"There's no such thing as an Atheist!"

I thought this would provoke an interesting discussion. This is a claim we don't necessarily hear often, but the people who claim it seem to be adamant about it. There's no such thing as an Atheist! What do you think?

source: http://www.christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/atheism.html#doe...

There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do
you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of
Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the
second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a
fully-grown male Tibetan yak?

Yaks. Illustration copyrighted. Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think
they know everything.

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would
not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not
be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history,
from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret
love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would
know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All
history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient
(all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible
one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible,
in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come
across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of
God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is
possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there
could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Gold in China. Illustration copyrighted. Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed
for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total
knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock,
in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth
(gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then
my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute
knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature.
Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to
have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the
country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has
all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this
assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't
know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be
an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has
absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own
existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an “agnostic” - one who claims he “doesn't know” if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is
“ignoramus.” The Bible tells us that this ignorance is “willful” (Psalm 10:4).
It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been
rightly said that the “atheist” can't find God for the same reason a
thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a
God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is
not a pleasant thought for some.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then
concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some
time later.

Excerpted from God Doesn't Believe in Atheists by Ray Comfort

1 member likes this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sabio Lantz on November 26, 2010 at 1:47am

Now, now, boys. There is no need to be cruel to the banana.

Permalink Reply by John Garbutt on November 26, 2010 at 7:47am

Comfort's argument is simply misleading, in several ways. However, I reckon the most important one is this:

He states that we can only know a tiny percentage of what there is to know about the universe. Fair enough, and undoubtedly true. He then goes on to say that, because there's so much of the universe that we have no knowledge of, then effectively there are still a lot of places that God might be hiding.

What strikes me straight away about this argument is that it fails to take into consideration the Christian God's traditional qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and so on, and also the insistence of Christians that God has an intimate, ongoing involvement in our mundane Earthly lives.

To know as an absolute certainty that there was no gold in China we would, as Comfort claims, have to know about every rock, every river and so on, in China. But we would not be required to look anywhere else; presence of gold in Japan, for example, would be completely irrelevant.

Comfort's argument seems to imply that, even if we know 1% of everything there is to know about the universe, this still leaves 99% of unknown universe where God may yet be discovered.

But given God's traditional attributes, as well as His supposed interest in the human race, then there logically HAS to be some evidence of His existence present even within that 1% that we know. To the contrary, all the evidence we have goes against the existence of God.

So, just as we need not look anywhere outside of China when trying to determine whether or not there is any gold IN CHINA, we need not look any further than our 1% of worldly knowledge to determine whether or not there is the Christian God who, by definition, is PRESENT WITHIN THE WORLD.

If He doesn't exist here, then He logically doesn't exist anywhere in the unknown 99% of universe either.

I found that a little difficult to articulate exactly, but I hope it made some kind of sense!

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on November 26, 2010 at 4:47pm

That 1% alone is all we need to deduce that there are no gods. We might not be able to know how many marbles are in the Ray Comforts head but it is of no importance. These Evangelical arguments are proof that faith destroys a persons’ ability to reason correctly.

I clicked on his name and saw the living waters publication website. I know what I would like to add to that water.

I asked god – I mean Google – about him and Google said unto me
The statement ‘God exists’ is an absolute statement. Since a theist, being a member of the human race, doesn’t possess absolute knowledge, how can he make an absolute statement? There is no such thing as a theist: at best, theists are all agnostics.

Permalink Reply by Cathleen Sessions on November 28, 2010 at 6:59pm

Are we going to have 'purity' tests on who is an atheist. I dislike all this 'I am more atheist than thou' discussion. If you say you are an atheist, most people know what that means and definitions are not necessary.

In my opinion, nit-picking about what words mean is not valuable.

I don't believe in a god or gods. I don't know how the universe begin and it doesn't really matter except as a scientific question we may never get an answer to.

Instead of worrying about where I am going when I die, I pay attention to how I live my life everyday. Sometimes I waste my time and my life by watching Buffy re-runs. Sometime I work, sometimes I play and sometimes I do things with family and friends that bring me joy.
I have sorrow too but do not dwell on it.

I don't care how the definition is sliced or diced. I don't need to be defined. I also don't need to know every grain of sand on a beach to know that it got there by physical means.

And if I really want to know something that I don't, there is a ton of scientific data on about anything that I can look up.

Permalink Reply by james d on December 13, 2011 at 5:11pm

quoting anything ray comfort says to begin a discussion is not the best source of material! his argument is stupid from the outset. IF his god claims to know so much, why did he fail to reveal things to the authors of his 'word' that would prove he does actually know everything? why did he not tell us to wash our hands before we eat or other such useful practices that would have helped humanity ease it's suffering..

ray is making arguments from his own ignorance not from any point of any knowledge on his part! his logic is bad, and his example proves nothing other than he is a buffoon not to be taken seriously in any way!

the only true thing does say is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove god does NOT exist, but that does not then prove his point that god MAY or DOES exist, so he is using that fact to somehow prove his point making his entire discussion, and his entire book worthless..

Permalink Reply by Suzanne Olson-Hyde on May 28, 2012 at 7:38am

This is a typical load of codswallop that a xian usually spouts. Ray Comfort is an ignoramus of the worst order. Twists everything to suit a particular paradigm, just like any run of the mill xian charlatan.

Of course, nobody 'knows' everything. Atheists do not claim to 'know' everything. The exact opposite. Science has yet to reveal a lot, but it is always questioning every theory, to prove, that at this moment in time, it is true. That does not stop Science from questioning that theory. That is how Science works.

Does anyone know how many hairs on a yak. No, but, but I can 'SEE' a yak. The reason I don't believe in Buddhism is the way they choose the next Dali Llama. If this system doesn't rely on the supernatural, I don't know what does. A Buddhist sect, don't know which one, as usual, there are very many different ones, same as xians, who don't agree about a particular point, so start their own group, believe in hungry ghosts - more supernatural imaginations, more bending of somebody's rules, to fit what they want to believe - all made up crap.

One can have brilliant philosophy, Eastern included, without religion of any sort. There is no god in Buddhism, but otherwise, it is the same as in many other religions, especially in the heirarchy and misogyny, a female Dali Lama will NEVER happen, so much for equality that this latest Dali Lama is sprouting, but more important is the rampant pedophilia and sexual abuse that this group, along with catholics, totally ignore.

Kalu-Rinpoche the elder, was charged with sexual abuse of a translator - then there is this - every Buddhist proponent should watch this. It is not of good quality, but stick with it. It is worth it.

http://downthecrookedpath-meditation-gurus.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/...