~The Absurdity of Atheism~ by Ken Hensley, disc 1 (An Atheist's Review)

In the beginning and in the end, Atheism is a very simple concept: The lack in the belief of theism. This is not to say that it is impossible to have a creator. This is not saying that atheists “believe” in Evolution instead of Creationism. It means that we do NOT believe. It’s the absence of belief. It’s not antitheism, which would indicate that we believe that there is no god or gods in the world, no creator of anything. By the different definitions of these words, Atheism is truly very much akin to what I used to call myself. I used to call myself a follower of “agnostic atheism”. By the nature of these two words put together, it indicates some sort of belief system. “I do not know for sure if gods exist or not, but if they do, there is no proper evidence in them, so I will not believe.” This isn’t exactly a belief in itself, but the connotations of calling oneself an “agnostic atheist” doesn’t exactly go over very well in debate with Christians. Instead, I will simply refer to myself as an Atheist, and from there, I can properly explain what atheism means without creating an unnecessary atheistic subculture in someone’s head.

Ken Hensley says this is how Christians generally try to convince people of their point of view: With evidence, with rationality, or presuppositionally (assuming something IS true to support your argument). He will be focusing on the third point because obviously, the evidence-based and rationality-based approaches always fail. Hands down. However, I will debunk all of this man’s claims based on this approach. Ken’s suppositional arguments for the existence of God contain circular logic (which leads nowhere), accusations that make no sense, and arguments that have very simple answers. If he did his research and was not a totally hopeless religious bigot, maybe he would realize this.

Right from the beginning, he is admitting that he will be saying that the CATHOLIC version of God’s existence will be argued for on this lecture set. The Catholic church chose the books in the Bible, the Bible is what he believes in, so thus his arguments will PROVE that the Catholic side of Christianity is correct. Oh, this will be a fun ride.

Here’s his argument’s key standing point: “God exists, and if you deny God’s existence, all kinds of impossibilities are going to follow and you are not going to want to accept them.”

He goes on to state that any atheistic worldview destroys morality, meaning (I assume he’s talking about our purpose in life), and knowledge. I’m on track two, 2:41 minutes in at this point. To back up why he should argue presuppositionally, Ken is referring to the Bible itself for his foundation. Note that by basing the entire argument on his holy book, he is setting himself up for petitio principii, “begging the question”, or a “circular argument”. Right from the START Ken is screwing things up. Your basis or foundation for an argument needs to be strong so it can support your other ideas. You build on top of your foundation. Ken is going to be arguing against atheism. Atheists generally deal with science and evidence-backed studies and arguments. Because you are basing your argument on a biased source that proves very little about the true history of the times, your entire structure comes tumbling down. Any intelligent atheist who knows WHY he’s an atheist will see through this right at the beginning.

Ken is now raging against epistemological relativism. He sets this up with a quick explanation, and then states that every viewpoint should be respected except Christianity. This man is BITTER. Christianity attempts to prove itself as 100% true via scientific evidence these days. They fail. Why does Christianity continually get less respect? Because they are saying things are true which are found to be not true. When you claim something has a foundation that is supported by scientific evidence, then you open yourself up for scrutiny. If it turns out you are wrong, well, then you won’t be respected. Your viewpoint is allowed respect in the social setting, but don’t try to bust into science if you’re not willing to accept the consequences. Also notice Ken’s bias by not mentioning any other religion. Whoops, now he’s back to supporting his claim that epistemological relativism with quotes from the Bible. You foundation is quicksand, stop trying to build on it. But will he stop? Nah, this man is determined. He’s a MACHINE. And what the HELL is a “heart of hearts”? He uses this term throughout the entire lecture series. This is a phrase that the Christian may feel means “soul”, or one’s god given feelings inside their heart, or something to that nature. This is a feel-good phrase, nothing more.

A story Ken presented about “Survival of the Fittest” consisted of him walking into a classroom, picking up a weak female student from her front row seat, and throwing her away from it so he could take this seat. When angrily questioned why he did this, he responded that he was merely carrying about survival of the fittest, because that’s what evolution is all about, right? With a clouded mind, this could seem like a valid argument. There are many points here that need to be made. What does getting the best seat in the classroom do to enhance your survivability? Was that woman a threat to you? When you are part of a collective (such as a tribe, a pack, a herd, a society), then doesn’t working together with your fellows ensure better survivability of your species? Ken demonstrates misguided human interpretation very clearly, but it doesn’t debunk evolution or “survival of the fittest”.