No-thing vs Christianity
CHRISTIANITY VS. NO-THING
Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything. To claim they know anything is inconsistent with their starting points of nothing.
So the question is not about theists vs. atheists. The question has to be Atheists vs. Christians, since a general theists worldview will not do. It has to be one that is within reason, and only Christianity fits this.
I've already made my arguments why elsewhere. So I will not repeat my deductive logic. However, Since I do not believe in Atheism, then the atheist must provide their type of proof for their position.
etymologically speaking, an atheist is one that claims an epistemology in no God or gods. So then, they must, via an infinite epistemology, provide such evidence within their means of knowing, to claim this is so.
Of course they cannot do this. So then, by definition they cannot be atheist. So then, these past 50 years, they've come up with a solution to the problem. Let's redefine our terms so that way they fit into what we are trying to say.
And you came up with George Smith type atheists (soft atheists) that say, oh no, we believe in a lack of faith. This is fun.
However, they do this without defining faith. Nobody knows what they are talking about. (You on here who are educated in this can help define what they mean via documentation).
Biblical Faith is interchangeable with belief and knowledge. Thus Biblical faith is knowledge. It believe what I know and I know what I believe. Unlike the liberal Kant who made a logical fallacy of a dichotomy this area. Thus faith is knowledge.
You cannot redefine the Christian Bible's understanding of faith. You do this among the uneducated Christians and they are fooled very easily. Perhaps the atheists are doing this out of ignorance. Kirkegaard is not the definition of Biblical faith, the Bible is where the definition comes from.
So if Faith is knowledge (Biblical understanding), and soft atheists are lack of faith, then logically they are lack of knowledge. They have defined their lack of according to the Biblical understanding of faith. Thus they admit the logical consequence that they lack knowledge.
This is logic consistency folks. Pretty simple stuff.
So since atheists lack an epistemology, they must borrow others and cover it up.
At this point we must refute empiricism, since this is their new mode of "thinking." Empiricism has been refuted already. I will do this in another article perhaps.
And this is why the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) credits the very beginnings of science to Christians, (NOT ATHEISTS). Funny stuff. They did this because atheism has nothing to give. They admit ignorance and they admit science at the same time. Completely funny due to absurdity.
I argue that atheists CANNOT know science or anything. They have a non-science, a fake science. Only Christians can have a proper science in anything. Since all is relative, then this would include science.
They are hypocrites. They claim knowledge is impossible to brainwash our kids, and then claim to know everything about science. Which is it pal. Do we have multiple personalities in atheism or something.
Thus it is no-thing vs. Christianity. Atheism vs. Christianity. To simply argue anything of intelligence is a refutation of the no-thing since it claims nothing.
The absurdity is extremely hilarious. Good luck getting out of that one.
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).