The biggest evidence to the absurdity of the notion of atheism are the atheists. And they, themselves, are its biggest skeptics!!
If atheists genuinely believed that…
- Existence of a Creator is just a myth…
- There is no life and no judgement after death…
- Their existence is not associated with a purpose…
Given that life, for the most part and for most people, is ordinarily a series of continuous challenges, some more difficult than others, and actual good/happy times are less than the hardships…
Wouldn’t it be valid to suggest that most atheists should ideally end their own lives?…
Especially upon confronting any event of ailment, poverty, death/suffering of a loved one…
There’s logically no reason for them to carry on living when they can end their misery.
Moreover, why don’t they end the life of their loved ones who are very elderly and in pain, handicapped to a huge extent and miserable with their lives, terminally ill with statistics showing no hope for recovery. Because they then would be doing them, and their caregivers, a huge favor.
Why endure suffering?
Since survival is for the fittest, and the planet’s resources are becoming scarcer, why wouldn’t a council pick and choose the elite, who are worthy of survival and would produce “better humans”, and eliminate the unproductive, the weak, the anomalies?
If someone throws here the excuse of “Survival Instinct”, he would have to explain “Instinct” and the initial source of that instinct !!
16 thoughts on “No Real Atheist !!”
Again, a theist, Nada, has decided they know what atheist “should” believe. Of course, they don’t. My existence isn’t associated with some god’s purpose, but I do have a purpose of my own.
Nada, what you and so many other theists try to claim is that atheism should lead to nihilism, and you fail. So, your demand that a “real” atheist should want to commit suicide is just a sad attempt to frighten people. I don’t need to kill myself over challenges, indeed, my life is mostly great, not that many challenges, and no need for a god. Things get better, no god needed.
Why endure suffering? Because one can benefit from it. I do believe that people should have the right to euthanasia if they want it, and that’s their choice. However, people often don’t’ want to end things even if things get tough. Most caregivers are looking for a “favor” in someone’s death. That’s a sad lie told by a theist who is terrified of atheists.
Why wouldn’t a council pick and choose? Because most atheists care about personal freedom. They don’t need councils of imams or priests or anyone else to tell them what is right and wrong. Some religions are those who want to kill those who are the “anomalies”, those who stand in their way of spreading their nonsense. We can see that in the actions of Muslims, Christians, etc.
You might want to actually read about how humans interact, how evolutionary theory works before you attack it out of your willful ignorance. There is no evidence of your god, or that your god does anything, including being a “source” of instinct.
Dear, all atheist theories at their best can only come to the conclusion that “Existence of a God is not a necessity for all this to happen. He might, or might not, exist“, none however can give a scientific proof that there’s no way that a God exists. All theist proposals however indicate that a Creator’s existence is the only logical explanation.
Science gives far more unanswered questions..
Until atheists can produce a single piece of evidence that a Creator can Not exist or be the force behind it all, they have nothing worth discussing..
“dear”? heh. There is no evidence for your version of your god or anyone else’s, so atheists conclude that these gods don’t exist.
No one needs to give a scientific proof to show that no gods exist. You’ve made the extraordinary claim, so you get to provide the evidence your claim is true, and that no one else’s god exists either.
Yep, science does often give more questions and answers and we work to answer those questions, having a done a great job so far. We know that humans can discover and invent things, no gods needed, and we don’t need to claim that some disease is some petty god’s wrath. You use the science that shows evidence that supports your god doesn’t exist when it makes you comfy but you attack it in your willful ignorance. Such a hypocrite you are.
As for your nonsense “Until atheists can produce a single piece of evidence that a Creator can Not exist or be the force behind it all, they have nothing worth discussing..” that’s just a coward speaking. You want to lie about atheists and atheism, but you don’t want to be called on it.
Yes, “dear” .. because I don’t have a name to call you by.. and would not accept to use adjectives like: hypocrite, ignorant, nonsense, coward ..
hence, I shall not be replying because the topic clearly agitates you for some weird reason.
You have your convictions and I have my faith.. I’m pretty comfortable with that .. thanks for your time, reading and the comments
Way to go Nada! You keep moving those goalposts, and you’ll still be able to convince yourself that you’re in a debate.
No ‘real Atheist’ would be fool enough to claim that it is impossible for God to exist. Only a few are arrogant enough to insist that He does not exist. What Atheists have evidence of, is that your particular delusional description and definition of God does not, and can not, exist. The proof of that is the continued skeptical denials in the comments to your heated claims. 🙄
Thanks dear! I sincerely appreciate your reply and it got me curious. So what is the atheists’ conceptualization of God? And what’s the solid scientific evidence of such conceptualization? (P.S.: I did not actually present a description of God 😁.. but let’s assume I did anyway)
That’s it, Nada, push those goalposts back another 10 yards. Begin with the baseless assumption that they have one, and then demand not only a description, but scientific proof for something that Atheists don’t even believe exists.
I hesitate to speak for others, but I’ll try to explain Atheists’ conceptualization of God. It is very much like their conceptualization of Bigfoot, but with less hair; like fairies, without their tiny wings, much like their concept of leprechauns, but without the pot of gold.
It very much resembles the inside of a whiskey bottle, after you’ve drunk all the booze. There’s nothing there, but it distorts your perceptions, and makes you feel good.
I have heard, literally, hundreds of similar but different descriptions of God. Is yours like that of ‘Good Christians’, Catholic or Protestant? Does it resemble the Yahweh of Orthodox Jews? Does it agree with the Allah of observant Muslims? Heard all those and still don’t believe them. Is it like Joseph Smith’s, L. Ron Hubbard’s, or even worse, Heaven’s Gate??! All sizzle – no steak! All claim – no proof!
If you have a definition which varies significantly from any of these, I would be most interested to hear it, likely entertained, and probably amused. 😳
So you’re saying that for atheists there’s a notion of a potentially existing God but it is also a mythical non-describable being that created all of this??!! Is that it? That’s what you prefer to and find logical to believe?
Please don’t misunderstand me for making fun, I’m genuinely bewildered
To sum up my thought: I find it incredibly bewildering that an atheist is willing to believe anything, any theory unproven yet, any ridiculous illogical argument for the non-existence of a proper All knowing Creator , but vehemently opposed to the possibility of a Creator.. it’s almost like they hate the idea with a vengeance despite all the good that may result from such a proposal, even if it was a myth that people chose to believe
I too am genuinely bewildered. It must be all the unfounded assumptions, the sweeping claims and questions, and your tendency to put words in other people’s mouths. You ask about what Atheists think/do/feel/believe, as if they are all one cohesive bloc. There are as many opinions, as there are Atheists. The only thing that they all agree on, is that they have never been presented with a description of a God, potential or real, that they find believable. They do not find it logical, and their preference has nothing to do with it. No, I don’t ‘say that’, nor does any other real Atheist.
I am bewildered that you disapprove of Atheists believing unproven, “illogical” scientific arguments, but believe the idea of a personal God on blind faith. You don’t seem to understand the difference between the active pursuit of proof of the non-existence of God, (which can’t be done) and the passive lack of belief of claims that He does.
There are some few, usually not ‘Real Atheists’, but failed Christians, who desperately claim that He does not exist. Many Real Atheists that I know, would welcome His existence, and would have the honesty to accept Him. I mean, Who Wouldn’t? I would! – Salvation?? – Forgiveness?? – Heaven?? – Eternal Life?? There’s just that little sticking point of no real proof. The loudest of the Christian Apologists not only do not provide it, but, if you’d read my Dec. 11/19 30 Day https://archonsden.wordpress.com/2019/12/11/30-day-opinion-challenge/Challenge, you’d see that some of them offer theories so crazy illogical, that disbelief is almost mandatory. 🙄
Thanks.. I truly appreciate the sincerity of your proposal, you’re one of very few atheists I encountered who seem to genuinely want the truth. It’s different perspectives of looking at the issue, because as a theist who has her faith built on science just as it is built on faith, and am a huge proponent of science, find it extremely bewildering when someone can not recognize the existence of a Creator. The issue is not just the design in all Creation, but the unfathomable magnificence of this design as well as the amount of beauty in the design. Whoever created all this did not find it sufficient to create beings with amazing functionalities (even at the level of a mosquito), He Insisted on the beauty of the Creations where beauty is not a necessity for the functionality. Such a beautiful Creator that Gives us not only all these unbelievably functional creations in life but also amazes us with every new creature we discover every day. Examples from underwater world to the land and the sky, just look at how amazing the octopus is, such that all the artists and inventors with all their creative powers can only mimic what’s already given in nature.
Let me conclude by saying that, since science failed to solidly prove either possibility , and since all i see around me cries of a magnificent Creator, I’d rather follow the Innocent until proven guilty approach, A Creator until proven otherwise. Firstly, because my every sense of logic and knowledge accepts that, secondly beca of all the benefits that faith gives me in my life, as you mentioned.
Btw, no salvation in Muslim faith 😁 it’s every person responsible for his deeds, no one died so I can have the pleasure of doing anything regardless. Sorry to also take that away from the equation.
Please watch this, you might find it interesting on the history of science vs faith and philosophy https://youtu.be/7pk9oDrpf6k
Wishing you a great quest for the truth!!
Just to give an analogy.. there is no way I can convince you that a beautifully designed, precisely crafted and ornamented glass of water can exist on your table on its own by nature even if millions of years pass without someone laboring to first create the glass element, then fashion it, polish it, decorate it, then fill it with water and place it on your table … yet you expect me to believe that a universe that I even cannot see all of, let alone imagine its boundaries and content exists just like that… by itself.. no beginning.. no instigating force.. no management
Just because no one actually saw the process as it happened and the person that brought the glass??!
On a percentage basis, there are as many arrogant, deluded Atheists, as there are Theists. I don’t make any of the above claims. I don’t expect you to believe anything! I stated that my mind was open to evidence, and the chance of change. You clearly stated that I would not change your mind. For a self-avowed Science-lover, you seem disturbingly ill-informed. Your glass-of-water analogy shows that you don’t understand the concept of nascent properties.
Time and Space are inextricably interwound. Time only began when the hyper-dense singularity blossomed to become the Universe. Before that, it existed in a timeless, spaceless “place” where all happenings occurred simultaneously. Therefore, it could be infinitely old, yet have been ‘created’ yesterday.
The construction of your objection does not make your intent clear. Universe…. boundaries and content exists just like that… The Universe is a brute fact, which must be accepted as is. It exists, and has existed, the way it does…. Because! Did you mean, ‘without an identified Creator’??
by itself.. There may have been previous Universes. Perhaps a property of that trans-dimensional space, is to occasionally spit out baby Universes. There may be an infinite number of co-temporal ‘Multiverses,’ but we can’t reach them to prove that they do, or do not, exist. Again, are you looking for a Creator?
no beginning… The ‘Beginning’ of the Universe was 4.358 Billion years ago, when the Big Bang caused the singularity to unfold, creating time and space. Before that, it was only an unrealized potential.
no management… Why would it need management? The Universe possesses a number of immutable laws, which control the grand scheme. The very purpose of the variable minor details is to create change and improvement. If I plug in an electric alarm clock, it needs no management. I don’t have to reset the time each day. The Universe is not like a car, which needs to be constantly steered.
no instigating force… It is possible that an entity, existing in that non-space ‘space’ reached out a tentacle, and nudged the singularity, causing it to expand. The creature which ‘instigated’ the Universe may not have ‘created’ it. In any case, you are conflating the concept of Creator, with a God, or in your case, Allah. Even if I specify to the existence of a being which created the Universe, along with many others, I see no evidence of a personal God/Allah – no miracles, no answered prayers, no care or concern about what we eat, drink, think, believe, say, do, wear, or have sex with.
It is a very interesting article, and a very interesting discussion.
There is a major difference between a Scientific Inquirer and an Atheist. The first is searching for knowledge, while the second has concluded a final judgement; meaning that the search is over, at least temporarily. That is the main reason why no academic claim, so far, determined whether God exists or not.
Those who are open to any possibilities are not usually classified as Atheists; they are called Agnostics. Moreover, those who not only admit they don’t really know – and that they can’t know at this point in time – but even doubt the existence of God, are usually called Skeptics.
True, just as in religion, Atheism has many sub-categories and so many individual interpretations. However, an Atheist is someone who, by definition, has decided that God doesn’t exist. God in this context is the god, Allah, or any other deity that is consistent with the definition of “the creator”.
I totally agree with you, Nada, that science – just like religion, history, and many other subjects – has been excessively abused, tampered with, and badly exploited by different entities and organizations; mainly, by politicians who claim to be secular and pro-science!
Nevertheless, we can still rely on the scientific methods with confidence, to find the answers we need; even for such complex questions, as the existence of God.
Unfortunately, I haven’t met so far any Agnostics, Skeptics, or Atheists who proved to have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the Theist’s point of view.
Theism did not come as a mere invention of a good storyteller, or because someone was afraid of a natural phenomena, as many writers – such as Will Durant – suggest. In fact, the concept of a deity formed through logical, and even “scientific” approaches and methods that are still valid today.
Then, for some reason, Emmanuel Kant decided that causality is not necessarily accurate. He believed that it is just “our way of thinking”. It was a mere hypothesis with no actual proof. His main argument was that causality gets us in a closed loop of cause and effect, where we don’t reach a beginning or an ending point. There wouldn’t be a “first cause” that has no other cause for it”.
Naturally, it wasn’t so difficult to answer Kant. Hegel came shortly after, and explained that Kant was dealing with the classical logic (causality) strictly on a relative basis. But when we are discussing the absolute, causality doesn’t require a prior-cause. Hegel even revived the dialectical logic, and used it to prove that there is, indeed, a beginning point.
Then, for some reason, Karl Marx decided that “abstractions are not real”, and that they should not be used in scientific reasoning. So, he rejected Hegel’s Dialectic Logic partially; and he came up with his version, known as Dialectical Materialism.
Before this philosophical twist Theists had all the support of reason, logic, and science; and those who denied the existence of God had to prove their claims. Suddenly, starting with the 18th and 19th century, Kant’s position – that we can not know or answer the question about God’s existence – was so widely promoted, that it almost became self-evident. Yet, it was not.
If causality was not valid, then how come we ended up with such scientific and technological advancements, and why are we still using this logic for knowledge? Furthermore, if we really don’t know, and we can’t know, then why do we go to schools, do research, spend billions of dollars, and go through all these “enlightenment discussions”? If abstractions were not real, then what the hell are we using math for?
Clearly, when it comes to technology nobody uses such philosophical arguments, and everyone relies on causality. Moreover, in matters of technology there’s a clear distinction between the relative and the absolute. Yet, when it comes to metaphysics, many start saying, “this logic is not valid and we can’t use it for accurate reasoning, or in scientific methods”!
In the physical world we can rely on the qualitative methods to acquire scientific knowledge; however, in the metaphysical world we need to rely on abstraction, mainly on math.
The boundaries between physical and metaphysical worlds are constantly shifting, as we continuously improve our technology and our ability to physically explore the world. For instance, Urbain Le Verrier discovered the existence of Neptune without seeing it, or physically sensing it. Instead, he relied on mathematics. Another example is electricity, nobody sees it; but we know it’s there, and we can specify where and how it occurs by using math.
The Big Bang is a limited theory. Besides being a “theory”, it can barely explain what was directly before it, (i.e. a universe or multi-universes, or else). Thus, the limits of the physical-evidence approach stops at this point. Yet, we find that science still goes beyond that physical line, trying to use abstraction and pure mental reasoning to explore what was before. Nobody finds it unscientific.
Dr. David Bohm describes energy as something “that tends to exist” – in the physical context – explaining that it doesn’t really exist as a matter. It’s another form of existence. It’s not proved by direct physical sensation; instead it’s proved indirectly, through observing its effects on matter.
Energy, is therefore, a lighter non-material level of existence. Wouldn’t it be logical – if we take the evolutionary orientation in consideration – that there would be a higher level of “pure” existence, as a base for energy, (i.e. spiritual level)?
I don’t want to get into the scientific discussion about the existence of God, as it’s not may aim to convince anybody of anything. However, I just wanted to explain why Atheists are the ones who need to prove that their claim is valid.
Theists have already presented their evidence to support their belief; and the current objections – especially rejecting causality – is not convincing to them.
Atheism, for me at least, is just another religion. I respect the Atheist’s belief and opinion, and I agree with most of their understanding of life, (starting from the Big Bang and on); however, I feel real offended by the way many Atheists attack religions and believers. They don’t differ much from religious bigots they despise and criticize.
Blind faith is a misconception. It is by definition not “faith”, it is “blind faith”.
Atheists who grew up in an Atheist environment, may have developed their belief system through “blind faith”. Yet, “faith” is never “blind”; because, to truly “believe” in something we have to “know” it, at least “mentally”.
If we ask anyone, “do you believe in KHARBAQ”, would they be able to answer?
However, if I say that I believe that “KHARBAQ” is good, my friends might trust me with that; they might have a “blind faith” in me, and thus in my opinion.
Just the way we trust our doctors when we are ill. We believe that their instructions will cure us; not because we are stupid, but because we believe in specialization. Yet, the doctor actually knows for sure, because he/she has the proper evidence.
Corruption might “infect” a theologian, just as it might hit a doctor or any other professional. It does not make religion, (or medicine), invalid or fake!
Hence, not all believers have “blind faith”. Many of them do, but others who are specialized in these matters, have faith due to non-refutable reasons, based on logic and science.
Facts are not about needs. I don’t need Black Holes, but they exist. I don’t need Dark Matter, but I can’t understand the universe without it. It’s simply what makes sense. Why deny it if there’s nothing that makes more sense?
Nevertheless, the fact that Religion is a crucial human phenomenon, is not necessarily related to the belief in God. There are religions that don’t call for any specific deity. Atheism, as I see it, is a religion that denies God. Agnostics have their own belief system, where they believe in a certain universal force (i.e. God), but not in religions. They believe in “humanity”, as a set of values. It’s just another clue that mankind can’t live without a religion.
Actually, the only thing that really distinguishes humans from the animal kingdom is religion. It is the only thing that humans do, and animals don’t.
Yet, some claim that they don’t need it in their lives!
All of us may sometimes do things that we usually stand against, (without noticing). This is why debates, dialogues, and discussions are really important. It is not about a win/lose situation. It is about developing a mutual understanding, and learning more about ourselves while trying to educate others.
In the above article and discussion, this development of mutual understanding was impressive. I personally benefited and learned from both of you, and I thank you for taking the time to shed some light on such an important topic.
Finally, I fully respect the presented opinions and beliefs, even the ones I do not agree with; and I hope that in time, we will all learn more, and have the courage to accept whatever proves to be true.