My name is Peter Pilt and I am a Theist. This means I believe in God. I am also a monotheist – which means I believe in one God.
This blog consists of the sermon slides for a sermon that I preached on Atheism titled, When Atheists Attack:- subtitled Attack of the Theophobics.
The slides follow a logical progression, so I trust you are able to get the message of my sermon. Atheists are no longer people who just don’t believe in God, they are Anti-Theists – which means that are passionately anti-Christian.
I start off with an Open Letter that I wrote to Atheists several months ago on my blog.
Some examples of the aggressive posture of Anti-theists
If this Blog has been helpful or inspiring to you, please feel free to share it on Facebook or Twitter. Email Subscriptions to my blog are welcome or you can contact me through Facebook (facebook.com/peterpilt) or Twitter (@PeterPilt). Have a great day.
Categories: Church related, Current Affairs, Nowra City Church, Sermon Notes, Theology, Topics to wrestle with
This is so full of stupid. First you assert that atheism is a faith that he doesn’t have to offer any proof, which he can’t. No one can prove a god doesn’t exist. But you can’t prove fairies, unicorns and bigfoot don’t exist. If you assert the thing exists you have to offer the proof for it. Otherwise, prove to me bigfoot doesn’t exist and until then you have to believe in him.
Do you notice how the sign says religion, not Christianity? It applies to all religions, Christianity is dominate in the western world and so has the most political influence. What do you think of people who believe in UFOs? How would you feel if they had massive political influence? Would you be happy to let them have their delusion influence how you live your life?
“It’s sad that you are so passionate against atheism it’s obvious that really you don’t believe in god, and just want god to be true”, does that sound stupid to you? Because it does to me, how about we assume we mean what we say and progress this discussion. I’m not mad at god, just like I’m not mad at any child’s imaginary friend (let’s call the friend Jeff), when the child hits someone and blames it on Jeff telling them to, I’m perfectly happy to tell them Jeff doesn’t exist and they should think about their actions in terms of hurting real people not the feelings of Jeff. If they continue to insist that we must live in accordance with Jeff’s arbitrary rules I’m going to tell them to be quite, and stop talking about Jeff. I don’t believe in Jeff and I’m not going to live according to his rules. I’m not angry at Jeff though I am annoyed that the idea of Jeff is hurting people.
I like how the second time you define atheism you get it right. “The rejection of belief in the existence of deities” there is no faith involved in rejecting a belief. See above re: bigfoot.
The mentality thing is a bit wrong, I’m very committed to the truth, I find it fascinating, and when someone says something wrong I will correct them. They are often misinformed due to religion. How do I know I’m right? I have evidence for my claims that is testable.
I dislike post modernists.
Lots of good Dawkins quotes there, though I would add the category of close minded to the evolution one.
So if we look at the bible and what it teaches in the topics slide, the first two are demonstrably wrong. I believe the third is the one we have the biggest issue with, the rules set out that not everyone should have to live by, eg don’t work on the sabbath or you die, don’t wear mixed fabrics or you die, slavery is ok though.
I like that Maurice Freehill quote, I challenge anyone to explore the points and counter points for religion vs Atheism, science vs creationism, with an open mind. If your side is right then approaching it with an open mind and trying to understand the complexities will still lead you to truth. You have nothing to lose by seeking out truth.
James McPherson – First he doesn’t understand evolution, this is more meme based, secondly atheism isn’t “there’s no point to life” it’s “The rejection of belief in the existence of deities”. Not a complete world view. Second quote is just as stupid, because it blames “The rejection of belief in the existence of deities” for an economic and social system. Atheists span the spectrum. Third quote, love is measurable (FMRI can image the brain and the chemical changes can be measured), beauty is too (symmetry and ratios, which are found pleasing to people), courage is overcoming fear (I didn’t know how this was measured off the top of my head so I googled “http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2665714/” guess what, it’s measurable).
Next slide, rael? Remember my question about people who believe in UFOs? That’s them. There is a difference between rational and accepting things on faith.
Atheism is rational, remember the definition “The rejection of belief in the existence of deities” holding a view point without evidence, or counter to evidence is irrational.
Most of those anti theist slides aren’t that aggressive.
A priori, why point out a logical reason for something there is no evidence for? The only reason to use logic to disprove god is if logic is trying to be used to invoke god. A posteriori, these are actually the common christian arguments, see the, life exists on the planet therefore god put it in the right spot argument. Even though for that observation to be made by definition there must be life on the planet and so god is unnecessary.
I don’t really understand the next few slides, some scientists hold a belief in god, but it doesn’t affect their science and they hold that science finds truth. The god of the gaps leaves a very small and unnecessary god so I guess this with the lack of evidence for a god is the arguement that I would use. I don’t believe that religion causes all wars, but then I’m willing to admit that things are complicated. The 4, is best served by that Epicurus quote I guess. I don’t think I care about 5 at all.
These proofs are pretty lame, as I said earlier they are special pleading, or self-contradicting.
The unmoved mover, step one, assert everything that moves must be moved. Step two this leads to an infinite regress. Step three, break that regress with a God. Step four, ignore that you have broken the assertion you made in step one.
The arguments from first cause and contingency are basically the same, assert there must be a first cause, break the assertion in step three and call it god. Again these create a set of rules then break them for no valid reason.
The argument from degree is just dumb; I’ll use this quote,
“That’s an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equally fatuous conclusion.”
— Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006, p. 79
I kind of dealt with the teleological argument earlier, the argument from design as it is also known. Or the, we live on this planet that is in the right spot therefore god did it. If you want more on it see http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Teleological_argument
I thought the fool was the one afraid to turn on the lights?
Pascals wager? Seriously? So I should become a Muslim in case they are right, I’ve got nothing to lose by living as though Allah is the one true god. Good argument there?
As for the Christian demotivationals I’m kind of surprised that they try and use the same arguments seen in the anti-theist ones. The second one is again asking to prove a negative, eg. Prove bigfoot doesn’t exist? You can’t? Oh then he must, how can you not believe in him? You can’t prove Allah doesn’t exist do you believe in him?
The third one, how do babies know about birth?
Fourth, I like the attempt at making it circular reasoning, but it’s not, circular reasoning is “The bible is true; it’s written in the bible that it is true, therefore it’s true”. Interesting that the bible is the only evidence in the whole chunk of that supports a god existing. I don’t see how the big bang is evidence for god, or DNA, RNA and protein synthesis. I would talk about the Cambrian explosion as well, but this is getting long.
Imagine the world without the poisoning the well fallacy or strawman arguments?
I couldn’t have put it better myself, Blake!
Great points! It seems like many atheists are auto atheist. They are there own god and contradict many of their own points.
Blake, you say:
“So if we look at the bible and what it teaches in the topics slide, the first two are demonstrably wrong”
and that is all you offer concerning the “Origin of the universe” and the “Creation of man” and yet in these two issues the deity of God is established? If you think that such a glib and offhand response is going to cut the mustard with a true person of faith then you truly are wasting your time.
There is irrefutable evidence for the existence of God. If you care to look into the miracle of a train wreck of a life turned into something full of hope, happiness and peace through coming into a living relationship with the Creator of the universe then the evidence is plainly seen. Don’t be tempted to think that such a position is unattainable for yourself. If you are serious then you too can enjoy a living relationship with the coming judge of the earth, the question is, do you have the courage to take such a step?
You argue against the existence of sin and yet so many athiests resort to condemning religion as evil, one can’t have it both ways. The luxury of even being able to even discern that both good and evil exists is in itself one of God’s (many) gifts to you.
It is an established fact that people when on their death beds if they have an abiding relationship with the Almighty often enjoy a great peace about the prospect of dying whereas the majority of disbelieving folk are often racked by fear and anxiety, why would that be?
You reckon that you can measure love? Then try measuring Christ if you can?
Everyone has their own object of worship. Atheists may say they don’t believe in anything, but they actually do. They believe in themselves alone.