The Irrational Atheist

The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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.

Human arrogance is boundless.

Which is more arrogant of man?

Religion, that claims the creator of the entire universe takes a personal interest in YOUR life, that claims the universe is structured to provide for man's eternal salvation if man so choses it, that claims man can have a personal relationship with God?

Or athiesm, that claims that man is a infinitely small piece of a huge uncaring universe. That man is nothing more than a temporary collection of cells with a finite existence?

Belief in religion requires a much larger ego and is a much greater statement of arrogance on the part of mankind.

Atheism today rejects all use of physical coecion in relations between men, and are usually the most outspoken about protecting freedom of religion.

What? An universal church of atheism?

Most atheists do not identify themselves as atheists, just because, the whole question for them is a non-issue. They don't believe in the pheonix, either, but don't go around calling themselve apheonixes. The whole idea of identifying oneself in terms of what one does not believe in is ludicrous.

Most people identify atheism with a small radical and vocal number of individuals who are actually anti-religion. Atheists are not anti-religion.

They may believe the religious are mistaken, and may engage in discussion about specific points which the religious frequently put forward, but the one thing any thinking atheist would always insist is that every individual be free to think and believe what they choose. Every atheist knows, freedom begins with the freedom to pursue one's own beliefs, to promote them, practice them, and follow them in their personal choices."

Thomas Paine, possibly the most famous of Atheists, (though actually a Deist), said, "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible duty of every government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof." This is the predominant view of those who are not themselves professors of any religion, but who understand the necessity for liberty in belief and thought for all men.

Hank

"Perhaps you along with Phaedrus could be the first in history (that I’m aware of) to do so. I’m sure virtually everyone would consider that worthy of publication."

The proof is there. How many fulfilled prophecies does it take? How many witnesses of miracles does it take?

It's just like the pictures of the men on the moon. The truly determined will find a way to disbelieve them, to consider them forgeries or trickery.

Same thing with the proofs of God. No other God has the kind of witnesses to miracles and prophecies that God has. But you don't want to believe them. My guess is that even if God did big miracles right in front of your eyes, you wouldn't believe it. You'd chuckle and say, "how did they do that?".

If you want a fairly good partial enumeration of the many proofs out there. Pick up Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a verdict". Or "Evidence that demands a verdict II".

“Proof” is not subjective.

It most certainly is. One cannot truly "prove" anything, since all such "proofs" are apprehended solely via the senses — a subjective process. The senses can be fooled; the result, as Descartes famously observed, is that is it impossible to say definitively that anything is true based upon the evidence of the senses alone. The only thing one can be certain of is one's own existence, i.e. that which is experienced directly, without recourse to the senses: cogito, ergo sum.

Logically speaking, there is more support for the idea that God exists than the contention that elfman2 exists. After all, the existence of a non-contingent being (i.e. God) is logically required if a demonstrably contingent universe is held to exist. The existence of the universe, however, in no way depends of the existence of elfman2.

The logic is inescapable: since the only thing one can know for sure is that oneself exists, then all that one holds to be true outside of that fact is held to be true on the basis of belief. The existence of atoms, other people, France, God — all must, in the final analysis, be taken on faith. Therefore, one must either be a solipsist or a believer; there can be no other option.

I believe that you exist, for example — but I can't prove it, and neither can you. Like one's own existence, the existence of God needs no proof — both may be inferred from the evidence of the senses, but in the end both may be known only by direct experience.

First, unless you have actually studied the life of Jesus...

I have via the NT as well as some other sources.

and understood what the fruits of the spirit and the virtues of Godly wisdom are and what they are not...

I admit, I don't understand anything having anything to do with "spirits" or "Godly wisdom," as they are supernatural entities that I have never had any reason to delve into in the least. (Excepting Santa Claus as a child, of course.)

By what light to you judge yourself to be "morally clean"?

Accepted current social standards in my city/state/country. All laws of my city/state/country. In fact, as a rather conservative man, I'd wager I far exceed those standards of morality. I adhere to many, if not most, moral tenets of the bible as the author of the original article states some of us non theists do.
Your next several paragraphs are rather rational and clear headed and I thank you for them.

The reason we don't believe in all the other gods. Is simply that they aren't real. They haven't done the kind of miracles and prophecies that God has. Nor have they set a perfect pure standard. Nor can they make themselves real in peoples lives.

Tell that to the billions of earth's residents who would call you insane for stating this. Show me one miracle or tell me one prophecy (Ahem, before it happens, and I'll be sitting right next to you in church for every last sunday of my life.)

"Which is more arrogant of man? "

Atheism, that claims that man's creator doesn't exist. That it's not the Creator who was self-existant, but rather man himself who is self-existant, if only by random chance.

Or Christianity, that recognizes that man does owe his existence to the Creator. That the Creator does have rights to demand a certain level of responsibility and caring from His creation. That we as the creation have failed to live up to that standard that the Creator sets for us, but not because we were created imperfectly but rather because we were given free choice and chose to rebel. And that we are incapable of saving ourselves and need a savior.

Which indeed?

PS not all religions claim that God takes a personal interest in YOUR life. Many, probably most, teach that God is impersonal. Christianity teaches that God is very personal.

And while that might sound arrogant to believe that the creator of the universe takes a personal interest in you. Imagine the affront of having Your creation decide that You don't even exist, that they don't need You, that You're not relevant, that You didn't do all the things history records that You did, rather other parts of Your creation just made them up.

Most atheists do not identify themselves as atheists,

The ones that do have a pretty lousy track record.

Thomas Paine, possibly the most famous of Atheists, (though actually a Deist),

Ponder that statement.

Look, if you say "I can't believe this guy rose from the dead" or "the universe doesn't have a supernatural cause" I can respect that.

Those, however, who say "Jesus didn't rise from the dead" or "the "universe does not have a supernatural cause" or "only the weak and superstitious believe in God" are fools.

Those who say that the teachings of Jesus should not be recognized as our cultural foundation because many believe Him to be God are also fools.

I don't know what category in which you fall.

I defend your right to atheism, but starting the public school day with a Bible reading or prayer, putting a stone inscribed with the 10 Commandments in a courtroom or singing Christmas carols at a public event don't infringe upon this right.

These things have long been part of our culture, and they are good things. They buttress the values that are -- as noted -- our foundation.

"Show me one miracle or tell me one prophecy (Ahem, before it happens, and I'll be sitting right next to you in church for every last sunday of my life.)"

Get familiar with the book of Revelations. Many of those prophecies are being fulfilled in the current day and age. You are likely to see many of the prophecies related to the Great Tribulation fulfilled in your lifetime.

However, you are not likely to live through the seven years of tribulation, as most people will not. And if I understand the prophecies concerning the rapture correctly, I won't be here to sit next to.

"Accepted current social standards in my city/state/country. All laws of my city/state/country."

The standard that God puts before us is really much higher than the social standards or even the 10 commandments. It's a deceptively simple standard, to always act in love towards God and our fellow man. But understanding what love is, and applying it to every aspect of our being, is the hard part.

Get familiar with the book of Revelations. Many of those prophecies are being fulfilled in the current day and age.

Kindly alert me to one. Keep in mind, the cryptic nature of the writing in the book of Revelation (not, "Revelations" as you and most people wrongly state) lends itself to every single day and age. I'm a huge fan of Jack Van Impe (and his lovely wife Rexella, of course) and if I've learned anything over the last several years, it's that the Tribulation has now occurred numerous times.

You are likely to see many of the prophecies related to the Great Tribulation fulfilled in your lifetime.

Call me a skeptic, but to that I say, "no I won't." If only there were a way to "prove" it. oh well... we'll just wait and see and hope FR is around for a few more decades.

"It most certainly is. One cannot truly "prove" anything, since all such "proofs" are apprehended solely via the senses — a subjective process. "

That’s about as true as saying that a point in space is always an approximation. In a mathematical context, yes, the definition of a point is always subject to greater precision. In the context of describing the location of objects (as well as the degree that a claim is “proven”) does not depend on an infinitesimally small measurements.

I can prove that a hungry tiger is dangerous. But because I can not provide evidence that sustains itself to 10 to the millionth, billionth or trillionth power does not make my judgment that danger exists a “subjective” one. One does not have to thrash in the inability to disprove the one in a trillion-trillion chance that everyone’s eyes are consistently lying to them in order to pronounce something proven.

In this context of human life, it’s provable by overwhelming evidence that tigers are dangerous. Our experiences are similar enough to call that an “objective” claim. But as far as I know, there is no similar overwhelming evidence that “proves” the validity of the Bible.

Of course if you want to preface your claims of proof being subjective as assuming that the most infinitesimally small amount of doubts precludes objectivity, then I won’t argue that it’s true in that narrow mathematical context, removed from the human experience.

Religion, that claims the creator of the entire universe takes a personal interest in YOUR life, that claims the universe is structured to provide for man's eternal salvation if man so cho[o]ses it, that claims man can have a personal relationship with God?

"Religion" covers a lot of territory, Doc. Do you have a particular religion in mind? And what does the foregoing have to do with arrogance?

Or athiesm, that claims that man is a infinitely small piece of a huge uncaring universe. That man is nothing more than a temporary collection of cells with a finite existence?

Problem is that atheism has no scientific or rational basis for these claims. We live in an orderly and beautiful universe and it is not rational to claim that this "just happened".

Belief in religion requires a much larger ego and is a much greater statement of arrogance on the part of mankind.

Well, nonsense.

Strawman!

You are dodging my point: that all "proof" is apprehended through the senses, which apprehension is and must be a subjective experience. One cannot prove that tigers are dangerous, or even that tigers exist: all one can say with certainty is that one perceives certain sensory inputs that lead one to believe that tigers exist. The issue of whether or not those sensory inputs correspond to reality in any meaningful way is impossible to know with certainty; one might, for example, be merely dreaming of a tiger. At any given instant there is no way to determine with certainty which sensory inputs correspond to reality and which do not; for all we know, everything we see and do is merely part of a dream, or a fantasy, or a hallucination, or a drug trip. All we may know with certainty is that we ourselves exist; we do not see, hear, smell, touch, or taste our own selves — we are ourselves.

Of course, I believe that tigers exist, and that they can be dangerous. But I cannot say that this is certainly true; I can only say that I accept its truth as a working assumption — in other words, as a matter of faith. The same goes for the existence of atoms, energy, the internet, elfman2, and the rest of the universe. One either makes a leap of faith and believes that Reality exists outside of one's own skull, or one becomes a solipsist.

Only that which is directly experienced can be known with certainty to exist. Therefore, sensory perception can not be the sine qua non of reality. Imagine a person placed in a sensory deprivation tank, with all sensory inputs absent — unable to feel, see, hear, touch, taste, or smell anything at all. Furthermore, let us assume this imaginary person has been dosed with a powerful anesthetic drug that deadens his sense of his own body positioning while allowing him to remain conscious. What could such a person know to exist without sensory "proof"?

Answer: he could know his own existence. He could "hear himself think". Despite the utter lack of evidence, he could know with 100% certainty that he himself existed. This is what I mean when I say that "proof" is an illusion: since all "proof" is based upon sensory data, which is inherently subjective, then the notion of "objective proof" or "objective existence" is meaningless. The senses can be fooled — but one cannot doubt that which one experiences directly, without use of the senses, i.e. one's own existence.

And so we see that your notion of "proof" makes no sense, because it is founded upon the senses. As Socrates pointed out, the truly wise man is he who knows that he knows nothing— the man who heeds the words of the Delphic Oracle and knows only that which can be known: "Know Thyself".

"Quakers meeting."

Funny, I went to a Quaker college and never saw any evidence of irrational religiosity.

I'm sure you are right. My reference was to a game we used to play when I was a child (long long ago) called "Quakers meeting." I'm sure everyone under fifty misunderstood my allusion.

The game began with someone saying, "Quaker meeting has begun, no more laughing, no more fun, if you show your teeth or tongue, you shall pay a forfeit."

It was the, "no more laughing, no more fun," part I was referring to.

Hank

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.