Is Atheism True? Debate, 3rd Round, 3rd Post

Third Round, Third Post with response

The original post by the atheist was in standard paragraph form. I have numbered the atheist's paragraphs and adopted an outline format to allow ease of response. The atheist's posts appear in black text. My responses follow each paragraph and are in green.


  1. Once not too long ago, mankind considered the neutron, proton and electron to be the smallest bits of matter possible. Other, smaller particles were just so much theory. Now, we realize that there are much smaller particles of matter and energy and are striving to study them and determine if yet these can be broken down into smaller and smaller particles. Science adapts are new discoveries are made. It is an ongoing and growing process.
    1. Isn't the complexity of God's creation amazing?
  2. Theistic systems too adapt and change. One of the interesting things Ive always found about them is that many of them claim to contain absolutes. Some examples are; absolute moralities, absolute certainties about their deities and absolute certainties that there beliefs are correct. Yet, if you study these systems over time, they adapt and change according to social pressures. One can find great examples of variance in the moral codes within difference sects of Christianity and Islam. There are great, sometimes dramatic, differences in interpretations of the supposedly divinely inspired texts of these various theistic systems. There is also a tendency for one specific group, with a particular version of the moral code or interpretation of the holy texts to declare another group as having things all wrong.
    1. This is often true, but it does not mean there is no God. Christianity does have absolutes (there is a God; God is a Trinity; Salvation by grace through faith, Jesus physical resurrection, lying is a sin, adultery is a sin, etc.) But it is also designed that it can adapt to society without the essentials being changed (Rom. 14:1-12). If the essentials changed, then it wouldn't be Christianity any more. You are now repeating yourself . . . again.
  3. I have always found science to be more upfront about these changes then the various theistic systems. Science knows and expects its findings and theories to be challenged, expanded on and even changed. This is part of the scientific process. Theism and polytheism are uncomfortable with the changes and adaptations it experiences over time. These changes are challenges to the precepts, the absolute certainties of the theistic systems.
    1. I would agree with you here.
  4. Science and theism (or more accurately, theists) often come into conflict because of these challenges and changes. Frequently, when a theistic principle is challenged by scientific discoveries, theists will frequently react negatively to these challenges. On the other hand, such challenges can also inspire changes in the theistic systems.
    1. Yes it can.
  5. All in all, science is adaptive and changes with new discoveries. Theistic and polytheistic systems, for the majority, are based on supposed absolute principles; yet, they too will adapt and change. Take your own example for instance, the big bang. There are some theists who accept the theories of the big bang and find no conflict between them and their theistic beliefs. Yet, there are others who see the theory of the big bang as a direct attack on those beliefs. Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have adherents that hold with one of the two approaches to the big bang theory. This demonstrates that, despite the claims of absolutes by many theists that these supposed absolutes vary, are adaptive and changing. In essence, the absolutes are non-existent.
    1. Science is not an entity. Science is what scientists do. It is the scientists who change and none of them are without bias or their own presuppositions by which they judge theories and interpret information.
    2. Your conclusion is erroneous concerning absolutes. You fail to distinguish between people who apply their understanding of theological principles and the principles themselves. It is absolutely wrong to murder according to the Bible. Whether or not someone who follows a religion murders or not, does not alter the absolute truth regarding it. Furthermore, the fact that different people believe different things does not mean that absolutes do not exist. You must realize that it is not belief that is making the absolutes absolute. Absolutes exist and are by nature absolute (this is a discussion dealing with God). If they were not, then they would not be absolute. So, to say that an absolute changes means that the absolute is not an absolute and this is illogical--unless the "absolute" is defined as being changing. Unchanging absolutes do exist within Christianity. God exists. It is a sin to lie. Jesus rose from the dead. Whether or not other religions have alleged absolutes that change and thereby demonstrate that they were not absolute, does not affect the validity of Christianity which retains its essential absolutes. It seems that you do not understand what makes Christianity Christian.
    3. So, how does this help atheism?
  6. I stated in an earlier response that I well knew you would dismiss any evidence I presented in favor of atheism. You too came into this debate with strong presuppositions. You have shown time and again that you are not even open to discussing any theistic system but your own, having already dismissed the others as false. You must realize though that your theistic system, Christianity, is just one of many that atheists must consider when questioning if theism and polytheism are valid. You yourself have already dismissed the others. Atheists have simply gone a step further and dismissed the evidence for your system as well.
    1. Back the truck up. I did not simply dismiss what you have said. I examined what you said, responded, pointed out logic errors on your part, offered different and rational explanations for your theories, and then stated that you had not proved your point that there is no God. This is hardly a dismissal. If anything it is the opposite. Even in science, which you mentioned above, examination of evidence is the norm. I have done that with what you have presented and shown you that you have not made your case.
    2. At best, all you have is theories about why some theistic arguments don't hold water, but theories don't make fact. Therefore, you have not demonstrated within reason, that atheism is true.
  7. (Note: yes, Ive read articles similar to the one you referenced above about human beings being hard wired for belief in a god or gods. It was all the rage in certain circles a year or two ago. Articles on the subject appeared in such magazines as Time and Newsweek. Funny thing, at the time I read comments by many theists agreeing with my statement that such hard wiring would negate the idea of free will necessary for many of the theistic systems that are popular today. Some of them were absolutely horrified by the idea of being hard wired to believe in god.)
    1. Again, you have not addressed the issue about free will and hard-wiring that I have raised. Being hard-wired for something doesn't mean we have no free will anymore than being hard-wired to want to eat means you have no free will. Besides, you haven't even defined free will.
      Nevertheless, free will is the ability to make choices that are consistent with our nature. We are only able to make choices consistent with our own natures and we cannot choose and accomplish that which is violation of our natures.


  1. I propose that you simply summarize your arguments why you believe there is no God. Let the peripherals drop and focus on what you think are the definitive evidences for atheism.
  2. This way, we can bring this to a conclusion.



About The Author

Matt Slick is the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.