Why Don’t Atheists Want There to Be a God? #4 Post of 2012

Post Author: Bill Pratt

A common theme we have revisited on this blog is that the decision to believe in God or not believe in God is more than an intellectual exercise – there are always psychological and emotional factors at play as well.  This is contrary to the received wisdom of many atheists who argue that belief in God is about wish fulfillment and emotional neediness, and that atheism is arrived at primarily through rational analysis.  I have challenged this received wisdom many times on the blog, but sometimes it is helpful to review.

When thinking about this issue, it is especially enlightening to find well-known atheists in moments of candor explaining why they do not believe in God.  One such atheist is the eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel.  Edward Feser, in his book The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, reports Nagel’s comments on the atheist “fear of religion.”  Nagel writes:

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief.  It’s that I hope there is no God!  I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.  My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism in our time.  One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind.

My frequent interactions with atheists over the last 9 years has also drawn me to the conclusion that more often than not, the cosmic authority problem, as Nagel puts it, is at the root of many atheist complaints about God.  Feser picks up this point after quoting Nagel:

It is true that a fear of death, a craving for cosmic justice, and a desire to see our lives as meaningful can lead us to want to believe that we have immortal souls specially created by a God who will reward or punish us for our deeds in this life.  But it is no less true that a desire to be free of traditional moral standards, and a fear of certain (real or imagined) political and social consequences of the truth of religious belief, can also lead us to want to believe that we are just clever animals with no purpose to our lives other than the purposes we choose to give them, and that there is no cosmic judge who will punish us for disobeying an objective moral law.

Feser concludes his thoughts:

Atheism, like religion, can often rest more on a will to believe than on dispassionate rational arguments.  Indeed, as the philosopher C.F.J. Martin has pointed out, the element of divine punishment – traditionally understood in the monotheistic religions as a sentence of eternal damnation in Hell – shows that atheism is hardly less plausibly motivated by wishful thinking than theism is.  For while it is hard to understand why someone would want to believe that he is in danger of everlasting hellfire, it is not at all hard to see why one would desperately want not to believe this.

  • Deronta

    Good Post. I will share this.

  • Andrew Ryan

    “But it is no less true that a desire to be free of traditional moral standards, and a fear of certain (real or imagined) political and social consequences of the truth of religious belief”

    I don’t know about this. If someone needs to reject God to justify a political position why does one find theists everywhere on the political spectrum? Rather than reject God, people appear to simply pick the God that suits their politics. e.g., If people wanted an excuse to be conservative, rather than chose to be an atheist libertarian, they’d just find an extreme conservative interpretation of the bible. One only has to look to all the right-wingers in America who maintain a love of cold-hearted capitalism, guns, invading other countries etc, and reconcile it with their bible belief. If the above quote from Feser were true, people like Ann Coulter would just chose atheism so they could avoid the cognitive dissonance. Likewise all the pedophile priests.

    And even if you’re convinced that the bible IS all about guns and capitalism, the argument still works as one can just as easily find Christians who think the bible is all about peace, love, pacifism and helping each other.

    As for the canard about ‘choosing atheism so they can make their own morality’, this isn’t borne out by statistics. Atheists are far less likely to go to prison that Christians. If atheists are rejecting God so they can ‘sin’, why are they generally so much more law-abiding than Christians? Why are they less likely as a group to divorce?

  • Boz

    I am an atheist and I would prefer a benevolent deity to actually exist, and also immortality.

  • Anonymous

    It is going on ten years ago when I realized that I really didn’t care whether there was a God or not. Either way, I still had to decide for myself what kind of a person I wanted to be and how I wanted to treat my fellow man. I have had no greater desire to cheat on my wife or my business partners since I decided that I am an agnostic than I had before.

    I’d like there to be a God. I think it would be nice if my Mom is back together with my Dad, but I don’t think that their lives were any less meaningful or their love for each other and their children any less real if turns out that their deaths were the end of their existence.

    I don’t know how all atheists and agnostics feel, but I have never run across a post like this by a Christian that rang true for me at all.

  • Johndoe

    What a bunch of bullshit. The atheist position is not that we WANT no god to exist. The position is that there isn’t any proof of god’s existence. If god proved he/she/it was real then atheists would believe it.

  • Andrew Ryan

    I’m guessing Christians would reject the notion that they don’t want Allah to be true because they enjoy the sin of eating bacon.

  • Todd

    Not having read ‘The Last Superstition’, I don’t know if Feser was taking Nagel out of context, you are taking Feser out of context or Nagel is taking atheism out of context. In either case, your post is so far left of center I think only a christian could believe it true.

  • Actually, Bill Pratt (going against the grain here) I think you make a small point.

    Now…people believe things for a huge variety of reasons. Emotions, society, culture, information, intelligence, and personality come into play. Because there is such huge variety, and atheism is a belief, it is no surprise we can find at least one person to say, “Some believe in atheism because _____” and fill in that blank with about anything. Including, “because they want to.”

    Of course, this isn’t such a monumental discovery, because we can likewise say, “Some believe in ______ because ________” and fill in the first blank with a huge variety from “alien abduction” to “zebra painting” and—yes—including “Christianity,” “theism” and “atheism.” And likewise fill in the second blank with a huge variety from the list above, and more.

    Hopefully you are making a larger point—just because we want something, doesn’t mean it is true.

    Someone may want atheism to be true, but wishing does not make reality. Indeed, their desires should be a warning regarding bias in making determinations.

    Yet isn’t this likewise true of many beliefs proffered by theists? Wanting “ultimate purpose in life” doesn’t mean there is one. Wanting an afterlife doesn’t mean there is one. Wanting absolute objective moral values doesn’t mean they exist. Wanting an explanation for the big bang doesn’t mean we will find one.

    Seems to me this point could equally be applied to many theistic beliefs as well.

  • Anonymous

    When did you decide to believe in germs?

    Atheists don’t decide not to believe in a specific god; non believers simply have no solid and overwhelming evidence to think that your specific god exists in the reality we share.

    To figure out how this can possibly be so, look to yourself and ask this same silly question: when did you decide not to believe in Huitzilopochtli?

    See what I mean? That crease between your eyes reveals the difficulty you’re having trying to explain that your non belief in every specific god of history has never been a decision because non belief is the default all of us share towards all of these gods… all, that is, except those who DO decide to believe in some specific god for reasons other than solid and overwhelming evidence that works for everyone everywhere all the time (like germ theory).

    Because non belief is the default position we all share about these kinds of claims, there’s little reason to examine any psychological and emotional factors at play. More often than not, non belief entails no engagement at all (unless there is a cause to have to explain the onus is on those who make such god claims). But I do agree that there are psychological and emotional factors at play to decide to believe, and the best I’ve come across is Error Management Theory. Your decision to believe in something so unlikely and so bereft of good evidence is likely based on relying that feeling you have from the reptilian part of your brain concerning this god is worth the cost of believing, and then bringing your higher functions to bear only in its support. The atheist likely is more adept at reversing this process using reason and rationality in a more balanced approach that compares and contrasts both what favours the belief as well as what does not and concludes the feeling is not likely to reflect what is probably true in reality and is therefore foolish to empower with belief.

    And that’s the difference between believers and non believers: non believers allow reality to arbitrate what is true about it. That’s why our conclusions are always tentative and conditional. Believers, in contrast, allow belief to dictate to reality what is true about it. That’s why your faith-based conclusions are held to be certain and immutable and immune from contrary evidence.

  • Agreed. It cuts both ways, just as Feser noted in hs comments.

  • A-C

    but until then, you’re going to continue to make the claim that God doesn’t exist?

  • A-C

    Atheism is not the default position–even if it were, it wouldn’t prove the non existence of God. It’s a truth claim about reality and does shoulder its own burden of proof.

  • Anonymous

    Agnosticism is the default position. However at some point it does become reasonable to infer from the complete lack of evidence that God–like leprechauns, gnomes, sprites, and pixies–is non-existent.

  • Vinny,
    Can you cite some of academic literature that argues for the existence of leprechauns, gnomes, sprites, and pixies? I’m also curious which blogs that argue for the existence of these creatures you spend time reading and commenting on (I’m assuming you do that since you spend so much time commenting on this blog which also argues for imaginary beings).

    You’ve got me thinking, though. It never occurred to me that gnomists and spritists had so much in common with theists.
    I’m thinking maybe we should hold an ecumenical council and discuss our various creeds to see if we can come up with a common statement of faith, something like, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. We also believe in leprechauns, gnomes, sprites, and pixies, and we anathematize anyone who would deny the existence of other small woodland fairy-type creatures. Amen.”

    It’s just a draft, but if you can point me to more of the gnomist and spritist doctrines to give the creed more meat, I would be greatly obliged, since you seem to be a genuine expert.

  • Anonymous


    Happily there are no leprechaunists showing up at the local school board meetings to demand that the high school economics class include a discussion of rainbows and pots of gold. If there were, I might devote some effort to critiquing their arguments as well.

  • Anonymous

    Well, ask yourself: do you think it as likely as not that Zeus exists? Be honest.

    Now ask yourself, did you have to DISprove Zeus in order not to believe in this god?

    Of course not. You really do hold no belief that Zeus is real and you do not feel compelled to disprove him in order to maintain no belief; you simply do not believe because there are no good reasons for you to believe. Ditto for atheists concerning your specific god. Now if I try to tell you that because you do not believe in Zeus you will have questionable morals, I’m sure you can begin to appreciate what atheists feel every day. If I further tried to justify why people don’t trust you because you don;t believe in Zeus, you’d begin to perhaps sympathize with atheists. If I insisted that I wanted the anger of this god to be taught to your kids in physics class about the physical properties of electricity, perhaps you might even begin to understand why atheists get angry over the insertion of some faith-based beliefs to be added to the curriculum in science classes. If I granted tax free exemptions to those who built temples to Zeus and ran daycare programs exempt from the same rules and regulations churches non affiliated day cares had to meet, then perhaps you might begin to glean why your religious belief in the public domain should not be subsidized and privileged by all taxpayers. And maybe, just maybe, you might get offended at how your criticism of me – imposing my religious belief on you while picking your pocket to pay for it without your consent – is taken to be militant and strident and rude and intolerant and hateful. I’m condemned by the faithful if I say or do anything other than meekly keep my mouth shut and go along with this absurdity based on belief in Zeus.

  • Anonymous

    Agnosticism is the default position of those unwilling or unable to engage their critical faculties… right up until you actually decide if the absolute lack of good evidence on the one hand measured against the overwhelming evidence from reality on the other seems to be balanced.

    How much merit should we put into the opinion of someone who cannot solve the following equation:

    religion plus good deeds equals good deeds.
    Solve for religion.

  • Anonymous

    An excellent example of a religious oxymoron: academic faith.

  • Andrew Ryan

    “Can you cite some of academic literature that argues for the existence of leprechauns, gnomes, sprites, and pixies?”

    Belief in fairies was widespread and respected in the late 19th and early 20th C, and certainly there was much literature on the subject. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was one of many famous advocates for belief in fairies, and published a book on the subject, Coming of the Fairies, in 1922.

    That such ideas have fallen out of fashion makes them no more or less likely than any other supernatural claims.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Atheism is not a CLAIM that God does not exist; atheism is BELIEF position on God’s existence.

    If you can’t tell the difference between “God does not exist” and “I don’t believe that God exists”, consider that one can add “…but he may do” to the latter but not to the former without contradicting yourself.

    “God does not exist, but he may do” = nonsensical
    “I don’t believe God exists, but he may do” = valid sentence.

    One can say ‘I don’t believe x but I could be proved wrong’.

    Finally, agnosticism relates to knowledge, not belief. It is not a middle ground position between theism and atheism. One can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist.

  • A-C

    I can’t speak for anyone else here regarding their reason(s) to believe in Zeus…or not.

    Zeus is a fairly worn out rhetorical move by atheists that gets passed on as good argument. So are fairies and teapots.

  • Todd

    All too true as well I’m afraid.

  • A-C

    “I don’t believe that God exists” equals, I believe that God doesn’t exist.

    Are you here defending your belief in the non-existence of God?

  • Andrew Ryan

    I’m here explaining to you what ‘atheist’ means. Whether you actually listen is up to you.

    The difference between ‘I don’t believe there is’ and ‘I believe there isn’t’ has nothing to do with the explanation I gave. We can have that discussion, but the fact that it’s irrelevant to the point I was making suggests you didn’t understand what I wrote.

  • Anonymous

    Yes. “We’ve heard this all before” is a favorite apologetic smokescreen. They always leave out “and we’ve never answered it successfully.”

  • Anonymous

    It’s not the object that is important here; it’s the same reasoning that is the problem. I’m just trying to get you see that what you ask of atheists in your god you don’t do for gods you don;t believe in. Why the double standard, A-C?

  • Alex B

    I don’t ‘want’ ‘god’ to not exist! There are no gods, that’s why I’m an atheist. Seems you are well named, Bill ‘Pratt’

  • A-C

    I believe in the God I believe in because of a very specific set of reasons and experiences. Any further explanation is predicated on the fact that you, from your current location and position have no basis for assuming what I do or “don’t do for gods I don’t believe in”.

    I’ll continue either way, not in an attempt to persuade you, rather to show you where I’m coming from as a theist.

    For starters, I believe that the universe, time, matter and space were created. Current scientific models support a singularity event, or big bang or whatever you want to call it. I’ll call it creation ex nihilio. I don’t believe that universe is eternal, but like I said was ‘created’.

    Further, I believe in a monotheistic God, not a pantheistic or polytheism of God(s), for obvious logical grounds, namely non-contradiction.

    Thus far, my belief is warranted and plausible which is all I, or anyone, need to begin to formulate a reasonable argument for their belief.

    How I get from this point to the particular God I believe in is a fairly personal matter that I share with certain people.

    Concluding, I don’t blindly believe what I believe, I feel as though I am earnestly seeking truth and give thought to these questions as they arise.

    So, apart from what I’ve read, watched or listened to, all I can know is what I’ve experienced and my experiences have helped formulate my perspective on things–just as your experiences, apart from what you’ve read, watched or listened to have shaped yours.

  • A-C

    Forgive me for not understanding, I guess I don’t understand what you were trying to say. :/

  • Anonymous

    But what if your reasons are poor and your experiences misinterpreted, then how can you find out… presuming that what’s true matters?

  • A-C

    Forgive me for not understanding, I guess I don’t understand what you were trying to say. :/

  • A-C

    this is reply to ’tildeb’ because the comment section is nested weird:

    You said, “But what if your reasons are poor and your experiences misinterpreted, then how can you find out… presuming that what’s true matters?”

    What if they aren’t? We could do this for quite a long time.

    I think my reasons are more plausible than not–can they be proved with 100% certainty? No. But neither can the position that somehow all creation came into existence all by itself, causeless and without reason.

  • Anonymous

    The point you seem determined to miss is that your idea of plausible must rest on some metric. Using belief as your metric, there is no way to determine how plausible your beliefs are. Forget 100% certainty: how about 1%? You can’t even achieve this through belief, yet assume it is somewhere over the 50% mark. This notion is turtles all the way down because you have not one shred of equivalent evidence.

  • Chris

    Maybe what you say is true for some Atheists, but from my own experience its mostly the opposite. I would prefer that there was a God. It would be freaking awesome to live forever, and always have someone looking out for me. I gradually become an Atheist not because I didn’t want there to be a God, but because I didn’t want to lie to myself to make myself feel better. It was actually kind of scary at times. The easy thing to do if I was just believing what I wanted to believe would have been to just retreat back into Theism. Life is a lot easier when you just know everything is going to work out in the end because God is looking over everything.

  • Disciple of Andy – DOA

    You’re a fairy…

  • Pingback: Why Don’t Atheists Want There to Be a God? | Tough Questions Answered « Fr. Griggs()

  • ugh

    This is a great example of a straw man argument. Don’t respond to the logical arguments, insult the group presenting them instead.

  • This blog site has hundreds of posts addressing logical arguments, so you you need to read a little more before jumping to conclusions about the blog.

  • If the god we’re talking about is the guy described in the Old Testament, then I don’t want him to exist either. Wow–who would?? The dude’s a psychopath.


  • so prove that He doesn’t exist

  • Prove he does, you have that burden not us

  • “For while it is hard to understand why someone would want to believe that he is in danger of everlasting hellfire, it is not at all hard to see why one would desperately want not to believe this.”

    And yet Christians will talk all day long about how horrible the atheist worldview must be… what with life coming to an end and all. “Who would want to be an atheist!?” they say, “It’s a terrible way to live!” (Totally subjective, by the way). So in fact this same argument might be used to explain why Christians are afraid to NOT believe in God!

  • MJR
  • MJR

    Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God’s existence
    by Matt Slick
    Atheists often ask for evidence to prove that God exists. They say they want tangible, testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method. Unfortunately for them, such a request is the wrong approach. Instead, they should look for evidence consistent with a Transcendent God. Let me show you why.

    First of all, the scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties.

    Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence – that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can’t detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.

    Third, the Christian worldview proclaims a transcendent God who exists outside of, and independent of, the material universe. In other words, the Christian God is not dependent upon the material universe or its properties for his existence.

    Therefore, to ask for scienfically testable, material, non-transcendent evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake.

    Category Mistake

    A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of a thing is presented as belonging to another category. For example, to say “the rock is alive” assigns the category of life to an inanimate object. Another example would be to judge the beauty of a painting based on how much it weighs. This is a category error, since the category of beauty is not determined by the category of weight.

    So, for the atheist to work from inside his materialistic, non-transcendent worldview and require evidence for the non-material, transcendent God (which necessarily exists outside his perceived worldview) is a category mistake because it is asking for the material evidence of the non-material, the non-transcendent evidence of the transcendent. It is like asking to have a thought placed on a scale. It doesn’t work because they are different categories.

    But, some will assert that it is fair to ask for some sort of demonstration that such a Transcendent Being exists. After all, if there is no evidence of him, how can we know he exists? For that, see What kind of evidence should we expect from a transcendent God?

    What is left for the materialist atheist to do?

    This means that the materialist atheist cannot logically require material-based evidence for the immaterial without committing a category mistake, so he is left with the option of trying to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is internally incoherent. After all, if he cannot show that Christian theism is false, then how can he rationally retain his atheism?

    But, to step into the Christian worldview and attempt to show that it is not true, the atheist must use logic. This requires the use of the Laws of Logic. The problem is that these Laws are transcendent in that they are not dependent on the physical universe or its properties for their validity (See, The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, points 5-8). But for the materialist atheist to presuppose the validity of transcendental Logical Truths, in order to argue against a Transcendental God, is inherently self-contradictory since he would be using transcendentals to argue against a Transcendental God.

    Furthermore, it would mean that the materialist atheist is presupposing the validity of the transcendental Laws of Logic – without being able to justify them from within his materialistic worldview. To presuppose their validity is to commit the logically fallacy of begging the question.


    The materialist atheist is left without a valid means in falsifying Christian Theism, which means his atheism can not be validated as being true.

    He cannot rightfully require material, non-transcendent evidence for a non-material, transcendent God without committing a category mistake. He must abandon his materialistic worldview – but this is incompatible with his atheist worldview.

    He cannot enter into the Christian worldview, which is based on a Transcendent God, and use the transcendent laws of logic without being self-contradictory in his approach.

  • Special pleading, MJR. If you’ve evidence, bring it on. Otherwise, you’ve no way of telling the difference between a universe where a God exists and one where no God exists. A God that manifests in no tangible way cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way.

    “is presupposing the validity of the transcendental Laws of Logic”

    Go ahead and attempt to deny their validity without contradicting yourself…

  • MJR
  • MJR

    No, God is not a “psychopath.” The fault here is yours because you have not bothered to study Scripture properly (reference Biblical Hermeneutics and Christian Apologetics) in it’s proper context and meaning.

  • MJR

    So explain to me then why an atheist has an issue with God sending them to Hell, since Hell is merely seperation from God & God’s people forever….which is exactly what the atheist wants, to be seperate from God. In the end, God is a gentleman and gives the atheist what they always wanted, because love is not genuine if it is forced. God gave the atheist the free-will to choose. If the atheist goes to Hell, it is because he/she causes themself to be sent there. God gave them every opportunity to repent and accept Him and form a loving relationship with Him, even died for the atheist.
    I see no unfairness with that. It’s what the atheist wanted.

  • MJR
  • Andrew Ryan

    Nope – right.

  • Andrew R

    Hermeneutics = hand waving and post hoc justification. The OT God condones slavery and orders genocide.

  • That’s it? No explanation for why I got it wrong, just an assertion that I did?
    You might want to provide a little more content next time.

  • If we’re chucking links at each other, here’s a very thorough work pointing out all the flaws in the arguments that Paul Copan presents in your link above. The fault remains yours (and Copan’s), not mine or Bob’s.


  • Alden Smith

    Obama is the one trying to invade another country.

  • Andrew Ryan

    He is ‘the one’? What, the ONLY person trying to invade another country?

    That bizarre assertion aside, given that I never claimed ONLY right-wingers invade other countries, it is a complete non sequitur to point out a non-right-winger who is ‘trying to invade another country’. You might as well attempt to refute a comment that there are under-age drinkers by observing that many people in their middle age like a drink – it does nothing to disprove the other person’s position.

  • James Hayler

    I personally can see why you may want God to existence due to the desire for justice, purpose in life and seeing loved ones again , but on the other hand im more inclined to not want there to be god. The reason is i dont want to be in God kingdom and looking down on Earth and seeing the equality , war etc i couldn’t enjoy an eternity like that personally. It seems like a sick game watching hell on Earth like Gladiators but there is lots of beauty i must admit.Also , i dont think i couldn’t deal with lets says a Buddhist or a Muslim who lived a perfect live but is refused entry to heaven due to not believing in Jesus( or the other way round Christians being denied), as shouldn’t God ( if he/she exists) care in what religion someone is as long as there a good person. As i have more respect for an atheist who help people and is a good person not like others who are only kind out of fear of there God. Finally , would God really want death after death due to people arguing over religion. Sorry for the rambling

  • abstract

    Atheism is baseless. In life you have to considerable origins. God or the metaphysical universe. The metaphysical universe is a great theory, but it’s totally implausible. Why? Because people experience God. People have encountered him, talked to him, or have had things occur that according to the laws of this tangible reality are not possible. Atheism is becoming nothing more than a status symbol for children that’s only justified by theories that not even the people who presented them can understand. Not to mention that out of 9,999 of the Gods worshiped, some of them if not most of them were probably the same guy. Why else would the characteristics be similar, and why do three major religions cater to the same deity. What argument do atheist have other than simply believing that anti theism somehow makes them more intellectually superior? Yahoo.com enough said.

  • Andrew Ryan

    “Because people experience God. People have encountered him”

    Thousands of people claim to be abducted by aliens each year. Thousands claim to have seen Elvis. Arguments from personal experience are by their nature unconvincing.

    “Why else would the characteristics be similar”

    Because they steal from each other.

  • Joe’s World.

    The monstrosity of Hell (which any moral person would object to) aside, this video should put this ridiculous argument to bed;

  • Abstract

    Your comments on this website reinforce the idea that atheist don’t want a God to exist. Nobody has a reason to lie about a Divine being. I don’t know how you can convince yourself that there isn’t a God. Let’s not even call him that. Let’s call him an origin. How can you convince yourself that there isn’t a sentient origin of sorts that created everything. Even if you don’t believe in the God depicted in religions the rejection of a God is willfully ignorant. You’re talking out of your anus when you say arguments from personal experience are unconvincing. You’re obviously stubborn.

  • Andrew R

    You’re offering only bad language and arguments from incredulity. Not much for me to respond to.

  • Nothing

    “Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God’s existence

    Or “evidence” as most normal people call it.

    “The materialist atheist is left without a valid means in falsifying Christian Theism, which means his atheism can not be validated as being true.”

    Something that’s never been supported by evidence need to be falsified.

    “So, for the atheist to work from inside his materialistic, non-transcendent worldview and require evidence for the non-material, transcendent God (which necessarily exists outside his perceived worldview) is a category mistake because it is asking for the material evidence of the non-material, ”

    Yep, it’s a “category error” to ask for evidence that this “transcendent being” created the material world since his fingerprints would be all over it if it were true. But they aren’t. Oh well.