Modern day atheism is built on a simple claim – There is no evidence that God exists. But how does the atheist know this? It’s one thing to claim, “I don’t see any evidence for God” or “What you consider evidence for God is not what I consider evidence for God.” But to proclaim “There is no evidence for God” is to make a truth claim about all of objective reality – wherever you look, whoever you are, how ever hard you look, you will not find any evidence for God. Because “there is no evidence” to be found. And that’s supposed to be true for all of us.
Yet this is nothing more than empty posturing. We’ve seen how easy it to completely neuter this claim – simply ask the atheist what would count as evidence for God. After all, when the atheist insists “There is no evidence for God,” this question is a perfectly legitimate way to get the atheist to clarify what he is saying.
And what have we found? First, many atheists will point to some miraculous event, perhaps writing in the stars. In other words, some event that could not possibly be explained by natural causes; something that would present itself as a Gap in our current understanding by natural causes. But if that is the case, those events could only be evidence if we agreed that the God of the Gaps approach is a valid and legitimate way of determining whether God exists. If we are to count a Gap as evidence, we necessarily assume the validity of the God of the Gaps logic. Yet atheists everywhere have insisted that the God of the Gaps approach is NOT a valid approach. Thus, all these examples of miracles that would supposedly count as evidence for God truly would not count as evidence for God as far as the atheist is concerned. The atheist is engaged in deceptive hand-waving.
The honest approach is for the atheist to admit that nothing would count as evidence for the existence of God. But then the atheist is simply admitting his/her closed mind and the pronouncement that “There is no evidence for God” becomes vacuous. If nothing can count as evidence for the existence of God, then of course the atheist is going to believe there is no evidence for God.
Of course, not wanting to be seen as closed-minded dogmatists, some atheists have been looking for an escape hatch. Atheist activist Matt Dillahunty offers up one such attempt that I have seen elsewhere. Since he takes over 27 minutes to make a two minute point, I’ll focus you to 26:16 in the video:
Because of the school shootings, we are told that the schools are a very dangerous place. That children everywhere are suffering from anxiety for fear that they will be the next victims of a school shooting. For example, at a recent White House press briefing, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked the following question by 13-year-old Benje Choucroun, a correspondent for Time for Kids magazine:
“At my school, we recently had a lockdown drill. One thing that affects my and other students’ mental health is the worry about the fact that we or our friends could get shot at school,” Benje said. “Specifically, can you tell me what the administration has done and will do to prevent these senseless tragedies?”
But here’s the thing – if the mental health of children is indeed being harmed by sending them to school because of a reality-based fear of being shot at school, why are parents of such children looking to politicians for solutions? Isn’t that just passing the buck? What’s more, one has to engage is some serious magical thinking to truly believe that some new laws are going to put an end to school shootings. Instead, why aren’t more parents taking serious action that will guarantee their children are not the victims of a school shooting. That solution is called home-schooling.
According to this article,
Researchers from McGill University in Canada have found that men with high testosterone levels are less likely to be religious.
The researchers suggest that further studies are needed to understand how hormones shape a person’s religious beliefs in later life.
Let me raise a plausible explanation. We know that testosterone levels are linked to sex drive. And when it comes to a man’s sex drive, he either controls it or it controls him. Christianity, and some other religions, can function as a mechanism to help a man control his sex drive. Individuals with higher levels of testosterone will find their enhanced sex drive in stronger conflict with Christianity (and some other religions). Thus, rather than engage in the personal conflict, some men opt out to allow their sex drive to take control. Atheism thus becomes a weapon to neutralize the controlling aspect of Christianity and sets the sex drive free. In other words, atheism is the rationalization for allowing one self to become enslaved to their sex drive.
There is some significant circumstantial evidence to support this hypothesis.
I am sure you have all heard how religious belief is declining among young people. Thus, you have to wonder if there is a connection here:
New research shows there’s been a sharp spike in cases of major depression in the United States in recent years, especially among teens and millennials.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association analysis of medical claims data showed that the overall rate of major depression was 4.4 percent and that diagnosis rates rose 33 percent between 2013 and 2016. Those rates increased 63 percent among teens and 47 percent among millennials.- Depression rates among youth in U.S. higher than ever.
There’s been another school shooting that has killed 10 people in Texas.
According to this ABC report about the shooter:
On Facebook, Pagourtzis lists himself as an atheist under religious views
Also, his Facebook account appears to indicate an interest in Satanism.
The same link also shows a picture of his black trench coat with a Baphomet pin on it. If you’ll recall, the Satanic Temple is always trying to put up statues of Baphomet with support from atheist activists.
A University of California, Berkeley report on free speech questions the motives of controversial speakers who sparked violent campus clashes last year, saying they were part of a “coordinated campaign” to make college campuses appear intolerant of conservative views.
Ah, one of the symptoms of intellectual inbreeding is the reliance on conspiracy theories. Trying to spin things as if UC Berkeley is some victim of a conspiracy is not only pathetic, but underscores the intellectual decay that typically comes from intellectual inbreeding.
Further evidence of intellectual decay:
“Contrary to a currently popular narrative, Berkeley remains a tolerant campus,” the report contends, pointing to a survey of incoming freshman last fall. It found three-quarters of them agree that “the University has the responsibility to provide equal access to safe and secure venues for guest speakers of all viewpoints — even if the ideas are found offensive by some or conflict with the values held by the UC Berkeley community.”
In what possible way can the views of incoming freshmen tell us anything about tolerance on the campus? Incoming freshmen are the one group who have not yet been indoctrinated by UC Berkeley. But it does raise a great idea – simply repeat the same survey question with outgoing seniors. I would predict that less that 75% of such seniors agree with that statement.
And then there is this:
The report continues: “Many Commission members are skeptical of these speakers’ commitment to anything other than the pursuit of wealth and fame through the instigation of anger, fear, and vengefulness in their hard-right constituency. Speech of this kind is hard to defend, especially in light of the acute distress it caused (and was intended to cause) to staff and students, many of whom felt threatened and targeted by the speakers and by the outside groups financing their appearances.”
The commission was made up of Berkeley faculty, students and staff and was chaired by Prudence Carter, dean of Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education, and R. Jay Wallace, a professor of philosophy.
I think we’re supposed to buy into this notion that the commission was diverse and objective because it was made up of faculty, students, and staff. But I would like to see the political affiliations of the commission members. For example, if the commission was composed of 90% Leftists, a commitment to critical thinking would cause us to deeply suspect the commission as not credible. And that would explain the irrational conspiracy theories and citation of incoming freshmen views as evidence.