The Empirical Proselytizers

Logic - an intransient, universal abstract cannot be empirically tested. Yet, atheists readily accept it as something to believe in. The atheistic worldview is supported by it. One cannot accept 2 + 2 as 4 without first presupposing logic. But when atheists presuppose logic, it contradicts their dogmatic assertion that we cannot know anything without empirical proof, which is what they mean by evidence. There is no evidence, according to their qualified term, to support their presupposition. And presuppositions are something that everyone has regardless of their worldview. On these presuppositions rests the worldview. The new atheists, those arbiters of reason and logic, attack Christian a priori and act as if they have none, but they do. They believe in logic without having any "proof" or in other words empirical evidence for that belief. Their worldview is not exempt from presuppositions, which makes the scientific method as an epistemological absolute absolutely absurd. Everything a posteriori flows from faith, that insufferable word to some and that which to live by to others. We all have it. We all exercise it. It's only a matter of degree. From this, a foundational flaw in the constructs of the empirical proselytizer.

But are not logic and God different things? Is it comparing apples and oranges?

Certainly the objects of faith are different things. That is not the point. The point is that the atheist operates in faith with certain things, but not with others. He constructs a worldview in which only empirical proof will satisfy his belief in a certain object of faith, God. But belief in God is supported by evidence that is not empirical in nature. A statement like “you have no evidence for the existence of God" is true given the definition of evidence in an atheistic worldview. There is no empirical proof for God, logic, reason, morality, value, or any other abstract thing. These take some degree of faith to believe and all except God are accepted by the atheist. The atheist utilizes logic by faith, amongst a host of other things, but attacks the faith of others. The angst should not be directed at the principle of faith because there is no justification to criticize it. Instead, the atheist must take issue with the object of that faith, which is done and understandably so, but faith itself is disparaged without warrant. He accepts some things without the ability to scientifically test them and rejects others, depending on what suits him best. The comparison is much different than apples and oranges. It’s like apples and orchardists. The atheist eats the fruit and uses it for his use, but says, “There is no orchardist and if there is one I hate him.”