Is there a counter argument for this athestic statement?

[leoxiii]

That certainly is...
...and not everyone who isn't religious the spirit of "irreligion".

If you mean that atheists tend to be religious in their beliefs and practices, I heartily agree.

[Desperaux]

I like what Ray Comfort says: "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists".




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

[Athanasius]

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.

Does the same not apply to the statement 'God exists'?

[Desperaux]

Does the same not apply to the statement 'God exists'?

No. Everyone is given a measure of awareness of God. Not only that, but He proves Himself to us.

[Athanasius]

No. Everyone is given a measure of awareness of God. Not only that, but He proves Himself to us.

Then why not use that as the reason in your previous post, rather than appeal to an omniscient standard of knowledge? Otherwise, to the atheist or non-Christians, you have a glaring double-standard on your hands.

[Desperaux]

Then why not use that as the reason in your previous post, rather than appeal to an omniscient standard of knowledge? Otherwise, to the atheist or non-Christians, you have a glaring double-standard on your hands.

The word is clear about the fact that all have been given the knowledge of God in their hearts. I simply added an interesting point from Ray Comfort.

I don't see any double standard. I believe all men know there is a God. Atheists don't want to know that.

[Athanasius]

The word is clear about the fact that all have been given the knowledge of God in their hearts. I simply added an interesting point from Ray Comfort.

I don't see any double standard. I believe all men know there is a God. Atheists don't want to know that.

Well, Ray Comfort argues from an omniscient standard of knowledge then, in actuality it rules out this intrinsic witness of God you speak of. It's a bad argument that presents a double standard. To say that we can't state God exists because we don't have knowledge of the entire universe is also to say the same of the statement 'God exists'. While I believe Scripture, the non-Christian does not.

Ram Comfort's argument is defeated in that we operate, daily, with substantial rather than exhaustive (omniscient) knowledge. For the most part, we live in a world of probability, rather than certainty.

[Desperaux]

Well, Ray Comfort argues from an omniscient standard of knowledge then, in actuality it rules out this intrinsic witness of God you speak of. It's a bad argument that presents a double standard. To say that we can't state God exists because we don't have knowledge of the entire universe is also to say the same of the statement 'God exists'. While I believe Scripture, the non-Christian does not.

Ray Comfort's argument is defeated in that we operate, daily, with substantial rather than exhaustive (omniscient) knowledge. For the most part, we live in a world of probability, rather than certainty.

From what I know of and read from Ray Comfort, he most definitely doesn't believe what you are saying he does. He believes what the bible tells us, that all men have the built-in heart knowledge that there is a God to begin with, but the atheist or agnostic is willfully ignorant.

[Athanasius]

From what I know of and read from Ray Comfort, he most definitely doesn't believe what you are saying he does. He believe what the bible tells us, that all men have the built-in heart knowledge that there is a God to begin with, but the atheist or agnostic is willfully ignorant.

That's the logical conclusion of his argument as you've described it. I'm not familiar with Comfort myself, so I can only work from what you've told me. It's a common argument - and confusion - among postmoderns with respect to if we can know anything objectively. If we lack omniscient knowledge, they claim (don't know everything from all over the universe), then we can't know anything.

[tango]

The word is clear about the fact that all have been given the knowledge of God in their hearts. I simply added an interesting point from Ray Comfort.

I don't see any double standard. I believe all men know there is a God. Atheists don't want to know that.

Trouble is when we are talking to a non-believer who doesn't accept the Bible as anything more than an interesting document (and possibly not even that) then arguments that rely solely on the Bible don't work.

Most non-believers will see that "The Bible is true because.... er... the Bible says it's true" is circular reasoning and many will then regard any future comments with suspicion.

Sometimes the Spirit will convict someone and they will intuitively know the Bible is true, but until that happens they aren't necessarily going to accept it.

[Desperaux]

Trouble is when we are talking to a non-believer who doesn't accept the Bible as anything more than an interesting document (and possibly not even that) then arguments that rely solely on the Bible don't work.

Most non-believers will see that "The Bible is true because.... er... the Bible says it's true" is circular reasoning and many will then regard any future comments with suspicion.

Sometimes the Spirit will convict someone and they will intuitively know the Bible is true, but until that happens they aren't necessarily going to accept it.

Yes, you are right. That is why, if I befriend a person like that, I let my life speak rather than my mouth.

[JohnH]

Best answer is... (if they are the aggressor) "I respect your choice not to believe in God. God respects your choice. That's good enough for me. Now please do me the same courtesy and respect my choice to believe in God.

If you started the conversation about God or no God...

Give them something akin to Pascal's Wager... "If there is no God and I spent my life believing there was, I reaped the benefits of a life of faith and love and joy and peace. I will suffer no loss. If there is a God and you spent your life believing there wasn't, that God tried to warn you that you will have eternal hell and suffering you could have been spared by simply and only believing in his sacrifice for your salvation."

[Firefighter]

Ray Comfort argues... It's a bad argument that presents a double standard.

Now you've done it!!!

[Athanasius]

Now you've done it!!!

Well, it's true! At least I left Kirk out of it.