If you have an hour, this video by Ravi Zacharias explains pretty well the philosophical inconsistencies of atheism.
His focus is on three main areas:
Morality: Atheists have no source for a transcendent morality. When you believe that humans are simply evolved animals, then we have no more basis for morality than animals do. Some atheists do realize the implications of the statement “God is dead”. What do you replace Him with?
Meaning: Atheists can have no more than a superficial meaning for life. There is no ulimate point of reference for meaning.
Hope: There is no hope. In an atheist’s worldview, we all die, and humanity dies too, and the universe expands to a cold lifeless space. There is no afterlife.
The Incoherence of Atheism
6 Comments
Leave a Reply
Latest from Philosophy
We have discussed generations and the Strauss-Howe theory of their operation quite often on these pages,
I do not propose in this paper to enter into any general inquiry about the best
If women are not weaker than men there is zero reason to “protect” or “let them
If you ever played any team sports, you’ll be familiar with motivational quotes. Successories kicked things
Atheism has never made sense to me. Glad to see others making that point.
I have met a few atheists, a whole bunch of God haters, but only a few atheists.
Most of the “atheists” I have met are that way because of their desires to not be constrained, usually sexually.
I at least can understand agnostics. “Need more data” is at least a fare assessment. But “I’m certain that 99℅ of the rest of the people in this world are stupid or crazy” just makes you an asshole.
Atheism is a cult… what else do you call a group that have absolute and unwavering faith in the idea of there NOT being a deity?
How do you deny the existence of something that doesn’t exist? Even if the is no “God” you would have to create one in order to say “that doesn’t exist”. Even unicorns exist, if no more than in someones imagination
I don’t think as highly of Ravi as I do of William Lane Craig