Atheists Defend Their Beliefs; Do Christians?

The article on the front page of today's Spiritual Perspectives was a response to an article appearing in the Orlando Sentinel on the last day of last year. I waited until after the New Year's Day holiday to write a response and e-mail it in to the newspaper. They printed it the next day, Wednesday, January 3rd. The newspaper limits letters to the editor to 250 words; so one can seldom answer every error that a person sets forth. The final paragraph on the front page was not published in the paper. It was not sent to them since it would have exceeded their specifications.

On Thursday, there was already a reply to my letter by Russell J. Mitchell. Not wanting to let any grass grow under my feet I immediately wrote a response and e-mailed it back to the Sentinel the same day. Below is that response to atheist #2.

Russell J. Mitchell's response (January 4, 2018) to my letter failed to answer the question posed. Why should anyone behave "properly"? According to the anonymous atheist last Sunday, the reason was that he said so. He assured us that there is no reward or punishment; therefore terrorists should stop killing others. How many are going to take his word for it? As an atheist, Stalin did not believe in punishment in the hereafter. He did not act out of religious motivations—just pragmatic ones. Without an objective standard (from God) of morality, people have no fear and no restraint.

Mr. Mitchell offers his own personal experience and philosophy, which do not address the issue, either. He claims he will behave well because it is the "right" thing to do. First, how does he know what is right without an objective standard? He paraphrases Matthew 7:12, which is from the Bible, which teaches rewards and punishments after this life. Second, he still has not told us how to motivate anyone from practicing evil.

Christians do not believe in a Heavenly Father because they need to—or desire to. They believe because of the evidence both in and apart from the Bible. Human beings are made in the image of God and are accountable to their Maker. Everyone has the freedom to disbelieve those truths, but judgment will occur, nevertheless.

It is interesting that atheists are always claiming that they are moral and do the right thing when they have no objective standard. I was hopeful that the above letter might appear the next day but instead received the following message from the newspaper.

Gary, Thanks for writing. We have a policy of waiting 30 days between publishing the same contributor, so I posted an item on Facebook about the debate on our pages and posted your letter in full.

Well, of course, the newspaper's 30-day policy effectively cuts off someone's ability to defend himself or clear up a misrepresentation, but at least they posted this second letter. In the meantime, I had read a passage in a book that was relevant to the issue, and so I wrote back to the one who had communicated with me.

Terri,

Thanks for the post. Coincidentally (or providentially), I came across a quote you might be interested in that is pertinent to this topic.

Robert C. Winthrop (1809-1894) was a Harvard graduate and senator from Massachusetts. He wrote the following words:

"All societies of men must be governed in some way or the other. The less they may have a stringent state government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet."

Interesting, isn't it?

Gary

Needless to say, there was no response, but it is definitely pertinent to the topic. On Sunday, January 7, 2018, still another atheist had a letter published. Atheist #3's letter was poorly organized. Even though my response is printed on the next page, it might prove helpful to outline what she said. In paragraph one, she asserted that I had offered no proof of my position (which I had). She added this sentence: "Belief in God is a matter of faith." (My response deals with that, also.) Then, switching subjects she pointed out that unbelievers can act godly while believers can act ungodly, a fact which no one would deny.

But, first of all, that's three separate thoughts in one tiny paragraph. Second, that third point was answered in my second response, but since it was only posted, she may not have seen it.

Her second paragraph argues that if fear of punishment was all it took to make people behave, we would be living in a better world where there was less hatred, murder, and mayhem.

She then jumps to an entirely different subject, affirming that churches, synagogues, and mosques would not "split over whether to dunk or sprinkle; whether women should have a role; whether homosexuals should be accepted; or whether coverings should be worn." These do not relate to her first point in the paragraph. Nor does the third point relate to the second. She concludes the diatribe here by affirming: "People would not enslave those who are different from them in speech, color, or religion." Is that happening somewhere in the United States?

To answer just what has been presented so far would require much more than 250 words, which is the reasons it is difficult to be so succinct as a letter writer. Her third paragraph, one sentence, continues to be based on the premise, that if people feared punishment, then "Christians would not condemn Jews," and Muslims would not be attempting to destroy other religions.

Her final paragraph once again combines two thoughts: 1) Atheists are more tolerant than believers; and 2) We should be moral just because it is moral, which is better than living in fear of punishment. As Dr. Phil often says, "How's that workin' out for ya?" Obviously, Muslims are not living by this atheist's standards—nor believers, either. Why should they? There is no promise of a tangible reward and no fear of any punishment for not doing so. Plus, atheists cannot prove that whatever standards they adopt are true or right in the first place. Below is my response:

Sunday's (1-7-18) letter to the editor by Fannie R. Griffin was interesting, if not accurate. She begins by saying that there is "no proof of the existence of God." Griffin did obviously not read "The Warren-Flew Debate," which supplies abundant evidence and was mentioned in my letter of January 3rd. So, the claim of "no proof" is obviously one of wishful thinking. She is also wrong to say that believing in God is a matter of faith. Consider those words carefully. Faith is a matter of faith. This makes no sense. Faith is based on the evidence provided.

No one ever said that morality is automatically guaranteed by the threat of punishment, but it does cause more people to be moral than otherwise would be. My second letter of January 5th, which was posted but not published, answered Griffin's last point. She cannot define what is "moral" without an objective standard (the Bible), which she rejects. Thus, she is left only with her own opinion of what "moral" is. Are we all expected to agree with her definitions?

She demonstrates presumptuousness as an atheist to try to tell religious people how they should do things. If the Bible is the Word of God (and it is), then we are compelled to abide by His authority. He speaks as to what baptism is, what the role of women is, and what constitutes sin. Griffin makes quite a leap from issues like these to enslaving those of a different color. What's the connection? Jesus did not authorize Christians to enslave anyone. Or to condemn anyone. However, we do try to teach people the gospel which, if accepted, will save anyone from sin and lead to eternal life.

Griffin does not see the error that she commits in making her case. Since she herself does not consider that whether people are "dunked" or sprinkled is of any importance, therefore, it is not important. Does she understand that the two choices represent the difference between what God authorized and what man has chosen to substitute for it? Obviously not. Has she studied what God says the role of women in the church is? No, she doesn't care; it's obvious to her that they should be able to lead in any way possible. The same is true of homosexuals. They should just be accepted because she, as an atheist, thinks they should be. It doesn't matter what the Bible says.

She has the same attitude the atheist Flew had when he debated Brother Warren. Concerning the evils of the Nazis, he asked, "Do you need something to tell you that what they did was wrong. Can't you just see that?" So, if one atheist sees it, all atheists and believers should see it. But Hitler didn't see it—nor those who carried out his orders. That is the trouble with atheism. Without an objective standard, the only ones left are subjective standards—what each person thinks or feels. These will contradict each other and leave chaos as a result.

Final Thoughts

Having recounted all of these letters, something stands out. First, was I the only person in the Orlando area that was willing to disagree with atheist #1? In the week that followed the appearance of his letter, mine was the only published response. (The newspaper does not necessarily print everyone's replies.) In a community this size, the Sentinel should have been deluged with letters in opposition to the original letter. So many weak statements were made that it was easily challengeable.

Second, when the letters from atheists #2 and #3 were published, where were other "believers" to point out the fallacies of those letters? Why do we have three atheist letters per only one from a believer? Are there three times the atheists in the population than there are Christians? Hardly. The amount of those who profess to believe in God is between 80% and 90%. Atheists only comprise one in ten in the population. So, how is that they are so prepared to speak up for their cause? They can't be observing 1 Peter 3:15.

Why are not preachers and brethren watching the newspapers in various locales around the country? Apparently, atheists are. Frequently, arguments are not won by logic but by those who seem to be the most dedicated to their cause. Society needs to know that atheism has no valid case and that what they set forth can easily be answered.