The Irrational Atheist

WorldNetDaily ^ | 11/17/03 | Vox Day

[Tribune7]

The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.

That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.

The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.

In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.

The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.

In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.

Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.

[Blood of Tyrants]

A sceptic is just another way of saying that you deny it.

[BMCDA]

I always wonder how supposedly bright people can seriously hold such grand contradictions. Surely they cause massive friction as the concepts rub & scrape against each other inside their brains? But I gradually came to understand that the ability to hold major contradictory thoughts is endemic to humans - though I still can't see why.

I don't know either. I also made this observation, but how these people are able to compartmentalize their mind so these contradictory beliefs don't collide and the resulting cognitive dissonance doesn't drive them mad is still a mystery to me. Well, guess I'll never find out ;)

[Dimensio]

And be somewhat selfish and ruthless, constrained only by social law and less so by social convention. Almost like sociopaths.

Why? Why would I want to be a sociopath?

But that's conjecture, because I don't really believe in atheists. See I think God put knowledge of Him on peoples hearts, so there are no true atheists. Just people in deep denial.

Ah, so you're incredibly arrogant and presumptious. Thanks for letting us know.

Krsna? Vishnu? Yeah, what evidence??? There's only one God who provides evidence.

That's not what the Hindus told me. Why should I believe you and not them?

While Vishnu threatens you with having to live this life over and over again until you are good enough.

Please actually study the religion before making ignorant comments like this.

The God of Israel tells you that "it is appointed unto man ONCE to die and after that the judgement".

No, you claim that the "God of Israel" said this. You've not yet demonstrated this as true. Everything else that you've provided is conjecture hinged upon the assumption that you are right, however you apparently feel that your claims are so special that you don't have to demonstrate their accuracy before pronouncing them true.

[gcruse]

How do you suppose humanity survived the fifty thousand years before a desert tribe attributed volcanic rumblings to an invisible man in the sky? Judeo-Christian ethics do not predate the human community, and yet it managed to cross the finish line without annihilation...hmmm, which we may yet reverse in our morally advanced society.

[DannyTN]

"But that's conjecture, because I don't really believe in atheists. See I think Zeus put knowledge of Him on peoples hearts, so there are no true atheists. Just people in deep denial. "

Yeah, well people in deep denial often do fill the void with gods from their own imagination and religious rites, whether they make sense or not.

Didn't Douglas Adams say Zeus had discovered fresh linen in Ireland and had enjoyed the feel so much that he had slept for the past 2000 years?

[whattajoke]

The way I interpret this is: In the begining there was Pure Thought, Pure Logic (mathematics?),from which physical things(the Laws of Physics) evolved.

Quite an inauspicious beginning if you ask me. Pure thought disappeared rather quickly with the eating of the forbiddent fruit, and it was demolished in what, 20 years or so when Cain and Abel had their falling out? Pure logic lasted until... well, I was going to say when a snake spoke, but I can think of a few examples before that.

Listen, I don't care what fantastic tales you believe as long as it's not harming anyone. But when an article calls me "irrational" or when DannyTN says I'm "just in denial," well, then, I have an issue.

[BMCDA]

Fair enough. I'll concede that point for now. However, I'd like to know your take on a certain oral history of middle eastern peoples from a couple thousand years ago and how it can possibly be accurate in such matters.

Hmmm, this reminds me of a bonmot from Dawkins:

"There may be some deep questions about the cosmos that are forever beyond science. The mistake is to think that they are therefore not beyond religion, too."

[balrog666]

Not to mention the amazing luck to be born in the exact time and place to receive the correct religion and one and only correct interpretation of the Bible.

You mean religion is a matter of cultural indoctrination? Ding, ding, ding - we have a winnah!

[desertcry]

Not true. .....elite scientist.... be willing to bet.... Again, sorry Bob both Newton and Einstien were true believers in the creator. On Quantum Theory: Enstien said he did not believe God plays dice.... We in FR have very poor openion on people with an "elite" attached to their profession. Newton and Einstien are the 2 Pillars of modern science, then there are the rest of them. What you bet on, that you can put yourself in the minds of Newton and Einstien and hence know exactly whether they really believe in God or just intimidated by the ultra rightwing Christians. That would not be fair to you, and hence I would not take that advantage.

[desertcry]

I see no value in any discussion, when people involved become uncivil. It eventually leads to people calling each other names (irrational, stupid, ....), it's not illuminating and it's not fun.

[DannyTN]

How do you suppose humanity survived the fifty thousand years before a desert tribe attributed volcanic rumblings to an invisible man in the sky?

If you believe the evolutionist's dating methods, they now have man pegged at 160,000 years. But I don't think so. Based on the assumption that the Bible records a full history in Genesis, skips no generations and that the ages of Adam and his descendants are accurate. I think it's only been about 6000 years.

But the first 2000 years are a pretty good argument for the existance of atheists. At least mankind was in pretty deep denial. Here's how the Bible says they survived....

Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD....11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Fortunately God is not going to destroy us all again, until He destroys the Earth completely. However note despite Noah, man hasn't changed.

Gen 11: 21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

"Judeo-Christian ethics do not predate the human community, and yet it managed to cross the finish line without annihilation...hmmm, which we may yet reverse in our morally advanced society."

Managed to cross the finish line without annihilation? Except for Noah, man wouldn't have.

[Dimensio]

Yeah, well people in deep denial often do fill the void with gods from their own imagination and religious rites, whether they make sense or not.

Great, my irony meter just exploded.

[Dimensio]

Again, sorry Bob both Newton and Einstien were true believers in the creator. On Quantum Theory: Enstien said he did not believe God plays dice....

Einstein was a pantheist; he did not believe in a personal creator, nor did he ever indicate belief in an afterlife.

Newton and Einstien are the 2 Pillars of modern science, then there are the rest of them

Newton was also a firm believer in the sound principles of alchemy. He got physics on earth right (though much of what he discovered was later shown to be not entirely accurate). That dosn't mean that he as infallable in all respects.

[DannyTN]

"Great, my irony meter just exploded."

lol

[DannyTN]

"For the record, and in an effort to help you better understand where it is I (and other like me, perhaps) are coming from, Neither the God of Israel nor Vishnu has ever "told" me anything. "

I agree Vishnu has not. How can Vishnu when he doesn't exist?

I don't agree that God has never spoken to you. I believe in addition to implanting knowledge in your heart, He has spoken directly to you through the Holy Spirit, and indirectly through His written word recorded by His prophets and indirectly through his servants.

Oh, and about the "in denial" thing. I don't say that to insult atheists. It really is what I believe. Perhaps it would be more tactful of me not to say it that way. But that implanted knowledge is one of the things that will condemn you. The excuse that I didn't know, or there was no proof, is not going to fly on judgement day. That dog don't hunt.

[gcruse]

Great, my irony meter just exploded.

I'm still wiping the meltdown off my monitor.

[VadeRetro]

But if the Atheist can gain from violating societal laws and conventions with a reasonable certainty that society will never be the wiser, then does the Atheist believe that it is "wrong" to do so? I would think a true atheist would act entirely in his self interest.

When the Man of God hallucinates that God is telling him to murder, watch out!

[DannyTN]

"If it gives mathematical backing to the teachings of Jesus, then that would really hurt the claim that Jesus/God himself must be the source of the truth of those teachings. "

It wouldn't hurt the claim. If just throws it back to whether God is our creator or not.

What's so remarkable about a set of teachings that merely restate the obvious?

Because they don't restate the obvious. Scripture calls man to a standard higher than any human law. Love is not rational. Self interest is rational. God calls us to Love, to self sacrifice.

That's not obvious. At least not in our condition.