Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The Stupid! It Burns! (covenantal edition)

the stupid! it burns! An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 42 – Atheism
The atheist will mockingly demand evidence for the existence of God all the while pretending as though she is neutral with respect to any evidence that is set forth. The Christian cannot allow the atheist to get away with this. Rather, it must be pointed out to the atheist that she carries the burden of proof. She is making the bold and arrogant claim that God does not exist, and should justify her universal negative. This is even more true with respect to the evidence for the existence of God, which she denies exists in any corner of the universe.

Of course, the atheist will scoff and explain to you, you ignorant Christian apologist, that atheism is not the belief or claim that God does not exist, but merely a lack of belief in God. She recognizes the impossible task of proving the universal negative regarding God and the evidence for God and is attempting to lessen the load on herself while increasing it for you. Yet, a hard atheistic stance toward the God of the Bible is implicit in any soft atheism, for the Bible claims that the Christian God is known by every person. If Christianity is true, then the atheist believes in God. The atheist should not assume from the outset that Christianity is false if she does not want to beg the question or carry a burden of proof.

We must ask what the atheist has as an argument against the existence of God, and if anything is produced, show that these arguments already assume that God exists. We must ask what guarantee the atheist has that there is not a shred of evidence in the universe for the existence of God.

Lots more stupid in the original article.


  1. Ah, childish mockery and plagiarism. Atheism at its finest. :)

    Let me know if you are interested in a Skype debate on atheism. It should be easy since what this author wrote is so stupid and I am in agreement with him.

    Thanks for the link to the post.

  2. I noticed that "razorskiss" responded on the CH website to the effect that you're being inconsistent by pointing out the stupidity of presuppositionalism (AKA "covenental apologetics"). Amusing stuff!

  3. Anonymous,

    I might be willing to set up an impromptu Skype debate with you... except you didn't leave any contact information! If you still want to do it, you can send me a message on Paltalk. My name there is "hatsoff".


Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.