Wednesday, April 19, 2017

The past few days I posted much more quickly than usual, and I normally spend a lot more time going back over my posts to make sure they're acceptable. I've been pretty busy and stressed these days... maybe blogging is a reaction to stress. Chowon is very sweet, though, and I'm so blessed to be married to her. I couldn't ask for a better wife, and she is God's great gift to me all the time.

Looking back through those posts, I found a few small slips that were worth correcting, and a few careless descriptions, which I think might be worth wording more carefully.... but for the most part, I'm not displeased with the posts. I think there's a lot more work to be done before I'll feel like the ideas I'm trying to express are really clearly expressed. There is still quite a bit of room for interpretation in some of my points... but I was trying to keep it condensed. I keep being lazy on the Bible verses, for example. And saying things like, "you can't accidentally walk into a room where God is no longer the best ultimate foundation," and "we can't go 'ask dad because mom always says no'", is not exactly what I would regard as an effective articulation of the point. If a point is meaningful, then it can be fully articulated, I think. We shouldn't rely on "if you know what I mean" in any kind of argument. (That said, I do surely hope you know what I mean.) I intend to flesh those out more in the (hopefully near) future.

I want to clear up two potential objections with regard to my descriptions of Logic (big L) from earlier. 

It struck me that someone might say that the problem I raised in 2L ignores a potential solution by means of 1L. 1L was a proposed stance that one might take. The way I organized that post was a bit poor, but I certainly think that 2L was a refutation of 1L, and not the other way around. If our minds were truly formed in the image of "Logic" then there would be no room for a hypothetical situation where we find that we were wrong about a logical rule. 

That leads me to the second potential objection. I basically equated physics, math, and logic in a few of those points. I think it was a fair equivocation (not a fallacious one), for two reasons: First, every atheist I've ever spoken to has done the same exact thing when convenient, and with less grace. Plus, I've met several who also equivocated physics with biological evolution, which I think is a stretch by their standards. But that's not to say that "just because they make a stupid argument, I am justified in doing it" at all. I don't mean that. In fact, my second reason is, I think that all math and physics are extensions of logic. I think that if your science finds itself outside of the realm of logic, then you should abandon it. 

A. "but we don't know all the laws of physics" -- Exactly
B. "but particles behave unpredictably at the quantum level" -- I honestly think this is a ridiculous conclusion to draw from the evidence. If you build a house using unstable bricks, then you will have an unstable house. It is exceedingly more likely that the laws of physics are not completely ignored by small particles; rather, they're misunderstood in the case of both large and small particles.
C. "but Heisenberg said..." -- Just because we don't know how to determine something doesn't mean it's unknowable. We don't fully understand the properties of an electron.
D. "are you saying you know more than [insert favorite theoretical physicist]?" -- No. But do I have to be "smarter than" someone in order to know that they are wrong about anything?

Last thing for today, someone reading my prior posts might have picked up on the idea that I'm pretty well sold on "predestination". And, let's face it, I don't know what your translation says in Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:4-5,11-12, but mine says "predestined". I'll try to anticipate some quick questions on it:

A. "Then why do you pray?" -- Because I don't know the future, and the Bible generally encourages, if not commands prayer (see Psalm 55:22, 1 Peter 5:7, and the basically the entire rest of the Bible). The Bible says that God responds to our prayers (James 5:16), and so, as with my answer to B, we pray because it is the means by which God has determined to see that certain things come about. 
B. "Then why do you minister to others?" -- Because Jesus commanded it (Matthew 28:16-20), and because God predetermined that the means by which people would come to Christ was because of ministers (Romans 10:14-15).
C. "I'm not a Christian. Does this mean I'm damned?" -- Are you dead? Then no. You should come to Christ right now!
D. "How do I come to Christ?" -- You repent of your sins and turn to belief in Jesus Christ, who took the penalty for your sins. Then you will not have to bear the penalty yourself.
E. "Isn't that just shirking responsibility for my sins?" -- No. The first step is "repent". It's not shirking responsibility any more than apologizing and then devoting yourself to never do it again is shirking responsibility. Jesus is God, and so God may take the penalty upon Himself if He chooses, because He is both the judge and the one sinned against (Psalm 51:4). 
F. "What about all the places in the Bible where God gives us a choice? Or where He seems to change His mind?" -- God has always described this as his mode of interaction with us (see Jeremiah 18:7-10, also Deut 28). God isn't "changing His mind". Rather, He's acting according to the rules and standards of justice which He loves. A truly repentant heart is what God wants. And God does know what we will choose, and God did predetermine it. However, we do it because it's what we want to do, and not for any other reason. Nobody is saying "I don't want to steal this money, but I can't stop myself because I'm predetermined to do it". We are 100% responsible for our choices.

That's it! I'm sure there's lots more that can be said.

Good night!

"You're such a good dog"

Monday, April 17, 2017

Like I said before, this is the new repository for my poetry. Nobody who I know knew about my old poetry site, so I feel a little weird sharing this with people I know.... but for the time being, I don't know where else to put these.

----------------

can wisdom be lost after it was gained
once learned, do we grow or totally change
our thinking, "futile", she calls from the gate
love unrequited, we thoughtlessly hate

to hate or fear not, behavior alike
behavior forgotten; moment's respite
the heart or the rule, deciding what's right
to choose between is to choose by our might

would wisdom have known if wisdom had more
could we change our clothing and affect our core
were it a mistake, or revelator
of plans we don't know, nor can put to word

had we not done wrong, forgotten by name
perception estranged, of us not the same
for wisdom we lacked, for wisdom remained
but stayed we without, more wisdom we gained

----------------

I think a poem should have a name. (There are too many poets out there titling their poems "unnamed #1", etc.) Maybe this one can be called....

"Wisdom Learned"

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Another soon coming post. I want to add just a little bit of clarification to my intent on the last post, and talk about the role of logic (small "L") in the Christian paradigm. Also, I didn't get to humanism in my last post. I intend to tackle that sometime soon, hopefully.

So, in my last post, I pitted God against "Logic" (big "L"), where "Logic" was the proposed ultimate foundation from the atheist. We found that Logic does not have sufficient characteristics to act as an ultimate authority, and, one of my favorite points, since Logic doesn't teach us about itself (instead we learn about it from the world around us), attempting to use it as an ultimate foundation makes it essentially unknowable. (And just in case anyone was thinking this, using the physical world as our ultimate authority doesn't work either.).

This does not mean that "logic" (small "L") is abandoned by the Christian. Instead, logic is subordinate to our ultimate authority, God. That is to say, if God does something new, then we might have to rethink our conceptions of logical laws, but since God has revealed His character to us, we are able to live and breathe having dependence on God. I wouldn't say "God is sufficient grounds for our thoughts without logic", though, because the logical laws are effective simply because they are what God wants. To abandon logic would be to abandon the thing which God has established for us, and it would also be to abandon God as ultimate. The fact that things behave logically indicates that certain logical rules are loved by God, and so those qualities of reality proceed from His character. Thus it would be wrong to say "Christianity is illogical", but a more appropriate statement would be to say "Christianity understands why logic is as it is, (that it is subordinate to God's character), and keeps things in their proper order". Or, better stated, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

Now, I want to point out that above is (nearly) the first verse I've quoted in the past two or three posts. This is because I'm lazy. Sometime later, if I get the gumption, I'll go back and find all the verses that are supposed to be used to defend this system and then apply them here. Alternatively, you can go read Bahnsen's PhD work for the Bible study on the topic.

As I read back over the post, I noticed that I explained a lot of difficult points in very few, sweeping words. It makes me nervous, thinking that I haven't sufficiently explained it, but I'm starting to think that it's just very difficult to explain some of these things without a dissenting voice present to point out where you skipped a logical step.

Lastly, a word on Humanism (I didn't get to it last time): I've seen two types of humanists. First, the "human value-ist", who simply says that humans are the most valuable thing for no reason. Without a working ultimate reference to justify this, I hope we can all agree that it's moronic; (because it's openly arbitrary). The second is the "human ultimist", who claims "human ultimacy". I've encountered this type in two forms: first, the "demos ultimist", who says that the human population is ultimate. Second, the "me ultimist", who says that he himself is the ultimate.

So, the "me ultimist" finds himself in a rut as soon as he's wrong about something. His ultimate foundation fails whenever he makes a mistake on his math homework. I wouldn't depend on myself as an ultimate, and neither should any other human.

The "demos ultimist" says that "the people" are ultimate. That is, he believes that evolutionary trends will push society to better and better hights all the time, so whatever the general population agrees on today must be ok, and good will always win. Ignoring the fact that this doesn't actually posit a knowable ultimate foundation, it means that anything counterculture is intrinsically evil (think Martin Luther King).

OK! That's it for today. I'm planning to skim the last two posts a couple more times and look for things that might need clarification.

"I forgot the quote!"

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Alright, for today's (rather soon coming) post, I intend to lay out a very basic description of some characteristics of the Christian God and discuss why they're necessary. Then, I will do the same thing with "Logic", (which word I will be using in that context to describe the driving force in a secular materialist universe). We will find that Logic satisfies several of the conditions necessary to function as an ultimate foundation, but that it lacks in two very important ways: first (and most importantly) people can be wrong about Logic (and I'll discuss why this doesn't apply to the Christian God). Second, if Logic were the final ultimate, then it would also be the limiter of things, leaving incomprehensible (and therefore never asked) certain questions which we do ask and attempt to answer, because those questions would be unjustifiable by means of logic alone. Finally, I'll do some Q and A, and maybe discuss in more depth the case where someone has never heard of God, reasons for their condemnation, and a discussion about whether we should be morally indignant with God for their sake (why or why not). And, maybe, if there's space, I'll talk about why Humanism doesn't repair the leaky secular boat.

----------------------------------

So, first of all, some characteristics of God and of God's revelation to us. Most or all of this has been said before in my blog. God, being infinite, has revealed a lot of characteristics to us, some of which cannot be described with any small number of words. These characteristics are chosen for discussion because I think they are sufficient to establish a "way of thinking" about things, enabling the reader to go look at the Bible and see the other Characteristics about God, and perform similar exercises. Also, these characteristics are especially relevant to a discussion with secular materialists and secular humanists, because they participate in answering several objections from the nonbeliever.

1G. God as the first revelator. -- God's revelation is our first and best knowledge, and is prior to all other aspects of our thought or existence  It is necessary because it puts God's revelation prior to our fallible faculties. This is done, partly, by God making us in His image.

2G. God is omnipotent -- God is capable of doing anything that He wants, whenever He wants. There are no exceptions. This is necessary because it means that God can never be subverted; making Him a dependable foundation.

3G. God is omniscient -- God knows everything. Nothing is hidden from Him. Again, necessary because it means that God cannot be subverted or tricked. He is a reliable foundation.

4G. God is omnipresent -- There is no location where God's will is not effective. This is necessary because you can't just accidentally walk into a room where God is no longer the best ultimate foundation.

5G. God is honest -- God will never lie; everything God says is true. This and 3 make God a reliable source of information. We can trust God's revelation.

6G. God's revelation is to everyone, involuntarily -- God is no respecter of persons. Nobody will be able to say "I didn't receive God's revelation". This is necessary so that we don't have to wonder, "did God reveal Himself to me?". It also means that nobody can ever be wrong about God, (we'll talk more about this below).

7G. God is one God, supreme -- Two or more Gods means two different, separate, and somehow unique gods. All systems of which I am aware, which have more than one god, end up eventually either putting those gods at odds with one another or placing one above the other. Polytheistic faiths which call themselves "christian" (like the Jehovah's witnesses or LDS, though they are not true Christians), put Jesus below the father in power. Polytheistic "non-Christian" faiths pit their gods against one another. If there are two, then they are different, and thus have different wills. This unity is a necessary quality of God, so that there is just one, always consistent, always reliable source. We can't go "ask dad because mom always says no".

8G. God is a trinity -- This not only fits the evidence wonderfully, but it enables us to have a God who simultaneously limited himself, becoming of no accord, becoming as one of us, to empathize with us, and to reveal Himself to us in a way that we could comprehend, while also maintaining His omnipotence, and maintaining the separateness and distinction between Himself and us, the aspects of Him which are incomprehensible to our limited minds. Also, it enables us to handle issues related to sin and justice, by providing an infinite sacrifice to atone for our infinite debt.

[note: I included 7 and 8 to narrow the field, but I think they are more relevant to discussions with other religious people than to discussions with Atheists]

9G. God is a personal God. He chose to reveal Himself to us, and thus did so.The method of God's revelation. -- God is a personal God. He chose to reveal himself to us, and thus did so. God did so, specifically, by means of His own omnipotent power. This is necessary because it means that the revelation doesn't depend on us. Also, it enables us to account for things which are immaterial, such as our consciousness. This is also necessary because it enables a distinction between "omnipotent" and "unlimited". God is limited by His will, and nothing else, making Him truly ultimate in every way. An impersonal god becomes either unlimited or non-omnipotent. In short, a truly unlimited, impersonal, omnipotent being would necessarily be doing literally everything it was capable of doing, all the time.

10G. God's character and qualities are unchanging -- This does not mean that God's mood is unchanging, any more than hydrogen ceases to be hydrogen in the presence of the various elements with which it reacts quite differently (not a perfect example). God's character is unchanging, so the things He likes and dislikes will never change. God's qualities are unchanging, so, for example, He will always be omnipotent.

----------------------------------

OK. Now let's do the same thing with Logic (this was a really fun thought experiment the first time I did it). I will phrase these from the perspective of the "Logicist", with some scattered commentary by me the Christian. So, it might say "Logic is omnipotent", though I don't believe that.

1L. Logic as the first revelator -- Since the universe evolved out of some [[insert quantum speculations here]], by means of logical processes, we are made essentially in the image of Logic. We think logically because of the way our atoms are arranged in our minds.

2L. Logic as omnipotent -- One might say that Logic determines everything that happens everywhere, and strictly speaking, everything which is logical does happen. In this way, it might partially satisfy this statement, and it otherwise seems to satisfy the intent. However, Logic is not truly omnipotent, because it is neither personal nor real; it's a set of abstract rules which are binding on everything. Since it is not a real thing, but rather a description of the way that other things behave, Logic finds itself limited by literally every other thing. This means that we don't actually know how things will behave, because as soon as something acts strangely we will have to simply say that the rules we thought we knew don't actually apply. Logic, therefore, if a set of rules which govern everything actually exist, is essentially unknowable, and so any set of logical rules which we want to define in order to presuppose them would be arbitrary.

3-4L. Logic as omniscient and omnipresent -- Logic is fundamental to, and included in, all information about the physical world.

5L. Logic is honest -- it never lies. It's a reliable source of information.

6L. Logic as having revealed itself to everyone, involuntarily -- This requires further examination. How does a person, made in the image of Logic, come to illogical conclusions, especially when the relevant information is readily available? To wit, we can be wrong about logic, and this wrongness is not only common, but also not due to any fault of our own; it is unintentional, and happens only because our minds are imperfect. This lack of universality in the mind undercuts 1L. The reparative option would be for the Logicist to say that all people know true Logic, but they actively choose to deny it because of their sinful opposition to it. However, this places Logic as an authority figure, in a world where the concept of authority doesn't exist, and anyway sometimes even the most ardent Logicist might make a rudimentary algebraic error. The issue is that "how much of Logic was revealed initially" cannot be defined in such a way that it allows for Logic to fulfill the other requirements (its impersonal nature allows no arbitrary division between its parts, where some are revealed now and others later, to a mind strictly made in its own image, while still allowing error in the former parts after revelation of the latter parts).

More concisely, why would a person actively choose to reject logic? It is illogical to do it, and Logic contains no mechanism for generating objects which defy itself. The answer is that persons do not actively choose to reject logic; they do it accidentally, and they do it at all levels. People can be wrong about Logic.

Furthermore, in my experience, the word "involuntarily" doesn't apply to Logic. I've met some people who would attempt to place Logic as ultimate in retrospect, after deduction, but I've never met anyone who truly did so a priori. They would say that they were doing it a priori, but when asked 'why?', they would respond with something like "out of necessity", or "nobody lives like that". When pressed on what they meant by "out of necessity", the responses came down to things like "to survive", etc. such that survival was the reason for applying Logic. Logic was not the ultimate foundation, they had arbitrarily assigned goals for themselves (survival, happiness, etc.), and Logic was the only means to achieving those goals. That said, several Christians would make this same mistake in describing God's revelation, so it doesn't strictly mean that Logicism has failed on this account, but until I meet a Logicist who doesn't make this mistake I can only suppose that it is a normative characteristic of the religion for some reason.

7L. Logic as one set of rules, supreme -- I think Kant would have something to say about this.

8L. Logic is not a trinity. It attempts to explain not sympathy, nor justice, nor our qualities, nor its own qualities. #8 is not applicable.

9L. Logic as impersonal -- This impacts the discussion of omnipotence above. Apart from the (perhaps obvious) implications that can be drawn by reading and then negating the things written in 9G, an impersonal foundation also leaves our worldview broken in another way. Log only deals in "what" and "how". However, we are philosophers, asking stupid questions all the time; we want to know "why". The quippy refutation of the ontological argument finds its messenger delivering descriptions of things non-logical, never seen nor experienced. Either Logic must find a way to account for things non-logical, or Logic is not the end and final foundation for everything.

10L. Logic as eternal and unchanging -- If this were true about our current conception of Logic, then the laws of thermodynamics would have reduced {U} to oblivion an eternity ago. Suppose then that we don't fully understand Logic; it must be reasonable since we don't fully understand God either, right? The problem is, we don't know how much of Logic is known vs how much is misunderstood.

----------------------------------

OK, So, answers to some potential questions:

Q. If nobody can be wrong about God, why are there so many religions?
A. They know the truth about God, but they reject God because they dislike the truth and the true God for this or that reason. There are no accidental rejections of the true God.

Q. What about people who have never heard of the Christian God?
A. They know that God exists, and they know right from wrong. If they lived a sinless life, then they would escape hell. Yet they still do wrong. Thus, they know enough for their condemnation.

Q. How can a good God send them to hell?
A. This question comes from a person who underestimates the seriousness of sin. A more appropriate question would be, "How can a just God not send everyone to hell"? The Bible teaches us that God has chosen, because of his will and not because of any merit of ours, an elect group to which He would show his mercy, and God chose that the rest would receive their just punishment. God is able to do this while still being just, because His son absorbed the penalty for the sins of the elect (see Romans 9).

Q. Does this mean, from an epistemological standpoint, that I can just claim any god I want, as long as it meets the above qualities? Like what about the Muslims?
A. No. We didn't talk about Islam in this post, but it's wrong for other reasons. This post was mostly targeting secularism. The full list necessary qualities which a God must have in order to be the ultimate foundation for our reasoning is identical to the list of all of the qualities of the Christian God.

Q. You didn't explain X, Y, or Z, objections that I have to Christianity.
A. That's right. I didn't. I can't guess at what other objections you have. Comment them or something, and I'll get to it.

"You tell me 'stop judging', but that's judging me."

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

So it's pretty late tonight. I had to make a Walgreens run to pick up some ibuprofen. I stopped to get chocolate milk while I was there, and I was (and am) pretty tired, so errors in my perception were especially drawn-out and noticeable. After looking for some time at the different kinds of flavored milk beverages available, I turned my head towards another section of the refrigerator, and for a split second, I could not at all comprehend its contents. I was so focused on chocolate milk that when I was confronted with a non-dairy product I almost attempted to assume that it was just strange looking milk. I very quickly realized, however, that the section contained novelty microwaveable snacks (or something, I actually don't remember, haha).

It got me thinking about how, even when we are level-headed, we make the same mistake on a different scale. I heard about a Mormon who converted to Christianity aright, and when he looked through his old missionary KJV he noticed that he had highlighted several verses which seemed to agree with his previous view when taken alone, but the surrounding verses which disagreed with Mormonism were not highlighted, and he thought it was as if he had never even noticed them before. He just glossed over them because he didn't understand them. I hope I am able to discover areas in my life where I do this and correct those areas; I think it's likely something that everyone does to some extent.

-----------------------------

But, towards my earlier promises, I want to do some work here on apologetics. Like I said, I have some "logical proofs" (which are really not proofs in the formal sense), that the external world exists and is knowable, (but they aren't really even that as much as they are practical demonstrations that we are incapable of completely abandoning the notion that the external world exists, is knowable, and is logical). I'll put these out there as food for thought, but I want to stress that I haven't fully blogged the epistemological groundwork needed to make sense of these yet (in an absolute sense. They might make sense to you without me explaining it, but some hot-shot atheist out there is gonna think he can beat me up for lack of a discussion).

To clarify in advance, when I say "know", I mean, "have absolutely justified knowledge, and absolutely know the absolute justification for it". The question may come, "what if a perfectly reasoned argument refuted the thing you know?", and the answer is, "that is impossible." It would be the same as asking "what if A = Not A?"

Here's the first one. It's a modified version of the classic "Sye Ten Bruggencate" proof. It's not my favorite, but it's fun to think about:

Context: The atheist says, "It is impossible to know absolute truth", which is to say, "it is impossible to know the real qualities of reality".  
Premise: Reality exists outside of us, even if we can't know it.  
Body: Is the assertion of the atheist absolutely true? Since reality exists, the answer to this question exists as a quality of reality (even if you may not know the answer). If you say "yes", then the answer is inconsistent with the context statement, because it is an absolute truth which you know. If you say "no", then the statement "it is impossible to know..." is outside the realm of things which are absolutely true, and so it is not consistent with reality, and so it is false. Neither "yes" or "no" is a valid answer. The most consistent answer for an atheist to give is, "I don't know". However, you haven't escaped the problem by answering this way, because a thing is either absolutely true or it isn't. So you refusing to answer the question doesn't negate the fact that an answer exists
One of the common objections I've heard to this is "You snuck in absolutes". Since atheists tend to deal in "confidences" rather than "absolutes", they are in a strange place demanding freedom to claim logical coherence, because logic deals exclusively in absolutes ("A = A" is a common logical assertion, "A = maybe A" is not). That's why the common objection from atheists, "you snuck in absolutes" is a ridiculous objection similar to, "you snuck in logic".

And here's the second one. The format for this one was requested by an atheist in a discussion some time ago. We had discussed for long enough that he had finally admitted "solipsism is an unanswerable problem", with the implication 'unanswerable within his worldview'.

I. Presuppose a perceivable, uniform external reality
II. In order for a worldview to be correct, it should allow for I
III. Uniformity cannot be in chaos (by definition) 
P1. Presuppose Atheism
P2. Solipsism follows from P1
P3. Chaos is characteristic of solipsism P2
P4. Apply III to P3: P1 does not allow for I
C. P1 is wrong (II and P4) 
Clarifications:
"I" is implied by something you've said ('we do science without solving the problem of solipsism'). 
"III" is a logical law 
"P3" references a functional chaos -- The definition of "chaos" I'm working with is, 'unknowable and unpredictable'. For example, there is no knowable pattern to the contents of a set of random numbers, and so the random numbers are unpredictable. In the same way, solipsism says that the world is unknowable and (since it is unknowable, it is also) unpredictable.
It's worth noting that I didn't write the possibility that "I or II is wrong" into "C". The reason for this was: 
P1. "Right and wrong" pertain to adherence to a rule
P2. Rules depend on uniformity
C. Without uniformity, judgments about right and wrong are impossible 
So basically, the fact that we're using "proofs" and "demonstrations" of right and wrong requires that we already accepted "I" and "III", and we implicitly apply "II" when we judge proofs offered by others. 
Here's the third one. This one is mostly just for fun. I don't know how well it would survive scrutiny.
Premise: Reality doesn't exist outside of me.
Body: My existence in time requires me to perceive that I have some faculties (be they thought or perception.) For lack of an external reality, my subjective faculties are functional without reference to an external reality. For example, I have subjectively determined that a certain type of sensory data constitutes hunger, and hunger is alleviated by biscuits. If I perceive that I am hungry, and then I "subjectively presuppose" that I have a biscuit, my hunger will only go away if my biscuit presupposition is functional.  
Now, if I find that I am unable to presuppose a functional biscuit, then we may draw two conclusions. First, that my senses are operating independent from my reasoning faculties. That is to say, my senses are external to "me", and whatever data they present to me is produced outside of my reasoning faculties. Second, that my reasoning faculties do not govern my senses, but rather are limited by them. Hereby I might conclude that something exists outside of myself (my senses exist outside of myself).
Now then, like I said before, the epistemological framework hasn't been fully laid on my blog yet. Simply pointing out problems in atheist thinking isn't enough. We have to present a functioning alternative. I started that in my defense before my long pause on the blog, but I hope to polish it up a bit more.

Last thing. I connected atheism to solipsism explicitly above without much discussion about the relationship, and I know that some people out there cling to the notion that "atheism" does not necessitate "solipsism"; and they support this by saying things like "atheists can be Buddhists, or spiritists, or anything that doesn't include a nominal god". First of all, the statement removes clarity from the discussion: I have never met a Buddhist or spiritist who called himself an atheist, (they call themselves Buddhists or spiritists), but I've met several secular Darwinists who did. Second, even if they did call themselves atheists, it doesn't matter, because their worldviews also eventually lead to absurdity (and thus resolve to solipsism).  Finally, the statement is philosophically lazy; in short, atheism removes ultimate foundations such that knowledge (in the sense I defined above) is impossible, leaving only conjecture without justification.

"Thanks for the encouragement :)"
Map
 
my pet!