Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

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

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
2009 Mohican

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'.


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

The Vampire

Re: Atheism


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.

The Dhampire

[[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.]]


[[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.

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

You are viewing vexen