Monday, January 7, 2013

More nonsense from Christian Post

In an article posted today on Christian Post, Dan Delzell claims that the atheist's rejection of God-claims comes from a "moral resistence" rather than "intellectual reasoning."  This is a retread of the old "atheists know there's a god and are pretending there isn't" argument; it's as false as it is tired. 

Delzell correctly notes that "even after all the intellectual evidence is presented, many hearers still choose to reject the Gospel."  This, we agree on.  His conclusion, however, is that this is a result of a desire on the part of atheists to remain immoral, or something.

He's missing the real reason:  that none of the "evidence" is really evidence.  All Christians have to offer are personal experiences that cannot be verified and philosophical arguments that can all be refuted.  There is not a shred of real evidence that any gods exist. 

But of course, Delzell can't comprehend that, because his god doesn't allow him to question his beliefs.  He can't examine evidence objectively.  God MUST exist, so what he offers MUST be valid evidence.  So atheists MUST be rejecting it because they want to be bad people, not because they're just unconvinced by the claims of the religious.

Classic example of an Christian projecting his superstitious beliefs on rational people and ending up dumbfounded (and flat out wrong) about why they're being rejected.


  1. The issue isn't evidence, since all evidence is interpreted according to assumptions. The real issue is, "Which assumptions are correct?" If atheism is true, what is the basis for logic and morality? DVD Bach has never answered this.

    He has on occasion given his view of how morality is determined (which is completely arbitrary and subjective). But he hasn't explained why that is the right way to determine morality. He said that logic developed over time. What is the evidence of that? And even if there was evidence, that still doesn't answer the question. Why is logic valid?

    Let me recommend It has a glowing recommendation from DVD Bach. He said, "of all the apologetics websites I’ve seen, the one you’re linking to is easily the goofiest." That's just his way of saying that it completely refutes his worldview and he has no idea how to even begin answering it.

  2. Actually, evidence is objective. It can be shared with and verified by others.

    The rest of your comment is dishonest, since you know that I've explained my view of morality, refuted your claim about atheism and provided you with everything that you asked for about logic: