Why I Can't Be An Atheist

With so many Atheists attacking Christianity I find it necessary to love those haters, after all that is what Jesus taught his disciples to do, to love the enemy. Some atheist told me that was impossible to do, perhaps to him it might, not to a Christian.

Someone recently said that one day Christianity will die out thanks to people like David Hume, Richard Dawkins, and Immanuel Kant. I really don't think so.
David Hume is known for his philosophy, he believed that all meaningful ideas were either true by definition or must be based on sense experience. According to Hume, there are no sense experiences for concepts beyond the physical, any metaphysical claims should not be believed because they are meaningless.
He asserted that propositions can be meaningful only if they meet one of the two conditions: the truth claim is abstract reasoning such as a mathematical equation or a feinition; or the truth claim can be verified empirically through one or more of the five senses.

While he claimed to be a skeptic, Hume certainly wasn't skeptical about these two conditions - he was absolutely convinced he had the truth. He wrote, "If we take in our hand any volume - of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance - let us ask, 'Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?' No. 'Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?' No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." If he is correct than all the talking about God is meaningless. 200 years later Hume's two conditions were converted into the "principle of empirical verifiability" by twentieth-century philosopher A.J. Ayer. The principle of empirical verifiability claims that a proposition can be meaningful  only if it's true by definition or if it's empirically verifiable.
Dr. Norman Geisler replys to Hume and Ayer, "The principle of empirical verifiability states that there only two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful."

Therefore the principle of empirical verifiability could not be meaningful based on its own standard. Hume's hard empiricism, and that of A.J. Ayer, is self-defeating. The claim that "something can only be meaningful if it's empirically verifiable or true by definition" excludes itself because that statement is neither empirically verifiable nor true by definition. In other words, Hume and Ayer try to prove too much because their method of discovering meaningful propositions excludes too much. Certainly claims that are empirically verifiable or true by definition are meaningful. However, such claims don't comprise all meaningful statements as Hume and Ayer contend. So instead of committing all books about God "to the flames" as Hume suggests, you may want to consider using Hume's books to get your fire going.

This is one of the many reasons I can't be an atheist.