(This article addresses the material left by a commenter named ‘GM’ on the “I Contend We Are Both Atheists” article. Click here.)

It is a welcomed but certainly unexpected example of ‘irony’ to observe our commenter, GM, engaging in the very thing that he accused me of—a condescending sophistry which attempts to foment support from the readers by denigrating the opponent. Although he unequivocally characterizes my post in this fashion and therefore falls prey to his own accusation, the fact remains clear that I did not overtly characterize Roberts this way. GM apparently thinks otherwise, but it cannot escape the reader’s notice that this was something that GM had to infer from my article—and incorrectly because, despite whatever feelings GM might harbor, I have not in fact belittled Roberts in my post. I did say that “musings and ramblings were his foray, not philosophical precision,” but that was not intended as either an insult nor a criticism. It is, in fact, something that Roberts tends to admit himself and the very reason I chose to not criticize Roberts. It is simply the way he is, and I do not see that this should be viewed as a fault. Furthermore, I do not criticize individuals; I criticize arguments, under their own self-contained merits. If an argument is faulty or erroneous, it’s not from any failings on the part of its proponent.

GM admits that “a person cannot be an atheist if he believes in a god” but then insists that Roberts’ adage never claimed otherwise. It is astonishing, I confess, that GM could manage to arrive at such a bewildering conclusion, one which is obviated by any responsible interaction with the text of my article. For the sake of any readers who might think GM’s criticism has an ounce of merit, let’s examine this a little more closely.

“I contend we are both atheists,” Roberts said; “I simply believe in one fewer god than you do.” To whom is this addressed? “One fewer god than you,” Roberts said, so this implies a hearer. Is he addressing himself? That would be impossible, for how can Roberts believe in one fewer god than himself? It is a logical contradiction to describe someone as believing in one god and, at the same time and in the same respect, no gods at all. So is he addressing a fellow atheist? That would be absurd because his hearer believes in one god more than Roberts does, who is an atheist. Ergo, Roberts is addressing a theist who believes in at least one God. Consider: (1) If Roberts is a confessed atheist and (2) believes in “one fewer god” than his hearer, (3) then the very meaning of the text demands that his hearer believes in at least one God. The question which my article posed has not lost any merit: As long as his hearer believes in at least one God, Roberts cannot meaningfully “contend we are both atheists.”

In conclusion: If Roberts is addressing himself, the whole thing short-circuits on a logical contradiction. If Roberts is addressing a fellow atheist, how can Roberts believe in “one fewer god” than a supposed atheist? If Roberts is talking to a theist, how can he “contend we are both atheists” when his hearer believes in at least one God?

GM tries to retain the validity of his argument by insisting that Roberts’ second sentence “demonstrates that the supposed ‘believer’ is deluded.” Two things can be noted here. First, GM is willing to push Roberts’ argument to extremes that Roberts’ himself is not comfortable to. Nowhere in Roberts’ adage does he claim that believers are deluded, and for good reason: one is “deluded” when one adheres to a belief or idea in the face of invalidating evidence, and there is simply no evidence that invalidates belief in God. To hold that believers are deluded is a position that cannot be sustained with any intellectual integrity. Second, whether “deluded” or not, GM just admitted that the hearer is a “believer,” as my criticism maintained.

GM finally attempts to demonstrate that my “second criticism is largely destroyed already” (although the reader can decide whether my argument has sustained any damage at all yet) and offers to make “one more pass” by the pitifully impotent bulldozer. I will quote his argument in full because it is so convoluted that I cannot even make heads or tails out of it:

To claim that a person believes in a god because that god told him to do so is inadequate, especially when that god explicitly states, “Thou shalt not have any other gods but me.” The commandment necessarily acknowledges the existence of other gods but jealously insists upon his adherent’s sole devotion. This in turn necessarily requires the believer to reject all other gods save the one.

First, if God demands unadulterated allegiance, even going so far as to make a commandment of it, then exactly how does that render inadequate the claim that “a person believes in a god because that god told him to”? GM does not tell us. I cannot even determine how these things are at all related. Second, neither my article nor my theology maintains that a person believes in God because God said to. I am not aware of any theology that makes this claim. Strawmen are easy to knock down, GM, but they leave your opponent’s argument untouched. Third, while Scripture’s proscription against belief in other gods thereby tacitly acknowledges the existence of other gods, it also confesses elsewhere that they “by nature are not gods,” that “ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood, who pray to gods that cannot save,” that he is to be pitied who “says to wood, ‘Come to life!’ Or to lifeless stone, ‘Wake up!’ Can it give guidance? It is covered with gold and silver; there is no breath in it.” Scripture is quite clear that these gods are nothing more than artifices of man: “The LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other . . . Apart from me there is no God.”

This, of course, leads back to what my argument actually was: The reason I dismiss all the other possible gods is because Scripture declares that they “by nature are not gods,” that “apart from the LORD there is no God.” That’s my reason. We have Roberts claiming his reason for dismissing God is the same as my reason for dismissing all other gods. We can see this is actually not the case at all.