Dear Mr. Atheist:

Greetings, my dear confused friend, Mr. Atheist. I have desired

for such a long time to dialogue with you about your most morbid and

despairing view on life, and would have contained myself from doing

so, until I heard you speak about how you had elevated your philo-

sophy from despair to hope. I mean, come now Mr. Atheist, you can't

expect us to be convinced that you consider yourself a "person" now,

and that there truly is a difference between "right" and "wrong", or

that you are any more than the matter you are made of, since you now

boast of a human "soul" or "spirit". My arrogant friend, you are

beginning to sound far too religious. Any man in his right mind

surely knows that these terms are those founded and defended by your

so-called "opium of the masses"; those intolerant, hypocritical,

ignorant, poor, confused people (as you surely shouldn't hesitate to

admit) that claim to know God and serve Him. Poor wretches, haven't

they heard that there is no God, nor will there ever be a God (a

truth of which you are quite convinced).

As for your first claim, your claim that you are truly a

personal being, please I beg of you, give me one rational reason why

you should most brazenly boast of this matter. You, of all people,

should realize that all of the known universe (besides this black

sheep we call man) is of a non-personal nature.

A person wills, is self-conscious, communicates, appreciates,

loves, grows in intelligence, and displays a certain amount of

self-will. Now, that I am a being wholly composed of matter is one of

the fundamental tenets of your camp. That I am nothing more than this

body combined with complexity is the position upon which you must

defend (even though of late many of you are speaking of a "soul" or

"spirit", terms in which you should know better in using, but more on

that later). When it comes to the nature and being of man, your

belief (and oh how you hate that dreaded word!) is in the philosophy

of materialism. You boldly claim that "Everything that is, is

material". You blindly assume the validity of the theory of

empiricism which states that knowledge must be restricted to those

objects which can be perceived by our senses. Thus a man and a rock

are, in your theory, relatively the same. Both are just a collection

of atoms. The only apparent difference (and in this philosophy the

key word is "apparent", since in essence, there really is no

difference) is that one is more complex than the other. Yet since I

am material (and only material) and the rock is material, we find

ourselves in a dilemma. Either I must explain why I, as a

self-conscious individual, can feel, reason, think, love, hate, etc.;

or I must explain why the rock does NOT think, feel, reason, love,

hate, etc.

But oh how we strive as man to think that we have a dignity, an

honor, something that will explain why we seem to be different in a

much greater way than just mentioned from a rock. That there is no

essential difference, you, my cavalier Mr. Atheist, must boldly


But this conclusion is ridiculous and is not satisfying to

modern man's reasonings. Do you mean to tell me a totally impersonal

universe all of a sudden puked up this freak of nature, this orphan

of orphans, this being who claims to have self-consciousness and

self-will, and left him to fend for his own against an entire

universe of impersonal things! Poor, poor man! He cries out for an

answer to his personhood, for a reason for his apparent uniqueness

and dignity, but there is no explanation, nor will there ever be an

answer, for there is nothing and no one to answer him. He is a fluke,

a mistake, a slip, an error, a blunder, the world's greatest blooper.

And as man strives for a hope, an answer, anything that may make it

seem as if he has any inherent value or worth, he must rest quietly

in despair and truly realize that he was never meant to be; a

solitary creature of chance who is unlike anything else in all of

creation. So my dear Mr. Atheist, far from being a person, you must

rest assured in the "fact" (for it is the logical conclusion of your

view) that though we may refer to man as a personal being (for it is

a comfort to think of ourselves that way, seeing that that is how

things appear to be), we are deceiving ourselves and must accept

ourselves as we really are: Complexity plus matter.

My, my, my Mr. Atheist, what a complex machine you are! A toast

to this freak of the universe called man; three cheers for the orphan

of the cosmos. Hip, hip, hooray, and all that rot.

"Ah, but it is not nice to call people machines," you say. "It

is not proper, nor mannerly, nor right to talk about people so rudely

with no regards for their feelings."

I'm sorry, but did I hear you correctly. Did you say that

something was not "right"? Do you mean that it is "wrong" then? Do

you mean that it is "evil" and not "good"? Wait a minute, Mr.

Atheist, there you go using those religious words again. You've got

to stop that you know, it could ruin your reputation. "Right,"

"wrong," "good," "evil," are words that indicate that there is some

ultimate and absolute standard of morality. You know that can't be

true. If there is nothing else of which you can be confident, you are

absolutely (absolutely?!) sure of this one fact: All truth is

relative. You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to promote your

morality on others. How judgmental, how intolerant, how

self-righteous of you. Are you of the opinion that your standard is

any better than mine? Shouldn't you rather say, "It is my own

personal opinion that you should not refer to people as machines."

Then I could reply that, "It is my own personal opinion that we

should call people whatever we darn well please." We would then be in

a dilemma. We have two opposing views. How will we know who is right?

We will attempt to compare both our views to a perfect standard, and

decide which view better conforms to that standard. But wait! Where

did the standard come from? Surely not from the impersonal universe,

for an impersonal universe can offer no personal moral guidance. It

is then reasonable to assume that there is no absolute moral

standard. Therefore, if I say, "It is my own personal opinion that

the purpose of life is to purge the planet of this evil, orphan

entity; man," and you say, "No! The continuation of the human species

is of utmost importance," then I would have to reply, "Why?" Well,

why? Man is just a fluke, a blunder, a cosmic mistake, we have

already proven that. You think the human species is valuable and

should be continued at all costs, and I think that the human species

is a stench in an impersonal universe's nostrils and should be

exterminated at all costs. Who's right? Surely, you're not going to

give me any self-righteous bull and assure me that your view must be

right. I will just have to counter you and say my view must be right.

You see, "right" and "wrong" have no meaning in our conversation.

Neither term stands for absolute rightness in all situations and at

all times or absolute wrongness in all situations, at all times.

"Right" and "wrong" in our conversation stand for nothing more than

our own opinions. You must admit, that unless you are still hanging

on by a thread to the Judeo-Christian ethic, that it is quite

possible that the extermination of the species of man might be the

answer to all things. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there truly are

no morals Mr. Atheist, just opinions.

My, my, my Mr. Atheist, what a self-righteous bigot you are.

You see, I rather think it is quite "right" to refer to

something truly. A dog is a dog is a dog is a dog I say. If someone

is a wonderful machine, I don't mind telling them a bit. And if they

are a useful machine, I especially like to complement them. Of

course, if they are handicapped and broken, inconvenient, or just

plain don't fit in well with the other machines, then again I don't

mind telling them that they need to move over and make room for the

better machines. Utilitarianism, they used to call it. Society, the

mass of people, decide what is right and wrong based on the innate

worth of each machine's contribution to the society as a whole

(understand that "right" and "wrong" in this context is in relation

to society and its welfare, and not to any outside absolute standard;

just the way we like it, huh Mr. Atheist). A society where those in

power are assured of being major contributors and can therefore

direct the society in the direction which they think is best for the

majority of the machines. A philosophy that is founded upon

pragmatism and the changing views of those in power. Ah yes, nothing

like seeing a machine that never got past pre-building stages, that

would have had no use in society (and not only that, but would have

been a tremendous inconvenience to the incubator apparatus), being

terminated and disassembled to make room for those who will benefit.

It's a wonderful thing striving for the good of society, don't you

think, Mr. Atheist (kinda' brings a tear to my eye just thinking

about it).

Ah, Mr. Atheist, defender of truth, moral values, social

welfare, peace and good-will among men. Where would we be without

your great knowledge which transcends the minds of men everywhere! A

knowledge that erects such structures as Utilitarianism, Pragmatism,

Materialism, Marxism, Euthanasia, Abortion, and all other strange and

wonderful things which further the cause of mankind. God bless you,

Mr. Atheist! Oops, I'm sorry (I used the G word, that should only be

used in church, or in cussing, along with the J word), I meant Sod

bless you! You know, sod, the ground, the earth, your mother. After

all, you did spontaneously generate from the materials of your

wonderful mother. It can truly be said then, in a sense, that she is

your mother. I know, I know, you don't buy this new paganism which

gives personality and will to material things, ...yet aren't.. you...

just... material; matter and nothing more. Don't you claim to have

(in spite of all evidence to the contrary) personality, will, and

morals. Didn't she in a sense, even in a remote back-handed way, give

birth and life to you? Ascribing personality to material objects

isn't that far-fetched an idea now, is it, Mr. Atheist! You should


Mother Earth has truly blessed us with such wonderful machines,

hasn't she, Mr. Atheist. Since we all came from one source, maybe we

are all one after all. Maybe we need to get back to basics, to find

ourselves in the nature that gave birth to us. Maybe we can tap into

the creative powers that gave us consciousness. Maybe, if we can just

get in touch with that oneness within ourselves, then we can share it

with others, and mankind could truly experience peace. Maybe we are

the g...ods?! We are unique, you know.

And now, dear Mr. Atheist, you have gone full circle. In denying

the fact that there is an transcendent, rational, personal God which

created all, you have come to find that the next best substitute for

that God is man himself. You have come to worship yourself in a

sense. You believe that mankind can perfect himself, regardless of

all the evidence to the contrary. You believe that the changing tides

of society (mankind in plural) can define morals. You are convinced

that there is a reason to exist, even though you are a mistake to

start out with. You have come to the pinnacle of your evolution. The

next big step could be the G word (Of course, then you will have to

retract your belief in atheism, for atheists say that there is no God

now, nor ever will be one). Mankind, the greatest machine ever known,

master of his destiny, maker of all morals, the supreme being in

every sense of the word!

In the final analysis Mr. Atheist, you have a greater faith than

I. "Oh come now," you exclaim, "surely you jest." But it is true, Mr.

Atheist. For some reason you claim to be personal when an impersonal

universe does not produce personal beings. For some reason you claim

to have ethics, but there is no reason for anyone to be assured that

your values are more "right" than any other person's. Disregarding

logic altogether, you would have all men to believe that (1) life

came from nonlife, (2) personality came from non-personality, (3)

everything ultimately came from nothing, (4) order came from chaos,

(5) reason came from irrationality, and (6) morality came from

amorality. Quite a list of premises wouldn't you say. I find it awful

hard to believe such preposterous claims without some evidence. HOW

COME YOU DON'T? Is it because the only other alternative,

that's not possible. Forget I even said anything. Let's just suffice

it to say that you have faith. Yet it is not the kind of faith that I

have. You see, there are two kinds of faith. Faith based upon

evidence, and faith irregardless of the evidence. The first is called

evidential faith, the second is called blind faith. The six premises

listed above that you would have me to believe: Can you give me ample

evidence that they are true? Or must I just believe them with a blind


Thanks, Mr. Atheist, but no thanks. I'll stick with my faith

founded upon evidence. You see I believe that a personal, infinite,

rational, loving God created the universe. Because He is personal, He

has the capabilities to create a personal being. Because He is an

infinite, rational Creator, He has the ability to lay down an

absolute moral code that He has the right to impose upon His

creation. Because He is loving, He has made Himself known in the

person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ claimed to be God the Son made

flesh, sharing in our humanity. Jesus Christ claimed to be the only

way to God. God the Father set His seal of approval upon the

testimony and teachings of Jesus by raising Him from the dead so that

He lives forevermore at the right hand of the Father. The proof for

the veracity of the resurrection is overwhelming and thoroughly

convincing when examined. I believe that Jesus truly rose from the

dead, and that He is the Lord of the universe. I believe that because

of the great mass of evidence. How about you, Mr. Atheist? Are you

willing to examine the evidence, or will you continue with your vain

hope and your blind faith? Of course, if you want to examine this

with an open mind, you'll have to go through a bit of an alteration.

You'll have to at least admit the possibility of a personal,

infinite, rational God. To do that we will have to change your name.

You'll have to change your name to Mr. Agnostic. This won't be too

painful and hopefully you won't have to keep this name too long (it

does seem a little awkward, doesn't it). After you have examined the

evidence, we can then change your name back to Mr. Atheist, or to Mr.

Christian, whichever you prefer, depending upon what you decide.


Mr. Evangelist


Written by: Richard J. Vincent

If you would like to examine the

evidence, you may either write me,

leave a message on this BBS, or

contact me on Prodigy KDCB44A. You may

also phone me at 317-271-0864.

Index of Articles of Interest    Home

  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 |216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268 | 269 | 270 | 271 | 272 | 273 | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | 285 | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | 297 | 298 | 299 | 300 | 301 | 302 | 303 | 304 | 305 | 306 | 307 | 308 | 309 | 310 | 311 | 312 | 313 | 314 | 315 |316 | 317 | 318 | 319 | 320 | 321 | 322 | 323 | 324 | 325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333

These articles are free from, the complete christian resource site with more than 5000 webpages.  Redistribute freely with this link intact. NB:follow the respective authors copyright instructions!

Home | Bible versions | Bible Dictionary | Christian Classics | Christian Articles | Daily Devotions

Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD

BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages

Our sponsors:   W8MD sleep and weight loss center