Skip to main content

Surrendering to the Laziness of Atheism

Edited 5 December 2021 

To be a Bible-believing Christian (as opposed to a "cultural" or in name only) is not easy. It may seem tempting to put our beliefs out to pasture and embrace the laziness of atheism. We can sit back and say, "I lack belief", and demand proof for everything a Christian says, only to reject anything that does not meet our subjective criteria. Very lazy. Very selfish. But for a Christian, it means denying our very nature — and denying what we know is true.

Unknown source image derivative via FotoSketcher and PhotoFunia

A Christian is born from above (1 Peter 1:3, John 3:3) and a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). To act in such a way means denying our very nature and rejecting what we know is true. Atheistic philosophies and excuse-making are ongoing. Just watch when a Christian wants to share evidence and have a discussion: atheists keep dodging and changing the subject, as well as attacking God and people.

It's also a safe religion as well as easy. Instead of being bullied, harassed, and persecuted, join those doing the persecuting. Further, hold Christians to what you think their moral standard is, but you don't have a consistent moral standard of your own! Thinking and logic are difficult, so just learn some terms, misapply them, and when caught, change the subject and attack. No worries, mate. Preach evolution, that's accepted, unlike the truth of biblical creation.

"Aren't you afraid they'll come after you, Cowboy Bob?"

Nope. My confidences is in the Lord, the maker of Heaven and Earth. Also, most are timorous and ridicule things from a safe distance; they don't read things and respond rationally.

If someone wants to have deeper answers through Bible-based philosophies, I recommend reading The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle (and videos such as this one), as well as Always Ready by Dr. Greg Bahnsen (there are many videos and audio-in-video-format posts available, here's a 4-in-1 for you to take in sections). For creation science evidence, there are thousands of links on this site alone.

Sometimes people consider riding the Owlhoot Trail and practicing the religion of atheism because of the trials of life (including intellectual bullying) and depression. That would cause not only tremendous cognitive dissonance, but depression would most likely deepen. Atheism is irrational and incoherent, but seeking God provides life and meaning.

J.R. from the United States writes:

Hello there! First, I’d like to thank the U.S. office for their response to an earlier question of mine. It made sense and helped me understand. Even though I’m a Christian I still struggle with emotional doubts and resisting the temptation to just believe materialistic notions because they don’t require intellectual strength, just “feeling faith.”

Today I have a question that has been bugging me for some time, concerning the moral argument for the existence of God. I was reading the article Why believe in objective morals? which is basically the sum of my question. If we follow evolutionary naturalism to its ultimate end concerning morality, we end up with morality simply being a useful illusion. I was looking for reasons for objective morality outside of feeling or personal interest. For instance, if someone is averse to things being done to them that harm them or a loved one, couldn’t the materialist just say that such aversion is a selfish desire?

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

To read the rest (and I really hope you will), see "When atheism seems easy." There are additional links in the response that may also prove helpful.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Evaluating Truth Claims in Genesis

Some people try to dismiss Genesis as myth containing spiritual truth using elements from the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews. Others say it is misunderstood, as if the Creator of the universe was unable to communicate with us. With closer inspection, we see that Genesis is a historical narrative. Credit: RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander The idea that the early chapters of Genesis are mythological should not be accepted by professing Christians, as there are serious problems that result. (One of these is that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to these chapters as literal history, so by denying this, one is calling them liars!) Also, there are repercussions with the gospel message. Read some classical mythology, then come back to Genesis and see the difference. Myths are vague and have a different flow, but the Bible is precise. Indeed, even the sequence of creation days is specific — a day itself is defined. Interestingly, many translations have in Genesis 1:5 less accurate by us