2005

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
2009 Mohican
vexen

Atheism and Secularism

Atheism: History and Beliefs

I suggest that one who beleives that there is no 'god' or 'gods' is not an athiest because he or she believes that there is no existing 'god' or 'gods, but rather they are atheist because they, like all other atheists, possess no belief in any 'god' or 'gods'.

'a'-'theist'.

Theism is a word about belief and as the 'a' prefix negates this, atheism is a word about non-belief.


The Vampire
LOGOS

Re: Atheism

(Anonymous)

2007-10-22 02:19 am (UTC)

Why I'm not an atheist
Steve Cornell

1. An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose. Yes, atheists enjoy smaller meanings of life– like friendship and love, pleasure and sorrow, Mozart and Plato. But to be consistent with his atheism, he cannot allow for ultimate meaning. Yet, if the atheist is honest, he will admit to feeling that there is something more to existence -something bigger. Someone said, “The blazing evidence for immortality is our dissatisfaction with any other solution.” According to Scripture, God has, “set eternity in the hearts of men” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). To maintain his position, the atheist must suppress the feeling that there is more to life than what is temporal. But the atheist encounters many other difficulties.

2. The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic. He is like the man who finds an encyclopedia lying in the woods and refuses to believe it is the product of intelligent design. Everything about the book suggests intelligent cause. But, if he accepted such a possibility, he might be forced to conclude that living creatures composed of millions of DNA-controlled cells (each cell containing the amount of information in an encyclopedia) have an intelligent cause. His controlling bias against God will not allow him to accept this.

3. Yet, ironically, the atheist has to believe in miracles without believing in God. Why? Well, one law that nature seems to obey is this: whatever begins to exist is caused to exist. The atheist knows that the universe began to exist and since the universe is, according to the atheist, all there is, the very existence of the universe seems to be a colossal violation of the laws of nature (i.e., a miracle). It’s hard to believe in miracles without God.

4. An atheist must also suppress all notions of morality. He is not able to declare any quality to be morally superior to another. Such admissions require an absolute standard of goodness and duty. Without this, there is no basis for an atheist to declare peace better than war or love better than hate. These are simply alternative choices without moral superiority. The atheist is stuck believing that morality has no claim on you or anyone else.

5. In fact, the atheist must conclude that evil is an illusion. For there to be evil, there must also be some real, objective standard of right and wrong. But if the physical universe is all there is, there can be no such standard (How could arrangements of matter and energy make judgments about good and evil true?). So, there are no real evils, just violations of human customs or conventions. How hard it would be to think of murderers as merely having bad manners.

6. The atheist must also live with the arrogance of his position. Although he realizes that he does not possess total knowledge, his assertion that there is no God requires that he pretend such knowledge. Although he has limited experience, he must convince himself that he has total experience so that he can eliminate the possibility of God. It is not easy to hold the arrogant assertions required by atheism in a society that requires blind tolerance of every ideology.

7. The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof. If he accepted the standard rules for testing the truth claims of historical documents, he would be forced to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The account of Jesus’ resurrection is strongly validated by standard rules for judging historical accuracy. The extensive manuscript evidence of eyewitnesses to the resurrection is presented in an unbiased, authentic manner. It is the atheist’s anti-supernatural bias that keeps him from allowing history to prove anything.

8. Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals. According to the atheist, we are simply the result of blind chance operating on the primordial ooze, and differing from animals by only a few genes. Yet, the wonders of human achievement and the moral dignity we ascribe to human beings just do not fit with the claim that we are no different than the animals. The realities of human creativity, love, reason, and moral value seem to indicate that humans are creatures uniquely made in the image of God.





Hi Steve. I'm about to nullify all your arguments, so get ready, lol.



[[1. An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose..]]


You act as if there is something wrong with the people who *DON'T* feel disatisfied with existence, and have no need to believe an apparent fantasy about being super-special and the reason the entire universe exists. I submit that it is the people who *DON'T* need to fib to themselves about being cosmically special that are the ones that are rational and emotionally grounded.

[[2. The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic.]]


It is not athiests who propound a theory of *POOF-ing* into existence. That would be theists. Nontheists suggest a slow developmental non-directed process. It's not atheists who suggest that a tornado sweeps through a junk yard and assembles a buick Skylark...that would be creationists. You are making a couple of logic errors. 1. If you can't show that a universe or life creator *CAN* even *POSSIBLY* exist, then you can't sensibly say that your theory is "more likely" than the next fellows. If you can't show that your likelyhood of being right is a probability greater than zero, then ANY other idea CANNOT have a probability of LESS THAN ZERO! What one has to do when making a claim about something totally unprecidented and not even known to be possible is to show that at least of of those things actually exists, i.e. direct evidence. Show me one 'god' or "intelligent designer". I dare say that you can't, ergo your claims have zero earned merit. Claims of magical creatures in transendent realms based on hearsay doesn't fly. 2. You are, no doubt, assuming that if you discredit scientific theories, then this will make your 'god' or intelligent designer 'come true'. Sorry, you can't use RAA deductive logic with open sets, i.e. inductive subjects. Even if evolution were perfectly false, it wouldn't make YHWH come true, so all the effort IDers and creationists put into attempting to discredit evolution theory is a complete waste of time.



[[3.The atheist knows that the universe began to exist and since the universe is...


1. How can there be causation without physics, i.e. laws regarding physical things?
2. How can there be physical laws, i.e. physics, before there were physical things?
3. How could there be physical things before there was a space-time fabric for them to exist in?
4. And for that matter, how can there be a 'time' before time began...which is theorized according to the classic version of the Big Bang Theory to have originated at the same 'time' that the universe started to expand.

What we can clearly see above is that notions of causation break down when applied to notions of the origin of the universe.

The creationist argument that "everything has a cause, therefore the universe must have had a cause" is a defunct argument. One is attempting to apply a law that is a consequence of the universe's existence *TO* the origin of the universe itself, before there was any space-time or matter IN space-time. That would be like applying the highway's speed limit to the equipment that is not currently on the, as of yet, nonexistent highway. There is no such thing as laws of pre-existence physics.


...continued
The Dhampire
LOGOS



[[4.An atheist must also suppress all notions of morality...]]


I'm struck by the sheer ubiquity of theists who don't know the difference between atheism and nihilism. It's human life itself that makes human values possible, so all human values are held by living humans, so if goals and any possible future is 'worth more' than any other possible future, then life and freedom must have value. I have my *own* life, which means that I *own* my life, and therefore have the *RIGHT* to sustain that life by my talents and effort and to keep what I earn, i.e. private property and capital, and to be secure in my 'papers and effects'. This is the *ONLY* sensible definition of rights. Rights cannot be a 'favor' from any alleged 'god' or government, or any other perceived authority, because that which is arbitrarily given can be arbitrarily taken away...which defies the definition of a right. 'Morally good" is that which rationally benifits me in my life, and what loses me what is rational to value is relatively bad. "Evil" would be the destruction of rational values. Morality requires *THINKING*, rather than following a list of do's and don'ts like a trained rat. I'm sure you would agree with me that a trained rat is not a moral creature. Neither are "trained" humans who do things out of fear or conditioning rather than conscience and rationality. Morality requires moral choice, and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil. We must *THINK* about this knowlege to determine what is good or bad, rather than compare outselves to sheep and fish and do as we're told when we are told that the will of the authority is an ineffible, inscrutible mystery, so we should settle for doing as we are told.



[[5... For there to be evil, there must also be some real, objective standard of right and wrong.]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)


[[6...does not possess total knowledge, his assertion that there is no God...


*ALL* atheists are atheists because they do not possess a belief in the existence of any alleged 'god' or 'gods'. "Strong" atheists are a subset of "all" atheists. Your mistake is common, so I don't blame you for chasing that completely meaningless straw man. I personally don't possess any belief in the existence of any alleged 'gods' because in my 42 years of existence, I have yet to see an even slightly good reason TOO believe such an obvious fairytale. I require no faith to not believe in any such alleged 'gods'. Again, please give me any reason at all that will pass the laugh test, and I'll be eternally grateful to you.



[[7. The atheist...If he accepted the standard rules for testing the truth claims of historical documents, he would be forced to accept...]]


Should we believe that Osirus rose from the dead? How about the miriad other demi-gods that are alleged to have risen from the dead after being born of virgins? No, once again, we cannot rely on hearsay regarding the alleged existence of the supernatural. You can't even offer plausible evidence that a purely human "Jesus" existed, much less a magic 'god'-man. There is *MORE* "authentic manner" documentation of Jesuit priests fighting and destroying vampires risen from the grave than you have of some alleged magic demi-god dude. That's SAD!



[[8. Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals...b>


Some life MUST HAVE arose from the non-living.
http://www.christianityisevil.com/Life_from_nonlife_certain.html

And yes, we ARE biologically classified as primates, apes, hominids, however you wish to put it. This is not a "theory", it's an absolute fact, because "ape" is a biological classification, not a species.


The Dhampire
LOGOS

I'm very interested in Taoism and have done some reading on its religious aspects. From what I understand, Taoists do believe in the existance of gods and do worship several. Religious Taoists also perform elaborate rituals to show their reverence to these supernatural beings. Also, don't Taoists not only worship gods, but the Jade Emperor, the Yellow Emperor, and Lao Tzu, who some might say are gods?

I think your site is education and interesting. Initially, I had thought Satanism as evil and horrifying (only because of my ignorance and the connotation of Satan), but now I place it above Christianity in reasonableness and practicality.

“I'm very interested in Taoism and have done some reading on its religious aspects. From what I understand, Taoists do believe in the existance of gods and do worship several. Religious Taoists also perform elaborate rituals to show their reverence to these supernatural beings.”


There is no official Taoism religion. The oldest known work on Taoism was the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tsu (or Tzu). His Taoism that can be told is not the true Taoism (saying 1). In other words, the map is not the terrain. Kudos to Lao Tzu for this insight, however the rest of it is rather laconic, enigmatic, anti-intellectual and a bit mortifying to mankind. It was originally a “natural” religion. That is, a mysterious ‘way’ was how things happened. Use the force, Luke. Subsequently developed Taoism is less about Taoism than about traditions, fears, shamanism, rituals and superstitions (and misunderstandings) inherited from local culture, typically Chinese culture.



[[Also, don't Taoists not only worship gods, but the Jade Emperor, the Yellow Emperor, and Lao Tzu, who some might say are gods?]]


Don’t confuse cultural influence with Taoism proper. Local traditions and beliefs have been incorporated as has ancestor worship, but this doesn’t make ancestor worship a Taoist idea.


[[I think your site is education and interesting. Initially, I had thought Satanism as evil and horrifying (only because of my ignorance and the connotation of Satan), but now I place it above Christianity in reasonableness and practicality.]]


“Satanism” is so varied that the word has questionable meaning in my opinion. That’s like the word “grace”, it means almost everything, and therefore it doesn’t mean much of anything.


LOGOS

Epicurus, NOT Atheist.

(Anonymous)

2008-01-31 07:04 pm (UTC)

I'm an Epicurean myself.
And I gotta say that though Epicurus was anti-theistic, he was NOT an Atheist. Epicurus was more of a proto-deist{sharing his views not with what the classic deists held, whom were more Aristelean deists; but with Modern Deists- whom by and large are very Agnostic-Deist and Anti-Theistic Deists with an Epicurean flavour}.

The reason I mention this is because it seems to me that some people, the CoS Satanism{and most Satanists in general} tend to represent Epicurus as an Atheist, when he was, in actuality, a Proto-deist{having adegree of agnosticism, an Agnostic-Deist, much like the U.S. founding father Thomas Jefferson}; which to me seems to be either delibeate misrepresentation or ignorance{and I highly doubt that they are IGNORANT of these facts}.

Just thought I'd mention this.

Even if I was aStrong Atheist myself, I'd not be of the tendency to misrepresent past rationalist thinkers as something they were not{if they were deists or agnostics, i would;nt represent them as Atheists and visa versa}.

Objective fact,truth, and reality, are the basis of both rationalism AND of Satanism itself; hence why I am so distrubed to see people whom claim to be concerned only with objective fact,reality, and truth telling lies and half-truths and misrepresentations.

Best to you Vexen.

In Reason:
Bill "Iconoclastithon" Baker

Where are the so called Atheist Speakers?

(Anonymous)

2008-11-08 12:09 am (UTC)

WANTED To speak up for Charles Darwin

a prominent atheist who believes in Evolution to debate John Mackay
(International Director of Creation Research) in Shrewsbury, 14 February 2009
to mark Darwin's bicentenary.



Please email us on mail@ahtrust.net if you are interested to take part.

We will take good care of you, dine you, and chauffer drive you to the venue.
it will be an evening to remember and hopefully you will meet new friends.


Look forward to hearing from you


Kind regards


Peter Jones CEng.BSc. Tel. 07910 799 112

Re: Where are the so called Atheist Speakers?

(Anonymous)

2010-05-09 10:29 pm (UTC)

Not even a fool will think that when spaceship from way beyond the universe,in a distant glaxay,super intelligent being, created dont know how, please give me some more info. such are the so call minds of the day the space race will wipe out the people on earth, that is the type of rubbish you see on tv.

Genocide and murderous actions by atheists and "atheistic" religionists

vilevial

2011-07-11 03:18 am (UTC)

Continuing to work my way back through your web site.

A few years ago, I read the book BLOOD AND SOIL: A WORLD HISTORY OF GENOCIDE

http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300100983

Ben Kiernen, the author, described a variety of genocidal ideologies. They seemed to cover a variety of political and religious belief systems. I don't have the book in front of me, but I am wondering how you evaluate "atheistic" dreadful societies such as Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia?

Is is that those societies turned "Communism" into a kind of atheistic religion?

Also, I am not so sure that the "atheistic" religion of Buddhism has such a clean record. Again (book not in front of me), but I recall Kiernan speaking of fanatic Zen priests in Japan. Also I wonder how you evaluate the terrible fratricide in Sri Lanka between the Hindu Tamil Tigers and the Buddhist Sinhalese?

Although I have some passing acquaintance with Jewish history and doctrine (my ancestors were Eastern European Jews), and with Catholic and Protestant Christianity (growing up in the United States), my understanding of the history of Hinduism and Buddhism is certainly as shallow as can be. I was just looking at Wikipedia pages about Buddhism and starting to get a headache.

Re: Genocide and murderous actions by atheists and "atheistic" religionists

vexen

2011-07-11 09:43 pm (UTC)

1. You are certainly correct in pointing out that many Buddhist regimes and sects have committed atrocities against each other in the name of religion, many times because of simple differences in belief.

2. With regards to communism and fascism; these were truly totalitarian regimes, but, I do not think that the pain in their name was committed in the name of religion in the same way that other inter-religious violence has been. They sought to replace religion (and all thinking) with their own doctrine, but, it wasn't "in the name of atheism". Likewise, there have been many killings by Christians and Muslims that were nothing to do with religion.

You are viewing vexen