1/30/10

The Argument for Atheism from Immaturity

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker at this link
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , ,

16 comments:

  1. secularist10January 30, 2010 at 8:15 AM

    Mariano:
    You said the following:
    "Atheism makes evil and suffering even worse by 1) not ultimately doing anything about it, 2) guaranteeing that it has no ultimate purpose or meaning, 3) not being able to redeem it, 4) making it for the benefit of the evildoer who enjoys themselves and ultimately gets away with it and thus, 5) ensuring that there is not ultimate accountability or justice.

    The fact of evil and suffering in the world is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism."

    I trust you realize this is an emotional statement, independent of the correctness/ incorrectness of atheism, so I will respond on emotional terms.

    In an atheistic/ materialistic worldview, you must remember, we humans are the highest beings.
    The reason this is better than a theistic mindset is that we have ultimate and final control over our destiny. In a theistic universe, it is a third party that determines everything. You would say that's ok, because that third party is perfectly just. But the point is about the diminishment of the human in the theistic world.

    In the materialist universe, we accept there is no rhyme or reason for a natural disaster (the earthquake can just as easily occur in an uninhabited place as in a densely populated area), and we therefore know that it's our job to protect ourselves, to build defense mechanisms, to watch our step.

    There is a fundamental responsibility and self-reliance that comes from an atheistic/ materialistic universe, which is logically lacking in the theistic one. In a theistic universe, it is God that makes the final reckoning of good and evil. Therefore there is no logically binding reason for us to mete out reward or punishment in this life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJanuary 30, 2010 at 9:03 AM

    (many actually confuse rejection of “religion” with rejection of God. And again, I said “some”).

    No, you said many. Wow you're dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJanuary 30, 2010 at 1:20 PM

    I simply asked this atheist if his son also asked the teacher how the local zoo keeps the carnivores from eating the other animals and that was the end of the discussion as I received no response.

    zOMG. He musta felt that pwnage for a week. You schooled him. I mean, there's no way he could respond. You just utterly moded him. He's still probably searching for a comeback.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJanuary 30, 2010 at 3:15 PM

    Ginx, you do know that "some" and "many" aren't mutually exclusive, right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJanuary 30, 2010 at 3:59 PM

    The solution to the problem of evil that you describe is called "skeptical theism" in the philosophy of religion literature. I think it has fatal problems. Let's suppose, like you say, that God permits all of the evils which seem to us to be gratuitous because God will bring a greater good out of them. That would mean that if you were confronted with a person suffering that you wouldn't be able to know whether you should help them or not. For all you know, this person's suffering is an instance of suffering for which God will bring out a greater good. So if you alleviate their suffering you could be thwarting God's plan and actually increasing the amount of evil in the world. You wouldn't know what to do in that situation although commonsense clearly says that you should help them. So skeptical theism leads to an abhorrent moral skepticism, a very high price to pay in order to solve the problem of evil.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJanuary 30, 2010 at 4:29 PM

    Secularist10

    So your only reasoning is that a 100% just third party is involved and that reduces a humans self-reliance? I'm completely baffled at how you arrive at this conclusion. Not only is it against almost every religious teaching out there but it flies in the face of even atheist reasoning.

    God is the ultimate 3rd party and thus mets out justice (also I would personally love to find where in the Bible it says to let sins or injustice go unpunished in this life) and thus is responsible for that. The Bible itself praises hard work and goal setting as well as praising charity and community.

    In the Bible when diasaster struck there were always people striving to help others. Look at the most extreme example of Job. God allowed him to be tested and his entire family was killed. Jobs friends immediately came to his aid. The first thing they did was sit with him for days until he was ready to talk.

    Through this precendent it can be easily established that God expects us to be responsible for our actions (in fact the most simple would be he expects us not to sin or at least try not to). To claim otherwise is what appears to be either the result of arrogance, misunderstanding or poor research. At worst it is willfull ignorance.

    Though I don't think you would fall into that last category.

    signed "that anonymous troll" ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Masked MarauderJanuary 30, 2010 at 7:18 PM

    I simply asked this atheist if his son also asked the teacher how the local zoo keeps the carnivores from eating the other animals and that was the end of the discussion as I received no response.

    He/she/it knew it wasn't worth pursuing the matter with you.

    Clearly, in a zoo the carnivores are fed with meat from animals outside the zoo. It is also obvious that there was no source of meat outside the ark. So, if the fairy tale is to believed, the carnivores had to have eaten other animals on the ark or else starved to death.

    Fairy tales aren't meant to make sense. Its senseless to argue with people who think they do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. mmcelhaneyJanuary 30, 2010 at 9:51 PM

    secularist10 said

    In an atheistic/ materialistic worldview, you must remember, we humans are the highest beings.

    Um, how did you arrive at this assertion?

    ReplyDelete
  9. secularist10January 31, 2010 at 5:25 AM

    Anonymous Troll:
    I’m not sure what you think I’m saying, but I doubt it’s what I’m actually saying.

    In any case, I have a question for you: which is more empowering for humans; to say that humans are the highest beings, or to say that humans are not the highest beings?

    And a second question: if god has the final responsibility for judging good and evil, why should we do it?

    “To claim otherwise is what appears to be either the result of arrogance, misunderstanding or poor research.”

    More insulting of intelligence. I guess it’s just par for the course when dealing with the religious. Too bad.

    Marcus:
    A materialist mindset posits that this world is all that exists. Therefore the highest being must be somewhere in this world. No being is higher than us in this world. Therefore we are the highest being on a materialist mindset. There might be intelligent aliens, but until we discover them, the reasonable thing is to assume that we are the highest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousFebruary 1, 2010 at 1:12 PM

    Secularist 10

    I'm not sure where I'm insulting your intelligence here but if you wish to think so, so be it.

    1. I would say that humans not being on top is the most empowering. Simply because when you look at the society and the world around you you have to realize that to think humans being on top wouldn't make a difference.

    For instance if humans were on top what difference at all would it make? Zip. There would still be plagues, earthquakes, crime and so on.

    With God on top man realizes he is being held accountable for everything he has done in this world and will not get a free pass for cruelty or indifference. In God's eyes both are one in the same.

    2. My suspicion on your lack of research seems justified since your even asking this question. I'm simply going to assume you've read the Bible here but you did notice that God set out precedents for a society, laws to be followed and ways to judge? He even stipulated that the laws of a society you live in should be followed unless they clash with what is right.

    As to what your saying well I took my premis from what you said so I think its your own words you need to look into.

    signed "that anonymous troll" ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousFebruary 1, 2010 at 2:31 PM

    Anon: you did notice that God set out precedents for a society...

    Said precedents seem simply spurious sans satisfactory provenance. They evidence nothing greater than credulity.

    You did notice that some anonymous late Bronze/early Iron-age scribbler merely claimed that god set out etc, etc, and etc?

    To suppose that one or more gods actually did that (or anything else at all for that matter) is to presuppose without evidence that one or more gods do or once did actually exist.

    signed "that other anonymous troll" ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. secularist10February 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM

    Anonymous troll:
    “I would say that humans not being on top is the most empowering... With God on top man realizes he is being held accountable for everything he has done in this world...”

    Interesting. This prompts another question for me: Let’s say that god is still there, but does not hold humans accountable. Are humans still empowered?

    "I'm simply going to assume you've read the Bible here but you did notice that God set out precedents for a society, laws to be followed and ways to judge?"

    So even though god judges, we should judge because it says so in the Bible. Ok, fine. Why should I follow the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  13. OLEG DEIFebruary 1, 2010 at 7:22 PM

    What you subhumanoid Christian Trash fail to understand is that religious Fundamentalists like youeselves are immoral for a Evil God.
    Secondly atheists do not start wars you religious morons due. Hitler's holocaust of the Jews, the inquistions, the Dark Ages, Salem Witch trials, the Christian Crusades. Is that of a list for you. When one accepts an Evil God who kills 2 million plus in the Bible and then tries to rationalize this as good then they themselves become evil!

    ReplyDelete
  14. OLEG DEIFebruary 1, 2010 at 7:32 PM

    Regarding this moronic essay of immaturity for Atheists. You have got to be kidding! The people with the highest IQ are scientists and a vast, vast majority of them do not accept the fairy tales of the Bible. Einstein to name a few.
    I submit that the fools who believe in the Bible are uneducated swamp trash. Furthermore anyone who believes that there is an invisible space daddy out there, when there is no evidence is not immature, they are insane!!!!!!!!!!
    Anyone wants to prove me wrong accept the SCLI one million dollar challenge!

    ReplyDelete
  15. David KFebruary 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM

    Oleg who are being a fool!
    You are trying to have an intelligent conversation with intellectual trash. Most of these fools are stupid uneducated Christian Fundamentalists who are either teenage punks, or farmers. They are void of any intellectual capital. There primary interests include incest where possible or screwing farm animals for kicks.
    But that is okay, they all believe in Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  16. OLEG DEIFebruary 1, 2010 at 7:53 PM

    Yeah, you are probably right, a total waste of time.
    What do you expect their leader thinks that evolution is teaching that humans evolved directly from fish.
    When yu have retards like that what do you expect!
    The jerk takes a bus to work, he can't even afford a car, much less a car collection like myself. If you are not successful in life and can't afford one freakin car this only tells me one thing David. The person is a LOSER!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)