Consider how most people understand evolution to be the transformation of species, such as dinosaurs into birds or apes into humans. They might define evolution as “the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms throughout Earth's history.” However, if you use this definition when debating an evolutionist, stand back lest their frothing at the mouth should splash on you. To an evolutionist, evolution is precisely defined: any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next (TalkOrigins). So if a population of mice is 50% gray in one generation, then 55% gray in the next generation, then the mice have evolved! Evolved into what remains unclear, but evolutionists insist on this vague definition.
They apply their wordsmithery to many terms. Science is no longer simply a quest for knowledge; it now seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms (Scientific American). Notice the shift: science is framed not as a pursuit of truth but as an exploration of the natural.
Skeptics even seek to redefine Christian concepts. In the Bible, faith means “believe.” The two words are literally the same word in the Greek (pistis, πίστις, Strong’s word 4102). It’s where we get the English word epistemology. I believe in God and the Bible for the same reasons I believe anything - I’m convinced of the truth of it. In contrast, atheists want to define faith as “belief without evidence,” suggesting that when Christians assert faith, they are admitting a lack of evidence.
Perhaps the most notable redefinition is that of “atheist.” Many people understand an atheist as someone who denies the existence of God. However, atheists typically assert that atheism simply means lacking belief in a god. This distinction, while subtle, is significant: denying there's a god versus not believing in one.
Atheists may be ignorant, but they’re not stupid (maybe some are). They recognize the challenges of claiming there is no god, as this asserts a universal negative. Instead, they prefer to identify as lacking belief, allowing them to act as if there is no god without actually having to prove there’s no god.
However, this definition has issues. First, it lacks rigor. If atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, then a rock can technically be considered an atheist, right? Consider this, if a vegetarian is defined as “someone who doesn’t eat meat,” then rocks also qualify as vegetarians. Perhaps a more accurate definition of vegetarian should be “a person who chooses not to eat meat” which would now exclude rocks since rocks don't decide to not eat meat. I don’t think, though, that atheists would be happy if we changed their definition to, “a person who decides not to believe in God.” When you equivocate on the meaning of words to prop up your argument, you’re opening a can of worms.
Second, a term already exists for those uncertain about God’s existence: agnosticism. I suspect that atheists avoid this label because it allows for the possibility of a god, which they want to stubbornly reject. Atheists want to pretend they’re open minded. It’s been my experience that atheists aren’t open-minded at all. They want to put the burden of proving God on Christians, while they sit cross-armed and scoff. It doesn’t matter what evidence they are shown, they will always say it’s not enough.
Finally, those who embrace this vague definition of atheism seldom live by it. They might say they merely lack a belief in god, but if you debate with them long enough, most will usually admit to believing there is no god. They rarely recant their definition, instead revealing their stance through statements like, “If there were a god, why is there so much suffering?” When an atheist says something like this, he tacitly admits he thinks there’s no god because of the suffering in the world. Sometimes, though, they make more overt statements like “there is no invisible sky daddy” which removes all doubt about what they truly believe.
Let me ask a question: if an atheist simply lacks a belief in God, what is the word that describes a person who actually believes there is no god? Words have meanings but unbelievers want to continuously muddy the waters. The reasons atheists foist their meaningless definitions on the rest of are many: they want to create a red herring to derail conversations with Christians; they want to excuse themselves from having to justify their disbelief; and they want to present themselves as enlightened thinkers who are only withholding their opinion until they see the evidence for God. //RKBentley rolls his eyes//
To all the skeptics out there, if you are sincerely open-minded, then you’re agnostic. If you believe there is no god, then you’re atheists. Stop playing word games. You’re not seekers of truth, you're spin doctors!
No comments:
Post a Comment