I think I mentioned this before, but I’m too tired to search my archives to find it. I spend a lot of time stumbling the internet. One of the topics I stumble upon is atheism. Now, my title is a bit misleading. I understand atheists. I just don’t understand the atheists who spend all their time denouncing Christianity/any religion. The ones who are fundamentally opposed to religious fundamentalists. The ones who think they are so righteous for pointing out inaccuracies in the bible.

I love philosophy. I do. I like talking about it. However, I often have a fairly hard time with writing philosophically. Maybe I am too artistic. Maybe I am a delicate flower. Nevertheless, I have been trying to work it out. I am in the process of setting up another blog that will be dedicated to saving faith. Or something like that. A niche blog.

I am going to attempt logic. Let me tell you now, I will probably get this wrong. Perhaps I should just read the Dawkins book.

1. There is no way to prove the existence of God.
2. I must look at what I can prove.
3. Therefore… God doesn’t exist. :laugh_tb:

Worst logic ever. Logic is not universal truth, certainly that logic doesn’t resemble truth. I foresee myself going somewhere I won’t be able to get myself out of.

I am happy that there are ethical atheists out in the world. I support you. I may not agree with you, but that’s not so important. It’s the fundamental atheists that become my frustration. That I find sad. If the basis for atheism is because you can prove fallacies and errors and point and laugh at the silly fundamental Christians and because evolution makes way more sense than creation theory, I find that to be weak and sad argument.

It’s not because I can offer up such a beautiful apologetic for Christianity. It’s because there is this massive misunderstanding of what a story is. Or myth. Or legend. You name it. You can even call it a really good lie. It wouldn’t really matter. Let me slap this logic on you—If what Thomas King says is true (The truth about stories is that that’s all we are) then what is the difference between my story and yours? Again, logic and me—please don’t tell my Logic prof from University.

What I am attempting to say is that if I have a story, you have a story then there is nothing in between that is provable. Then what’s the big deal? How do you beat the story argument? Could anyone honestly say that we aren’t stories? And it might be said that math is not a story. Or science isn’t a story. But it is. And even if it were some great objective, abstract truth it lives beyond us, as God does/might and therefore we are just back at having one story over another.

I don’t want to sell myself down the river—I am not even sure that idiom makes any sense in this context—but I am pretty sure this post is one more sentence away from being nonsense. I better stop. If you understood my attempt, I am happy. If not, don’t worry, it’s not you.