe it to Mr. Snuffleupagus to resurrect him and his pals from their icy tombs. McFeatters frames it in moral terms. This fellow believes that the mere fact that someone’s 1o,000-year-old  neanderthal relative hunted these monsters down with rocks and clubs all the way to extenction somehow requires modern humankind to give these beasts a “second chance.”

Have these people not seen Jurassic Park? The late Michael Crichton would have punched them in the face. What is the old saying? Mr. Snuffleupagus may have been cool to watch on TV, but don’t invite him over for dinner? Something like that… either way, this whole thing is crazy.