Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Is Atheism a Crutch?

by Greg Koukl

S
ome say Christianity is just a crutch.
But let's turn the question on its edge for a moment. Is atheism an emotional crutch, wishful thinking? The ax cuts both ways.

Perhaps atheists are rejecting God because they've had a bad relationship with their father. Instead of inventing God, have atheists invented non-God? Have they invented atheism to escape some of the frightening implications of God's existence? Think about it.

9 comments:

Mr. PSb said...

Yeah, good point. Never though of it that way. I guess so. "If you don't like something try imagining it doesn't exist" - I guess that's there line of reasoning. It's like not believing in busy highways and walking unto one.

AL said...

I've thought the same thing for a long time. Atheism is the crutch, denying fact and conscience in order to supress knowledge of God so they can continue in their sins guilt-free.

Since the best defense is an offense, they start attacking Christianity by projecting their own shortcomings onto our belief system, and then they can say, "no, I called you that first."

Silly really. And it would be funny if eternity were not at stake.

ExPatMatt said...

I have an excellent relationship with my father and I didn't 'invent' atheism.

Nor do I find the implications of God's existence 'frightening'.

I merely see no evidence that strongly compels me to believe that God (any god) exists.

Atheism is not a crutch because it does not provide anything - there's no associated philosophy and no prescribed worldview; it's pretty much the opposite of what you're saying really.

You might say that secular humanism is a crutch though, that could potentially work. But saying atheism is a crutch is like saying that not-stamp-collecting is a good way to kill time.

Mr. PSb,

"If you don't like something try imagining it doesn't exist"

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - the ball's in the theist's court to demonstrate that God exists.

"It's like not believing in busy highways and walking unto one."

You honestly don't see the difference between a highway and an invisible God?

AL,

"Atheism is the crutch, denying fact and conscience in order to supress knowledge of God so they can continue in their sins guilt-free."

Which 'facts' do you speak of? How do atheists deny 'conscience'?

Thanks,

AL said...

Well hello, ExPatMatt.
"Con" means with, "Science" means knowledge, and when you sin against God, you do it with knowledge - you're left without excuse. I'm sure you've heard that before.

Atheists deny the fact that creation requires a Creator, they deny biogenesis, as well as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

They have to borrow their morality from Christianity because without God, there would be no natural reason for it.

They ask for evidence, yet deny a universe full of proof, in order to believe that it's all just random chance somehow, so that they don't have to be held accountable.
But you will be held accountable, regardless of what you believe.

I seriously see atheism as a crutch, a fooling of one's self in an attempt to feel better about themselves and their sinful condition.

There is a better way. Repent, trust in Jesus Christ alone and be forgiven.

ExPatMatt said...

AL,

Continued (because there was just too much fail in your post)

"They have to borrow their morality from Christianity because without God, there would be no natural reason for it."

Really? And have you looked into the naturalistic explanations for ethics and morality in any depth to come to that conclusion or is it just what you assume must be true because you believe it to be true?

"They ask for evidence, yet deny a universe full of proof,"

The universe is full of proof that the universe exists and operates in the way we perceive it to operate. I don't see any 'Made by God' stamps on it anywhere and the description of how things came to be in the Bible is woefully incongruent with reality.

"...in order to believe that it's all just random chance somehow,"

I don't know a single atheist who thinks it's all just 'random chance somehow'. Is it possible that your idea of what atheists think is incorrect?

"...so that they don't have to be held accountable."

That's an interesting non-sequitor, I must say.

"But you will be held accountable, regardless of what you believe."

So will you. By Zeus. See how easy it is to make unfounded assertions? Not very compelling as an argument though, is it?

"I seriously see atheism as a crutch, a fooling of one's self in an attempt to feel better about themselves and their sinful condition."

I think you've shown that you don't know very much about atheism or atheists at all, so forgive me if I don't pay much attention to your conclusion. However, you've essentially said that atheists are moral nihilists living in a random chance world....and they do this to feel better about themselves? That doesn't even make sense!

"There is a better way. Repent, trust in Jesus Christ alone and be forgiven."

Give me a good reason to. So far it's all been logical fallacies, bad science and assertions.

Cheers,

AL said...

It's up to you, ExPatMatt. Do with the information as you will.

Atheists do get saved. I came from a men's Bible study tonight where I heard of an anti-Christian atheist who started seriously looking into his own beliefs and the Bible and Christianity.

He gave his testimony tonight, he was born again one month ago.

That's what really scares the atheists, isn't it? Jesus Christ is still changing lives, and that's the biggest proof you're going to get.

Robert Tewart said...

ExPattMatt writes:

"I was going to ask why you didn't address any of the points in my responses to you, but I see that only the second one has been published for some reason. Ah well, it's a rare thing to come across an evangelical Christian online who is willing to engage in a serious and honest discussion anyway, so I'm not all that bothered.

Cheers,

[Robert - any reason why the first part of my response wasn't posted?]"

ExPatt. It's pretty obvious that you're well spoken(written) and intelligent. Rely on that for the points you make. Some of what you have said has crossed the line of being condescending. I'm sure my readers can handle that, but this blog will not be available for that kind of tone. --Just a personal thing on my part. If I have ommitted anything that you would like to restate, please feel free to do so.

ExPatMatt said...

Robert,

If you don't want condescending comments on your blog then perhaps you should encourage your readers (and yourself) to not make ill-informed and easily refuted statements about things they have no understanding of?

That kind of arrogant posturing tends to draw out the condescension in me because it doesn't really deserve a civilized response.

I mean honestly - he brought up the first and second laws of thermodynamics!

Whatever, I'm just going to stop following this blog I think. You can all high-5 each other all the way to the Rapture, if that's what you're looking for.

Regards,

AL said...

Haha, well, ExPatMatt, I am no scientist, but c'mon, evolution is ridiculous if you seriously look into it. Does it not contradict many scientific laws?

You can laugh and mock, lean on your crutch and jump through hoops to deny the God which you KNOW exists, but it changes nothing. You will still be held accountable.

All I ask is that you hold your pet theories to the same skeptical standard that you hold Christianity and the Bible.
Take care Matt.