Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
The Five Worst “Arguments” (or Claims) Made by Internet Atheists

The Five Worst “Arguments” (or Claims) Made by Internet Atheists

Last updated on: June 12, 2019 at 11:26 pm by John Mark N. Reynolds

The Five Worst “Arguments” (or Claims) Made by Internet Atheists 2019-06-12T23:26:11-04:00 John Mark N. Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Atheists or at least non-theists have been invaluable mentors and friends. Philosophy and many other fields have been enriched by contributions of atheist scholars. Just as Christianity contains “apologists” with no training or who get way ahead of the arguments (“No rational person can doubt God’s existence!”), so atheism attracts their own crazy aficionados.

Dialog enough with either camp and you run into arguments or claims that the community of pop apologists or pop atheists accept, but that are indefensible in scholarship: theist, atheist, or anything in between. Propose a dissertation advancing your ideas at a good university and it would die.

The five worst arguments or claims I meet in the wild from the pop anti-theist atheist# community that are widely accepted in the sub-culture, but essentially no place else are:

The Middle Ages were the Dark Ages, because “religion.”

Historians do not call the period of Western European history the “dark ages.” They were not dark. Second, the discussion ignores the Eastern Roman Empire that maintained a secular “university” tradition for almost all her history as a Christian area. Third, the notion that things were bad, because of “religion” is so facile that a good atheist historian has a whole section of his website dedicated to refuting the insanity.

“I do not know modal logic, but Plantinga’s version of the ontological argument is bad.”

Sadly, I don’t know Russian so I have to read Tolstoy in translation. As a result, I cannot comment on the literary merit of War and Peace in Russian. Most scholars who do read Russian think Tolstoy has done a magnificent job. A few might dissent and they give reasons. Since I do not read Russian, I must go with the consensus or cite and follow responsible dissident scholars.

I cannot judge Russian competence if I do not know Russian.

In the same way, I cannot evaluate a modal argument, if I cannot read a modal argument. I have asked Internet critics of Plantinga why his argument fails (as they assert) and they are unable to even form a modal response to his modal argument. They cannot read Plantinga’s actual argument, but have very strong opinions about it.

Now nobody can be an expert on everything, but if you are going to dismiss the argument then cite someone who has the competence to read it. You are not going to be able to add to the discussion, but you can point friends to a critic you trust.

Opining or constructing counter-arguments with no training or ability is like attacking Tolstoy’s Russian with no Russian. I am not a fan of the ontological argument, but would not try to refute it without the ability to read it with comprehension!

“Philosophy is useless. We just need science.”

This is, of course, a statement of philosophy and not science.

The statement refutes itself. However, if we are very, very, very charitable and assume that what is meant is that “the only philosophy we need is enough to show that only science is a pathway to knowledge,” then there is still a problem.

Once we concede we need philosophy, even in this limited way, then the atheist will need to make a philosophical argument for his philosophical claim about the limit. He or she had better be able to do it. If he cannot, then he should stop doing philosophy without competence.

“Stalin was trained in a seminary and his tyranny was really a religion not True Atheism.”

In pre-Revolutionary Russia many schools were called seminaries, but they did not exist just to train priests. Stalin was an atheist before he was a communist. He found a worldview to fit his atheism. He allowed a “state church” since atheism is so counter-intuitive that even with great persecution, theism kept cropping back up.

Atheism need not lead to persecution, but atheism# with power always has. In fact, atheism# is a kind-of-religion. That’s not a general claim against religion or atheism, but does say atheism, like religion, has no inherent check against tyrannical impulses.

Atheism has never started or been dominant in a society that was not horrific. (Iceland is not majority atheist. Western Europe is not majority atheist. Christians have committed horrific crimes as well with power. Individual atheists have served nobly in office in nations with a religious heritage.)

Faith is believing things despite the evidence.

There are out of the two billion Christians (not even counting the other theists) surely someone who asserts this. Existentialists (atheist or Christian) might even defend such an epistemology. This is not, however, what Saint Basil, Thomas Aquinas, or John Calvin meant by faith.

I have met atheists# that wish to tell me what I really mean by faith. That’s a bit mad.

Faith is a complex term with epistemological and ontological meanings. Christian faith is not contrary (and must not be contrary) to reason. Faith is comfortable with science. Faith demands proper evidence. Faith seeks understanding.

Any serious atheist will concede that “Faith” as used by Christians need not be irrational. See, for example, a dialog between Michael Shermer and me on this topic.

Bonus: Jesus did not (or probably did not) exist.

This is so foolish, I have never met more than one relevantly trained atheist who believed it. Here is an atheist response to this foolishness.

—————————————————

# I will define atheist# as a person who opines without either little training or goes far beyond what serious scholars (from any perspective) assert.

Apologetics

Pop Culture

Previous Post

June 11, 2019

The Artful Knavery of the Intellectual Class Today

Next Post

June 13, 2019 The Five Worst Arguments (or Claims) Made By Internet Theists

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Art Culture Education On Books On Education Philosophy Politics Pop Culture Spiritual Reflections Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 July 2025 June 2025 September 2024 July 2024 June 2024 December 2023 June 2023 September 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Why was Jesus' eating with tax collectors controversial?

Select your answer to see how you score.

They were healthy They were viewed as sinners They were wealthy They were famous

Books by This Author John Mark Reynolds

See All Titles »