Why I am not an Atheist.

I decided to start with a post on why I’m not an atheist. Obviously anyone is free to jump in and post. However, if you do decide to jump in and post try to refrain from personal attacks. Ad hominem attacks just side-track the discussion and, well, they are simply illogical arguments.

Atheism (as a worldview system; not as a person) is irrational and philosophically flimsy. Many of you will object already and say, “It’s not a system or worldview; it’s every atheist for themselves; we’re all different!” I understand that but all I need to evaluate it is the core tenet or core definition as given by atheists on this forum: Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That is what I am analyzing.

[Side note: I do believe that this definition of atheism is simply a philosophical cop-out in order to get around the burden of proof. The definition given by so many atheists on this forum goes against the definitions given in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy and in Webster’s New World Dictionary which is rather curious and strange. I’ll put that objection aside in order to continue this discussion.]

No worldview or belief system (be it atheism, Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism) is going to be able to answer every question perfectly. There will always be problems. However, which worldview or belief system best explains the most foundational philosophical questions? Here’s just a few reasons why I don’t think atheism is the best explanation (remember this is not an exhaustive list).

1. Logical absolutes (or logical laws) exist.

One thing that is rarely considered in such debates is the fact each debater expects his/her opponent to answer rationally. It is assumed or presupposed that rationality will be employed and used throughout the debate and this is how one proves their position. I don’t expect anyone to answer with an ad hominem or an appeal to pity or any other logical fallacy. We all occasionally (or consistently!) commit logical fallacies and need to be corrected in our thinking in order to get at the truth.

Laws of logic such as the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction are not dependent on space or time or any material object or even human nature. They are not the product of the universe nor are they the product of the human mind because the human mind is not absolute. Therefore, laws of logic are inherent, immaterial, transcendent, and universal. Atheism as a philosophical system is completely unable to account for how an immaterial, transcendent, and universal law is possible in an evolved universe.

These laws of logic are immaterial; as in they can’t be put into a test tube or bumped into in the dark or held in your hands. Although I won’t take too much space to elaborate on this, it is crucial to understand that this means that there could be other things which are immaterial and impossible to empirically test. Keep this in mind.

Many atheists trip over themselves at this point. They will state that you can test or see the results of logic (i.e. “I can look down at my hands and SEE that there are two of them”; or “I can touch a hot stove and SEE the results of my reddened hand and therefore know not to do it again”). These examples miss the point though because they circle back and assume logic to prove logic. This doesn’t show how it is possible to have transcendent, immaterial, and universal laws in a naturalistic universe.

Logical absolutes are not dependent upon the universe. They are not found in matter or inside trees. Logical absolutes would exist if the universe didn’t exist (i.e. the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle would still be true).

Now one might argue that laws of logic are just there or that they just are. This is still begging the question. Others would say that they are just social conventions or that they evolved. This too begs the question and makes logic relative to individuals which means that logic can’t really be used to prove anything at all (more on this in my next point).

Therefore, laws of logic are inherent, immaterial, transcendent, and universal. This means that the laws of logic apply to everyone regardless of whether or not everyone chooses to use them. Atheism cannot give an adequate explanation for why logical absolutes or logical laws exist in a chance universe in the way that they do without begging the question.

2. Epistemological Problems

Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. As demonstrated above, in the atheist worldview, logic had to develop naturalistically over time. IF it did, there would be no possible way of knowing that we now have it right today; therefore logical absolutes are not absolutes and truth cannot be known in any realm of study (including science). In other words, there’s no possible way that you can “know” anything.

Let me elaborate a bit. If you are OK with this and affirm, “Yes, we can’t know anything for sure” you are making a self-refuting statement because you assume that the statement you just made IS absolutely true. To say, “We can’t know anything” is to make a “true” statement that you want me to accept. How can that very statement be proven then? It can’t and is therefore self-defeating because the statement itself is an attempt at making a truth claim which you said can’t be done.

Assume this statement is true: “Evolution can explain the origin of life without any sort of supernatural being.” If true, then we are the products of evolutionary design which selects physical traits that are necessary for survival not non-physical, immaterial traits that are good at discerning the truth. Evolution is ultimately self-defeating because we couldn’t know if anything we think or believe is true. Ergo no knowledge or ability to attain knowledge.

Take it a step further. Atheism often makes the claim that something is true IF it can be scientifically verified (a.k.a. “God cannot be scientifically verified; therefore he doesn’t exist”). The previous statement (“something is true IF it can be scientifically verified”) cannot itself be scientifically verified and is therefore unproven and self-refuting because it is a philosophical claim.

3. Design or chance

Atheism stands in awe of scientific achievement in all fields of science. Atheism applauds things like advanced aircraft, computer technology, and architectural innovation to name a few. These aforementioned things are obviously products of intelligent (human) design. On the other hand, atheism affirms that the human body, being intricately more complex, was very obviously the result of biological evolution with no designer behind it whatsoever and no purpose. To me, this is odd.

My point here is simple: Where did life come from? Careful here. I’m not asking how we evolved. I’m asking how life came from non-life. The universe could not have created itself because that would mean it would have to exist in the first place to perform the action of creating. The universe could not have come from nothingness because nothingness is the lack of all things and is not “something”. Ultimately, atheism is forced to appeal to some sort of transcendent and eternal “thing” be it matter, energy, etc. Again, atheism is self-defeating because it simply must call for an eternal substance or being. Atheists just don’t want to call that eternal substance “god” or “gods”.

Atheists (Richard Dawkins for example) often claim that God should have left some physical trace in the universe as a sign that he exists. Since God didn’t do that, then he probably doesn’t exist. Note what is implied here. There is the insistence that God must be a material object like the moon that is able to be empirically tested. Why must he be tested empirically? Is everything tested empirically? Certainly not as we saw above with logical absolutes. So why must God’s existence be testable by physical or empirical means only?

An illustration may serve us well here. C.S. Lewis once wrote in response to a Russian cosmonaut returning from space who reported that he had not found God. Lewis said that this would be like Hamlet running to the attic of his castle looking for Shakespeare. If there is a God, he will not be like other material objects that can be put in a test tube. God would relate to us as Shakespeare would relate to the characters in his plays. The characters could only know what Shakespeare reveals about himself. They would really get to know him well if he would write himself into a play. And this is what God has done through Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

Atheism is irrational and arbitrary for the reasons given above. Agnosticism would at least be a bit more plausible but this still would ultimately fail as a worldview. Understand that I am not attacking atheists personally. I’m sure you are all great people and you desire to do right and live a good life. I enjoy interacting with many of you here. But when there is a clash of worldviews, I’m looking for honest, intellectually satisfying answers to the major philosophical questions of life. There are more reasons but time and space limit me at the moment.

 

Where did this come from? Did you think it up yourself?

 

This is ridiculous,and shows a huge lack of understanding about atheism on your part.

An atheist is JUST someone who doesn't have belief in God or gods -thats all end of story, period.

So ,of course, they aren't going to be able to "answer questions perfectly"
no one Faith/lack of faith will never be the answer for the entire world(despite pushing from either side) its part of what having your own life,morals and beleifs is all about
.. Besides,there isn't really any atheist "question" to answer other than "No" to "do you believe in god/gods" .


Why do they need an explanation for anything ,nor are in a competition to have any explanations be "the best".
The simple truth of the matter is NO one knows the compleate answers to the philosophical questions,despite pondering them since the dawn of human existance(which I beleive just as likely we evolved than we were spit out of some gods ass-
and,by the way- while on the subject I have a question for you- If such fantastical things as humans HAVE to have been created IYNSHO-then ,who/what CREATED your all powerful god?..and don't hurt yourself) .

So, as it stands NO ONE knows the answer to:
" do we have a soul"
"what happens when we die"
"where did humans come from"
and similar questions
--but we CAN theorize, (very)possible scientific explanations,
possible theology explanations,,
we can believe the dogma of gods,and religions ,
or we can just say we don't know.

Honestly, I usually pick that "don't know" option-
I call myself agnostic(when/if) I MUST label my beleifs, cause I just don't know- god is possible,many gods are possible,so is it POSSIBLE there was never a god,just a story.
Interestingly enough though- if someone asked "do you believe in God" - I would just say no. So maybe I am also,by definition, a really confused atheist.

 

As a Christian who thinks a lot like Neodude, I've been holding back to give the atheists a shot at this topic. But there hasn't been much action, so I'm jumping in. Surprise, surprise: I agree with a lot of what Neodude says, and will even tack on some additional arguments. But I'll also add some qualifications, beginning with my reservations about characterizing atheists as "irrational". I can think of some atheists who don't fit that label, including Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. If anything, these dudes are too rational--or more precisely, too left-brained reductionist and dismissive of intuition as a basis for judgments. But I'd feel presumptuous, as an Okie from Muskogee, to say that I'm more rational than they are. I also think I understand and respect where they're coming from. They associate God with a sorry history of superstition, credulousness, preconceptions that have interfered with scientific progress, and religious-based violence. We've made advances by looking for naturalistic explanations, and it's certainly not irrational to expect further gains in the future.

My own rejection of atheism is based largely on intuitive judgments that incline me to bet on a different horse. I'd describe these as considerations guiding my risk-taking decision rather than logically compelling proofs. My basic position can be summed up by my sense that our existence, life, human consciousness, and the universe seem to be either remarkably fortunate accidents or the result of SBWOT (Something Big Within and/or Out There).

My main quibble with the way the arguments against atheism are stated in the post (no offense intended, Brother Neodude) is that they seem too much like logical proofs, and as such are vulnerable. The three main arguments are variations on the classical "transcendental" argument, the argument from design, and the cosmological argument, none of which is airtight. (more, later, when I've had some sleep).

 

I dont understand how you can have a place in this discussion then. When I bring up valid points, you tell me it's ridiculous because no one truely knows, yet you still assert that it's rational for you to not believe in a God/Gods.

Make up your own mind before you try to make up mine.

 

lol it is pretty interesting to notice that even with such a bold title and about 76 views, no one has really replied to the points presented.

My main point was just to simply show that logic does not necessarily result in a nonbeliever.

Atheist fancy themselves more rational, logical, and more well-informed than theist, but often I find that this is not the case.

 

Thats the point.
I am NOT trying to make up YOUR mind.
You can think whatever you want.

How can it NOT be rational to not beleive in god?

It is a fact that there are millions of things to beleive in,your "god" just being one small facet of that,another possibility of many thousands-with hordes of "beleivers" for each of those-,
Now,why should I beleive that over others? Or over not knowing.Admiting my not knowing,and NOT beleiving in god,may possibly be the most rational thing I CAN do...
No I don't have proof there is no god.An atheist doesn't need proof in their beleif.They just don't beleive in god/gods...ou don't need proof to not beleive in something.
Do you need proof to not beleive in the tooth fairy?

I think its INCREDIBLY discriminatory to label an entire group as irrational- are some atheists,absoloutly,so are some christians,some muslims,ect.A lot of PEOPLE are irrational.
I will agree logic doen't = nonbeleiver.I know some very logocal theists...but to turn it around and act as though all atheists are illogical is just wrong,and incredibly hateful.

.

 

I never said all.

And Im not saying it isn't rational to believe in a God.

However, dont pretend that you arrived at that conclusion through logical means. That's all Im saying.

All I ever hear is the same arguments, the same mistakes, the same insults over and over again. Im not saying that this is the case with any of you.

But, if that is not sheep behavior, then what makes a theist any different?

 

I don't know what to tell you on that neodude.

All I ever hear from xtians is the same irrational arguments about hell and the bible always the same shit over and over about why I should have the same faith they do....but I am not about to believe that all xtians go around spouting irrational dogma.


I don't believe either atheists or christians as a group are better,more logical,more rational than one or the other(one xtian MIGHT be more logical than one atheist and viseversa) . I don't like when either goes around pushing what they beleives on other people.

The thing is- an atheist is JUST someone who doesn't have faith in god/gods.Thats all it means,so an atheist usually doesn't have a faith to push.(not that they don't still,cause some do)
Just a non belief.The Word ATHEIST by very definition includes people with many different philosophical beliefs and opinions.
From people that believe in reincarnation,to those that believe there is no soul.
It isn't just one group of people that all beleive the same thing..so you can't really categorize them that way. Thats like saying all christians are catholic.


I will agree that SOME atheists are illogical and just as pushy about it,and act as if any belief but their own is ridiculous,just as the avg door to door theist witness would be..

but then,I didn't just make a huge rant about how "Atheism is irrational and arbitrary"

 

Babyhellfire has a point.

 

but isn't this

just a fancy way of saying that you dont believe in god/gods? also, one of the points I brought up in my original post, is that I have never read that definition from an officially recognized dictionary ever.

The formal definition of atheism is the belief that there is no god.

 

Yes faith/belief is the same thing.

Do you beleive in reincarnation?
Do you beleive in the tooth fairy?
Do you beleive in santa?

So, you say no(most likely) to those questions?

It is the same--
an atheist is ANY person who would say no to the question
"DO you believe in god"
period.
an atheist doesn't believe,have faith in God/gods. Thats all.there is no other moral guide,belief ,act, or rule to being an atheist other than not believing in god/gods



It is a fact :
dictionary.com says atheist: "noun-
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

marriam-webster:


"Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ist\
Function:
noun
Date:
1551

: one who believes that there is no deity "

---same defintion I found on MANY other dictionary sites.

NOW, i found a few sites that did differ and stated the FULL definition with comparison to agnostisim.. but like I said I am agnostic because I won't deny exsitance of a possible god- or a possible Vishnu cause it can't be known they stated:

"atheist Synonyms
atheist

n.

freethinker, nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, agnostic, infidel, heathen, irreligionist, materialist, nihilist, nullifidian; see also skeptic.

an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God; an agnostic questions the existence of God, heaven, etc. in the absence of material proof and in unwillingness to accept supernatural revelation; deist, a historical term, was applied to 18th-century rationalists who believed in God as a creative, moving force but who otherwise rejected formal religion and its doctrines of revelation, divine authority, etc.; freethinker, the current parallel term, similarly implies rejection of the tenets and traditions of formal religion as incompatible with reason; unbeliever is a more negative term, simply designating, without further qualification, one who does not accept any religious belief; infidel is applied to a person not believing in a certain religion or the prevailing religion"

 

if you dont assert that there is no god, then this forum wasn't meant to be addressed to you.

 

I thought this forum was for agnostics and atheists? Of which I consider myself?
Do you mean this thread.
You addressed your rant towards atheism.I only meant to clarify that you didn't understand atheism, if you believed that ALL who are atheist are as you described.

Clearly,I have proven my point.

I know many atheists,some who believe there is NO GOD,no soul,no afterlife at all and god is IMPOSSIBLE,
and many atheists who just don't believe in god,gods of any sort...but they do believe in other things like soul afterlife karma or even Buddhism.

 

somehow, I knew we would end up discussing political correctness rather than the points brought up.

yes I meant thread. I apologize for burdening you to correct me.

Of course, generalizations will never cover everyone. This is to be assumed.

 

If it is safe to assume that then why generalizein the 1st place, as you did?

the only thing you CAN ascribe the atheism is a lack of belief in god,The rest(your "atheism is illogical" rant) is just a generalization based on the actions of SOME atheists you know.
Its hateful,and incorrect, to the rest.

You threw out a huge assumption about an entire group of people,and then want to whine about it becoming about PCness.
Then Don't make huge incorrect generalizations about people.

 

I find your responses to me very odd. I never found myself hateful not once.

And we make generalizations every day. I'd rather just attribute a common definition of atheism to my OP rather than give fan service to all the various groups.

But, like I said, this thread is supposed to be about the points that were brought up, not personal attacks against my choice of addressing a group of people. It's gotten rather ridiculous.

 

ok.Which I see now is why you haven't gotten any other responses.We are only allowed to repond to you the way you see fit? WHY?Do you take every response as a personal attack when YOU start out as being hateful?

I guess I am too new to know this must be typical of you.

I do think it is hateful,or at the very least incredibly ignorant to assume,and try to prove a HUGE group of very differnt people are all irrational ,or illogical.
It would be hateful if I said Christianity is irrational,and illogical-would it not?


Your points are moot,because you addressed them to all atheists(and atheism) when really you only meant to address them to atheists you describe who believe a certain way with which you disagree .

You don't even know exactly what atheism is, or who atheists are...but you seek to define their actions?
makes perfect sense. whats hilarious, is I have seen this exact post directed at xtians from xtream bitter teenage atheists,and its just as ridiculous and hateful then.


I am done.
Fine.think what you want.
Atheism is illogical 'cause it is always the same arguments.
this argument is illogical cause its the same argument,with a new veneer.

 

Statements are being made when one doesn't have belief.

Lack in belief states that certain claims are false. The belief is believed to be false, so a lack of belief sets in, thus a conclusion is made between true or false. These conclusions of true and false are arrived at by viewing the evidence. The connection of a thing or things can be gathered as evidence, but what is considered as connected is decided by the claimer. Evidence is a claim made by the subject, and thus subjective. If more than one can be convinced by the original claimers claim, including being arrived separately, then the belief in the claim can then widen. Belief is the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another, or a mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. All beliefs are derived at in two ways: From the self and from others, thus all truths are arrived at by SELVES; A self is a single individual. Faith is a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. A lack of belief in God or gods is faith driven.

All beliefs are leaps of faith.

Choose which faith that you would like to leap with.

 

no, but I think your responses should have something to do with the points presented.

show me where I was hateful, and I will earnestly apologize.

I have no idea what you mean.

Apples and Oranges. I never said ANY group of people were irrational or illogical, but rather that atheist is an irrational worldview. And no, if you said Christianity is irrational, it would not be hateful.

You seem very quick to umbridge.

even if that was the case, none of my points have yet to be proven moot.

like I explained in the OP, I believe your definition of atheism is merely a fancy wording to escape the burden of proof.