Ex-Atheist Dr. Sarah Salviander Destroys Atheism with One Tweet
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If you're unfamiliar with Dr. Sarah Salviander, I encourage you to make her acquaintance. She's a Christian apologist, takes the Genesis creation account literally (although she's not a young earth creationist, she believes that God created the cosmos in six days), has a Ph.D. in astrophysics, and is an ex-atheist. Because of her background and credentials, Salviander has insight into atheism that many do not. Earlier this month, utilizing that insight, Salviander tweeted a sharply worded reminder that atheism suffers from intellectual dishonesty.
In the tweet, Sarah Salviander provides steps to crafting your own atheistic philosophy. Her steps are: "1. Start with the assumption of no God 2. However, also start with Christian morality 3. Remove the bits you personally don’t like 4. Proclaim that it's self-evident 5. Ignore the meaninglessness of a Godless universe."
In a follow-up tweet, and in case you're curious, Salviander explains that since she receives the same criticism and arguments from atheists over and over, she's pinned a tweet to the top of her page linking to an article answering commonly asked questions and arguments from atheists. However, the above tweet is apologetics gold.
Step number one pokes at the wholly unsubstantiated claim that there is no God. Contrary to popular belief, Christians do not blindly believe in God. We look at the evidence and conclude that the data supports our belief in God. Atheists, on the other hand, blindly believe that there is no God. This is demonstrated by Salviander's next three steps.
Dipping into the evidence for the existence of a God, atheists pick and choose which parts of Christian morality they like and discard whatever they don't like. Paraphrasing a statement Douglas Wilson made to Christopher Hitchens, atheists hijack the Christian's car (morality) and then unwittingly crash it into a tree. The reality is that if the universe is impersonal, then morality is socially constructed with no basis in objectivity. Without a transcendent Being that has authority, no one can rightfully claim that it's wrong to do anything. Without the existence of a God, I am free to do whatever I want.
Sure, people can band together and form a society that restricts actions that they agree impede their collective goals. But, if another group takes power and decides to pursue goals that allow for previously restricted actions to be unrestricted, there is no outside authority to which those who disagree can appeal to. Might makes right.
Of course, this is why Salviander's step number five is needed in order to construct an atheistic philosophy. The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe.
Many atheists like to pretend that their position is the intellectual position. It's not. It's a wholly unsubstantiated claim that has to steal ethics from the Christian worldview in order to keep from promoting a society ruled by utter chaos. Sarah Salviander's tweet almost perfectly sums up the intellectual dishonesty inherent in atheism.
Tags
Who is online
478 visitors
“Might makes right.
Of course, this is why Salviander's step number five is needed in order to construct an atheistic philosophy. The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe.
Many atheists like to pretend that their position is the intellectual position. It's not. It's a wholly unsubstantiated claim that has to steal ethics from the Christian worldview in order to keep from promoting a society ruled by utter chaos.”
Atheism is an intellectually dishonest viewpoint. It is riddled with inconsistencies and is dependent upon the idea that life has no meaning and that the universe is utter chaos totally formed by random chance.
I'm sorry that you feel your life has no meaning without some evil boogeyman threatening to torture you if you don't worship it. My life has plenty of meaning.
And morality is not Christian. The Golden Rule far predates Christianity. It's actually an immoral stance to only behave because you think some god will reward you if you do, and punish you if you don't. Atheists are moral for its own sake - a much better mindframe. The bible is one of the most immoral books I've ever read - your god commands its followers to destroy an enemy tribe (including all women who aren't virgins) and then to rape and enslave the young virgin girls. It tells parents of disobedient children to have their neighbors stone the kids to death. Thank goodness I don't rely on THAT for my morality!
"Without the existence of a God, I am free to do whatever I want."
That's what Christian apologists think, actually. They think their faith alone gives them a get out of hell free card, and that as long as they worship God, they can do whatever they want and still have an eternal reward. It's sad that these people are so immoral that they admit that without their belief in a god, they wouldn't be able to behave. So they project their immorality onto atheists, because they apparently just don't have a real innate morality to fall back onto as we do.
Far from "destroying atheism," this twit just made it even clearer why some Christians are so full of crap and are so immoral.
"Atheists, on the other hand, blindly believe that there is no God."
Do you believe in unicorns or flying spotted hippos or leprechauns? Do believe in Isis or Zeus? If not, why not? I'd guess you don't because there is no evidence. I merely believe in one fewer god/supernatural being/fairy than you do, for the same reason you don't believe in those other gods/fairies/supernatural beings. It's not blind belief - it is merely the lack of evidence that makes us not believe. Not to mention that if I did believe in your god, I wouldn't worship it - I don't worship evil psychos who commit mass murder.
This former atheist the seed is about has triggered the musotheism infecting and being the true cause of atheism.
The true cause of atheism is intelligent and logical thinking, for most people.
In others, it's simply the lack of brainwashing.
That's weird, because for myself it was those two things that made me believe in GOD not some books written by men thousands of years ago.
Although my logical believe of GOD is more inline with what I now understand is a deist beliefs than any other religion.
How could I hate any mythology or superstition unless I ever believed in it?
Those who have been brainwashed into believing figments of the imagination are also not worthy of my hate, just my pity.
There attests who were once believers and there are former atheists who are now believers such as the topic of the seed.
And that means what exactly? There are also theists who became atheists too. Neither validates any claims about god or god's existence.
What the hell is musotheism?
Typically believers redefine atheism as a positive disbelief in a god. That is intellectually dishonest. While some atheists do go that far, most atheists simply lack belief that a god exists. Profoundly different positions. As for Christian evidence, it would be very intriguing to actually see this evidence. Claiming evidence is not nearly as good as actually delivering it. This article is no different. Note that no evidence is provided - only claims in passing.
Indeed. Without an arbiter there can be no objective morality. That would mean that morality, as we perceive it, is subjective (relative). Not surprisingly, that is exactly what we observe.
Except that we are all subject to our culture and societies. Our larger 'group' defines a subjective morality. This morality is not that of a god, but (as with our laws) it is binding. So, no, we are not free to do whatever we want. But yes, without a god there is no objective morality - morality is then at best of human origin.
That is correct. If there is no uber-authority then there is no uber-authority. If there is no god then there is no god. This is not an argument. It is an appeal to emotion. If we do not have objective morality we only have subjective (relative) morality.
If reality is undirected (i.e. no god) that does not mean there is no morality. It is odd that people argue that morality is all or none. Objective (god-determined) morality would be all or none. Subjective morality, however, does exist (we observe it) and will continue to exist as long as human beings are around. Not as cool as objective morality, but morality nonetheless.
Why does morality have to be Christian thing. Morality is a societal thing, not attributed to any one religion.
Example. It is now considered immoral to use children for labor, not so much in the past. It is now immoral to have relations with anyone under 18yrs old. Not so much in the past. It used to be immoral for girls to wear pants, not so much anymore. It used to be moral for governments to conquer less civilized and technologically advanced nations, not so much anymore....etc
This ladies whole premise is left wanting
Just think how immoral biblical marriage is to us now. Selling little girls to old men, forcing widows to marry their husband's brother, telling people to kidnap, enslave and marry little girls from neighboring tribes, saying that husbands can beat their wives ... we now consider those things immoral but, as you said, back then they were accepted as normal.
Her premise is 100% correct.
wow, best argument ever, i am totally changing my mind.
You didn't prove a damn thing and neither did she
Pick up a history book and underline all the places where the world has changed due to "Christian"/"Biblical" morality and underline all the areas where societal pressures has changed the morality and then get back to me on who won.
Would be nice for someone to identify what is "Christian" Morality really is also.
Without God there is no morality. He is the author of it. Without Him there would be no life. Just a void filled with chaos.
that would be filed under "your own personal belief" - of course some of us don't condone nor enthusiastically support slavery and murder as you do for your God and your God's "morality"
The concept of morality predates your religion by 2000+ years
The existence of the very secular concept of the ethic of reciprocity leaves your claims wanting. There is nothing to suggest that religious belief is inherently moral. More than 70% of the people in American are Christians is proof of that idea.
The lack of belief in a god is neither immoral or chaos.
How odd, considering god is one of the most immoral entities ever imagined, according to the bible. I guess god thinks slavery is moral and acceptable then, as he didn't outright prohibit it?
Still waiting for you to prove that. Otherwise, that's merely your own belief.
"The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe."
But the bible DOES tell me to take my neighbor's farm by force, and to murder all males and all non-virgin women living on it, and to kidnap, rape and enslave the young virgin girls. Well, an entire village, not just a farm. And that's even worse.
You have no moral ground to stand on. None at all.
Creation by God is the source of origin of the universe, this solar system, and all life including mankind. She is right in pressing that fact.
It is a shame that you cannot prove a word of that nonsense.
She is a liar.
True, whats your explanation, or do you offer one ?
1.) There is no god
2.) Religious belief does not in any way make a person moral because the belief in a god does not guarantee moral behavior.
Maybe to you,
I do have a GOD, it arranged all the atoms to be all that is. Can you disprove my GOD ? I offer no prove myself. So its OK if you can't. Feel free to try though. I'll check back.
Religious belief does not in any way make a person moral
I fully agree !
IMO: Most are religiously brainwashed, non thinking followers of someone else's ideas. Pawns usually for someone's benefit in some way as well.
I don't have to prove anything because I am not the person who is claiming that something exists. Something doesn't automatically exist until I can objectively prove that it does not. That is not how the burden of proof works. You are making a positive claim so the burden of proof is on your to prove your claim to be true.
I covered that:
I offer no prove myself.
Just offering the option, some like that.
On this matter no direct proof will come from God. People will believe by faith or not with the full eternal ramifications we all know about for either choice.
This claim didn't come from god because if it did then there would be proof that God exists but there is no proof of God existing.
Your belief that there is an eternity is completely unsupported by facts. I'd ask how would you feel after you die when you don't go to heaven, but there is no consciousness after the brain dies, so your thoughts will cease to exist.
No one asked for proof from god. Only from those who claim there is a god.
If there were a god, there would be no such thing as choice. But some of us are incapable of mere belief. We prefer actual evidence or proof.
I think it is the choice that so many don't like.
Otherwise, why does every single article dealing with anything remotely related to God or faith always boil down to "That's nice. Prove it."?
Ultimately it is because faith is belief in something without sufficient (or any) evidence. Evidence is the foundation of fact. Faith is not factual - it is merely believing something because some other human being claims it is true.
When someone makes a claim such as 'you will all burn in hell' or 'come judgment day you will regret your disbelief in God' or any other religious claim, that individual is simply parroting an idea that someone else claimed to be true. The natural response will be to corroborate the claim.
If someone told you that Allah demands you face Mecca and pray (submit) to him five times a day and the penalty for refusal is to be deemed an apostate, executed and then face judgment as a disbeliever, would you accept that on face value or would you challenge the claim?
For example, here is one Muslim's view of what happens when a disbeliever dies:
Is it wrong to wonder how this person knows this to be true? Should one simply accept this as true or should one seek evidence that supports these claims? After all, these are very serious consequences. Seems that if one does not believe in the right religion (and in the right way - e.g. pray 5 times a day) one will face eternal damnation.
As an adult, when people say stuff I don't believe is true, I have choices. I can let them think they are right and go about my business, knowing that I will suffer no ill effects from doing so, or I can make a fool of myself and start arguing with them.
Me, not being a Muslim, would simply ignore it and allow others to believe as they choose.
Why would I be bothered by something I don't believe is true regarding religion or God?
Why does every single argument remotely touching on religion or God devolve into "Prove it"?
Can atheists simply not be happy unless everyone believes as they do? Is that why so many of them constantly demean people of all faiths?
Because some people make affirmative declarations regarding god, so the logical response and expectation is the requirement of proof, or even evidence.
Part of it is that some people claim to have "truth" regarding god, when it is impossible to collaborate.
See first statement. A request for proof is a valid response to affirmative claims about god.
What makes you think atheists are unhappy? And what beliefs do atheists have exactly?
Challenging or analyzing the claims based on faith is not demeaning anyone.
Engaging in debate is foolish? Depends on the details, right? You 'argue' all the time on NT. Do you consider that making a fool of yourself?
My prior post addressed that.
Atheists are simply people who are not convinced in a god. People differ and thus you will see different behaviors. Demeaning people is never good; demeaning ideas is a very different thing.
Challenging claims is almost always good. It is through challenges (the dialectic) that human beings advance understanding of reality. One can choose to ignore whatever one wishes, but if one is in pursuit of truth one will likely challenge and debate rather than ignore with a dismissive 'whatever'.
I offered you an example of an Islamic belief. This is a belief that you likely do not share. Yet billions of people in the world consider you an apostate - an individual whom Allah will consider scum and cast away for eternity - a person who should be executed. It is easy enough to see how that can easily be turned by radical organizations into complete disregard for human life. Plenty of nasty things are taking place on the planet today and will continue for the foreseeable future all based on believing the claims of others as absolute truth.
Challenging beliefs that are not founded in evidence is a good thing.
There are plenty of people doing bad things on earth who don't subscribe to any religion or God.
it certainly does seem odd to me that many of the religious won't require any kind of evidence (empirical evidence, facts, logic) for something involving their religious beliefs - but they will certainly require/demand evidence (empirical evidence, facts, logic) for claims involving politicians, the President and other topics... makes me wonder why they won't take all of that stuff just on faith like they do with their religious beliefs ? what makes religious belief different ?
Because religious belief is based on faith. Without faith there is nothing. Not one person who ever lived, is living now, or will live in the future without faith and the resulting development of a relationship based on it and whatever best light they were shown will ever end up in Heaven.
why don't you take everything on faith ? why do you require facts/empirical evidence/logic for some topics but not others ? shouldn't you be consistent and require facts/empirical evidence/logic for everything ?
True. but some of us prefer facts and evidence.
Speak for yourself. It's quite sad if you think you have nothing without faith.
So you speak for god now? You know precisely what he will decide in the future? Wow, you must be as omniscient as god is if you know that. Or just plain arrogant to make such presumptions.
Without [ strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof ] there is nothing.
There is quite a bit more than nothing.
'There are plenty of people doing bad things on earth who don't subscribe to any religion or God.'
Well no duh right?
Who created God then?
Perhaps GOD
whose to say the creation isn't the creator and the creation all one and the same ?
Not I.
But my only GOD is whatever arranged all the atoms to be all that is.
I dont know any more, and dont feel I need to. I also dont really believe any other living human knows for sure either.
"Who created God then?"
Her name is yet to be revealed.
I see what you did there...
No one and nothing. God was not created and has always existed and always will.
The FSM created everything.
Once again: That's nice. prove it! Otherwise, that is just an empty declaration.
In the last days the great deceiver will supply “proof” tha “god” exists and it will be so convincing that the non believers and nominal believers will believe the direct signs and wonders they see and wander after the beast. Only the most devout will not fall for the impersonation deception and those will be severely persecuted by followers of the “proof”. Those demanding proof via signs and wonders will get their wish but it will come from the dark side.
You are parroting stories written by ancient men.
isn't it odd ? you'll state the Big Bang Theory (the *poof* into existence so to speak) is nonsense and pseudo-science yet you are peddling the same theory since your God was *poofed* into existence according to you.
The stories being parroted are not original to the Christian or even the Abrahamic religions.
Lots of parroting took place in the past too.
The worst source of information is that which relies solely on the word of another human being.
The best source of information is that which can be empirically measured and verified.
Personally, I favor the latter.
congrats Steve. Meet random chance, your creator and god over our meaningless existence.
Are we superior to those that lived before us?
I never said that. I said the opposite. That God was never created, never popped into existence from nothing, and never had a beginning. There was no beginning of time for Him. He has simply always existed. No beginning and no end.
But they are original to God who had believers before Abraham.
No, but we know substantially more than they did and -crucially- we can do our own thinking rather than simply accept that what they wrote is true. Especially when their words are so clearly errant.
there had to be a beginning for your God - everything has a beginning and an end , i'm not sure why you aren't aware of that. I guess if you believe in magic then anything is possible - including something never beginning an existence but suddenly just existing
O come on now KMG, Everything needs a friend. maybe GOD did to.
I like that better than thinking I was created to make it feel good for eternity.
"In the last days?' Rats. I want to see Ivanka pole dance now.
Ivanka is quite attractive.
But I sort of feel sorry for people so misogynistic that they can only see women as sex objects.
Poor unenlightened things.
The only thing that we can logically know has always 'been' is existence itself:
1. Things exist - existence is true
2. Something cannot come from nothing (literally nothing)
∴ Existence has always 'been'
If God exists then God is 'of' existence; God is a form of existence. God thus had a beginning or God is existence itself.
My comment was about Ivanka, not women in general.
Yes, I knew that when I read it.
Hence, my reply.
God said he always has been, that He had no beginning and has no end as in eternal into the past and into the future, and I’ll take His word for it.
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the expressions written by men and women inspired to write what they did by God. The only part literally written by God himself by His own hand is His eternal law, The Ten Commandments.
Your god needs meds for multiple personality disorder if he wrote both the Old and New Testament. Why is there 4 gospels that do not agree if you claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of your god?
The Bible was written by and has been edited many times by ignorant men, so which edition of the Bible is the correct one? When did your God tell you that it is true, or is this another of your beliefs?
I understand you believe that KAG, but it is a belief that contradicts the evidence.
If the Bible is the inerrant Word of a perfect God it would not contain errors. Further, which Bible do you think is the inerrant Word of God? Are you aware that the original source of the Bible does not exist? So even if the original Bible (whatever that might be) was inerrant, how do you claim that all the translated and edited versions over time are inerrant?
Without even getting into specific (and obvious) errors, not having the original source for the Bible means you cannot actually claim anything about its divinity or veracity because you are simply repeating claims made by edited, translated words at the hands of an uncountable number of human editors/writers.
His Deistic god is the only one that has even a very slight chance of being remotely possible. Your god is a 3rd-rate plagiarized myth by comparison.
Why do you have a problem with there being no meaning to your existence? The fact that life on Earth exists at all is random chance. Far more than 1/3 of people in the US were not planned by their parents.
In other words, you have no proof. Just empty assertions with no basis in fact. Got it. Can't say I'm surprised either.
Just another empty platitude and religious rhetoric.
Repeating your illogical nonsense doesn't make it any more true, nor you any more correct.
"Inspired" is meaningless and does not equate to actual or factual.
Really? Where's his signature then?
I am telling you for a fact that I have always been, I have had no beginning and no end, as in eternal into the past and into the future - will you take my word for it ? I could write it in a book if you wish as well - then you could read it, would that help ?
I know I was an oopsie
As was I, as I have learned recently.
That's nice. prove it!
I always had a crush of Cassiopeia.
They said she was vain. But she wasn't------------she was beautiful. She was right.