There is A God: How an Atheist Scientist Changed his Mind (God & Science Book 1) by John M. Kinson

Author:John M. Kinson [Kinson, John M.]
Language: eng
Format: azw3, epub, mobi
Published: 2015-03-01T05:00:00+00:00

Ch. 9 – Double Standards in Atheism

Over time, I began to recognize double standards within Atheism and Metaphysical Naturalism.

My recognition of these double standards lowered the credibility of Atheism and Metaphysical Naturalism in my mind.

--

Examples:

I observed double standards where a particular method is applied by (some, many, or most) atheists, but not permitted to be used by theists. E.g.,

1. Rhetorical Devices:

Rhetorical devices to shift the burden of proof to the theist (without the atheist accepting a comparable burden of proof)

2. Redefining Atheism:

Redefining atheism as absence of belief (as a rhetorical device to avoid being held accountable for the truth claims or the beliefs of atheism)

3. Special Pleading:

Special pleading applied to atheism (but not permitted to theism). E.g.,

A. Atheism is assumed to be true without the need for proof; but the atheists insist that we need proof for Theism.

B. Strong atheists often claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. This circular (meaningless) device is used by many atheists to argue that the standards of proof/ evidence needed for the existence of God are much much higher than the standards (if any) of evidence (if any) for atheism.

The problem with this claim is that “extraordinary” is in the eye of the beholder.

The Atheist thinks that it is an extraordinary claim that God exists.

The Theist thinks that it is an extraordinary claim that the universe popped into existence out of nothing, caused by nothing. And that atheistic processes caused the fine-tuning of the universe for life; and that atheistic processes created the first self-replicator, and then all of life.

So, this atheist “extraordinary evidence” claim is an exercise in special pleading and circularity.

4. Argument by Ad Hominem:

Argument by Ad Hominem (where atheists use insults rather than rational discourse with Christians)

E.g., Christopher Hitchins (a leading atheist) states, “I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right”. And many atheists follow his lead.

And Richard Dawkins (a leading atheist) states, “Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt." (Note: I don’t have a problem with the first part of his statement above; it is the “ridicule with contempt” that turned me off over time to atheism).

Dawkins also refers to religion as mind viruses, and he explains, “To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both.”

Following such leaders, many atheists go directly to ridicule and contempt instead of dialoguing rationally with Theists.

5. Argument by condescension:

Argument by condescension (where atheists use condescension rather than rational discourse with Christians)

See quotes above.

6. Argument by ridicule:

Argument by ridicule rather than rational consideration of the evidence (where atheists ridicule Christians rather than dialog rationally).

See quotes above.

7. Argument from authority:

Argument from authority for atheism (but not permitted for theism).

E.g., a foundational belief of atheists appears to be belief in atheistic/naturalistic macro-evolution.

(Note: atheistic/naturalistic macro-evolution, defined as a completely atheistic process where chemicals come together by random chance to form the first self-replicator

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.