Polly Want a Cracker? A Response to Atheistic Mockery

-

Polly Want a Cracker? A Response to Atheistic Mockery

Atheists often dismiss belief in God and Christ as "foolish blind faith," reducing centuries of philosophical, scientific, and theological reasoning to mere fear of death. Such an assertion reveals not only a profound misunderstanding of faith but also an unwillingness to engage with the compelling arguments that underpin it. Faith in God is not blind—it is supported by reason, evidence, and experience. To claim otherwise is to ignore the intellectual rigor and depth of theistic thought.

At the same time, atheism often fails to bring forward any meaningful explanation for the most fundamental questions of existence. The origins of the universe, the fine-tuning of physical laws, the emergence of consciousness, and the foundation of morality remain unanswered in an atheistic framework. Instead of offering substantive arguments, many atheists rely on dismissive rhetoric, parroting phrases like, "We just lack belief in gods," as if that suffices to counter centuries of reasoned discourse.

Such repetition can feel more like a learned refrain than a genuine intellectual position. It requires no effort to say, "We lack belief," just as it takes no intellectual rigor to mock others for their convictions. Yet theists not only believe but also offer well-supported reasons for their faith, drawing from philosophy, science, and lived experience to construct robust explanations for existence and meaning.

To those atheists who fit this description—those who mock but do not engage, who dismiss without countering, who parrot without pondering—your refrain has become tiresome. If the best you can do is repeat the same lines without addressing the deep questions your worldview leaves unanswered, you are not engaging in meaningful dialogue.

So, to the atheist parrots: Polly want a cracker? Or would you rather try engaging with the substantive arguments for theism instead of repeating the same dismissals?

The choice is yours, but one leads to dialogue and understanding, while the other merely echoes in an empty cage.

William W Collins
January 2025

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How God/Christ (the Logos) Communicates with Humanity: All Paths Point to Him—and Back to Us

-
Image
How God/Christ (the Logos) Communicates with Humanity: All Paths Point to Him—and Back to Us How God—through Christ, the Logos—communicates with humanity  across  spiritual, physical, metaphysical, quantum, and personal domains , followed by an extended  summary list  that integrates and expands these tie-ins as outlined in Divine Physics (DP) and the Holistic Origins Worldview (HOW). At the heart of Divine Physics is the proposition that Christ is not merely a moral teacher or historical figure , but the Logos —the rational, creative, and sustaining principle of the universe (John 1:1-3). He is the interface between the Divine and the Created , not symbolically, but ontologically and metaphysically. Every domain of reality—quantum, cosmological, moral, emotional, and rational—is stamped with His nature. Every exploration, whether scientific or spiritual, ultimately leads back to the Source . And that Source is not silent. He speaks. Wa...
Read more

Essay IV: Exploring the Foundations of Existence: A Scholarly Analysis of Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism (and the Epistemic Horizon Effect)

-
Image
Essay IV:  Exploring the Foundations of Existence: A Scholarly Analysis of Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism William W. Collins August 22, 2024 essays.williamwcollins.com Abstract: The question of existence and the origins of the universe is one of the most profound inquiries that humanity has ever faced. The debate is largely dominated by two primary schools of thought: the belief that the universe "just happened" through natural processes and the belief that it was created by a higher power or deity. This essay explores these perspectives within the context of atheism, theism, and agnosticism, considering their strengths, limitations, and the broader implications for human understanding. Through a detailed analysis of these worldviews and philosophical reflections on the limitations of human cognition, this essay introduces the concept of the "Epistemic Horizon Effect" to describe the inherent boundaries of human understanding when faced with the infinite, the eter...
Read more

Reductionism in Science: The Danger of Oversimplifying Complexity

-
Image
Reductionism in Science: The Danger of Oversimplifying Complexity In scientific discourse, reductionism—the practice of breaking down complex systems into their simplest components—has often served as a valuable approach for understanding individual mechanisms. However, when reductionism becomes the dominant framework for explaining phenomena as intricate as the origin of life or the processes of evolution, it risks oversimplifying realities that demand a more nuanced view. While useful in its proper context, reductionism often fails to account for the profound interdependence, improbability, and multilayered nature of the systems it seeks to explain. This essay explores the limitations of reductionism in areas such as biochemistry, organic chemistry, evolutionary biology, quantum mechanics, and physical chemistry, and critiques how it trivializes the complexities involved in the formation of life, the structure of DNA, and the processes of evolution. By doing so, it highli...
Read more