Atheism is defined as "the disbelief in God or gods."
There are some who argue against this definition, stating that it is biased because it was defined by theists. I assert that the definition is incorrect, but for a different reason. Assuming that this rational thinker has looked at the evidence for Christianity, and I say Christianity because I myself am an Orthodox Christian, and then rejected the Judeo-Christian God based upon the evidence, and there is evidence, or that they cannot make the leap from the evidence to faith, and that is totally rational. But, in that instance the person would be an atheist, but as I said I believe the definition is incorrect because in this instance the person has chosen to believe that the Judeo Christian God does not exist, based upon the evidence. You see, since there is inferential evidence and archaeological evidence, one would have to choose to believe that God does not exist. Not only that, God cannot be proven nor disproven, so why is one stance considered faith and the other not?
Now, let us assume that a person rejects the Judeo-Christian God without looking at the evidence, that person would then be described as an irrational thinker, not a rational thinker. Who rejects beliefs or views without first looking at the evidence, then making a judgment? Certainly this person cannot be considered a rational thinker.
On top of this, nobody defines themselves by what they disbelieve but by what they believe. It could pertain to anything, for instance one person may believe the earth is spherical, another may believe the earth is flat. Both believe that each others views are incorrect. I believe that the earth is not flat or I believe the earth is not spherical. Not, I disbelieve in a flat earth, which makes no real sense as we are then redefining language itself.
So I conclude that any rational thinker that does look at the evidence for the Christian religion, evidence that includes archaeological evidence, early church writers, even opponents of Christianity who clearly refer to Christ, and then comes to a conclusion is an atheist who believes the Judeo Christian God does not exist.
If you would like to look at the evidence to make your decision click here to purchase my book Reasonable Christianity. If you would prefer I send you a copy, email me tewahdo@gmail.com and I will send you a .pdf copy for free.
There are some who argue against this definition, stating that it is biased because it was defined by theists. I assert that the definition is incorrect, but for a different reason. Assuming that this rational thinker has looked at the evidence for Christianity, and I say Christianity because I myself am an Orthodox Christian, and then rejected the Judeo-Christian God based upon the evidence, and there is evidence, or that they cannot make the leap from the evidence to faith, and that is totally rational. But, in that instance the person would be an atheist, but as I said I believe the definition is incorrect because in this instance the person has chosen to believe that the Judeo Christian God does not exist, based upon the evidence. You see, since there is inferential evidence and archaeological evidence, one would have to choose to believe that God does not exist. Not only that, God cannot be proven nor disproven, so why is one stance considered faith and the other not?
Now, let us assume that a person rejects the Judeo-Christian God without looking at the evidence, that person would then be described as an irrational thinker, not a rational thinker. Who rejects beliefs or views without first looking at the evidence, then making a judgment? Certainly this person cannot be considered a rational thinker.
On top of this, nobody defines themselves by what they disbelieve but by what they believe. It could pertain to anything, for instance one person may believe the earth is spherical, another may believe the earth is flat. Both believe that each others views are incorrect. I believe that the earth is not flat or I believe the earth is not spherical. Not, I disbelieve in a flat earth, which makes no real sense as we are then redefining language itself.
So I conclude that any rational thinker that does look at the evidence for the Christian religion, evidence that includes archaeological evidence, early church writers, even opponents of Christianity who clearly refer to Christ, and then comes to a conclusion is an atheist who believes the Judeo Christian God does not exist.
If you would like to look at the evidence to make your decision click here to purchase my book Reasonable Christianity. If you would prefer I send you a copy, email me tewahdo@gmail.com and I will send you a .pdf copy for free.
No comments:
Post a Comment