“We’re All Atheists, I Just Go One God Further.”


The atheist is quick to point out when a person asks him why he is an atheist that the questioner is an atheist as well. He points out that the questioner does not believe in Zeus, Apollo, Baal, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Since these and any number of deities which cannot be disproved are no longer taken seriously today, all people though they might believe in one God, are atheists in respect to those other deities.

But, atheism is not merely the denial of a certain dogma about God or gods, it is the reversal of a deep seated assumption in the soul; the sense that there is a meaning and a direction in the world it sees. This denial is the real root of atheism and is the reason for the rejection of God or gods. If there is one positive thing we can say about all those who believed in the mythological deities, it is that most of them held firmly to a purpose in what they saw. The same cannot be said of the atheist.

Advertisements

27 thoughts on ““We’re All Atheists, I Just Go One God Further.”

  1. Daniel tells us atheism is a denial of a deep seated assumption in the soul (…) that there is a meaning and a direction in the world.

    *Sigh….*

    Atheism means an absence of belief in god or gods. Theists try all the time to make this basic understanding into something more than the common position we hold about all the gods that ever lived in the imagination of people. The atheist, it is true, goes one god farther than the theist, and for this consistency is vilified by the theistic community.

    Here’s Daniel again trying to insist that a theist can have purpose and meaning in life thanks to assigning it to their believed-in god, but that the atheist cannot live a meaningful and purposeful life because he or she cannot possibly own what the believer assigns to god (without evidence, let us remember, thus creating the need for a specific faith).

    This line of reasoning the theist must walk is a tightrope of hypocrisy whereby privilege must be granted to the believed-in god alone but quite properly withheld from all the not-believed-in gods. How believers can do this without their heads exploding remains a great mystery.

  2. tightrope of hypocrisy”

    Not sure what that accusation is based on. Regardless, it isn’t hard to understand why the Christian theist God is chosen over Zeus or Thor or Baal.
    . Our material universe could not have had a material cause for its beginning to exist. This is because nothing material existed until Big Bang.
    . This means that we can know some things about what this cause must be like. For example, unless you believe the absurdity that matter created itself, the cause of the material universe is probably as follows:
    . Existing outside of time, the Cause of the universe must be infinite or Eternal (remember either matter is eternal (it’s never NOT existed) or the Creator of matter is eternal),
    . Existing outside of matter, the Cause must be immaterial or Spiritual,
    . Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
    . The Cause cannot be “scientific” because neither matter / energy existed until the Singularity, nor did the laws of physics (i.e. the laws that science has observed and identified), have anything material to act upon or govern until Big Bang.
    . There is no reason for any universe to exist, let alone a life sustaining, mathematically precise, moral universe. Whatever brought this universe into being did so because of a decision. The Creator did it with purpose and planning. Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal. The Cause chose to bring the universe into existence.
    . The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.
    . That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

    Only the God of Christianity possesses all of these characteristics. Why a monotheistic God? Because there can be only one Greatest Conceivable Being.

    The atheist’s saying that because some “gods” are obviously mythical therefore no supernatural Being exists is patently false and shows profound incoherent thinking and a lack of logical thinking.

    1. Our material universe could not have had a material cause for its beginning to exist. This is because nothing material existed until Big Bang.

      This premise is incoherent. When you use the word ‘until’ you are suggesting something existed before time began. Without time, there is no possible way to understand the ‘until’. As far as we can determine causation, our inquiries end at the Big Bang. All else is equivalent to either “I don’t know and you don’t either,” or “I’m just making shit up to suit my support of WL Craig’s debunked argument.”

      The rest of your house-of-cards argument collapses right here. Note also how you magically turn the descriptively generic word ’cause’ into a christian Cause! Remarkable. Also note it doesn’t become the jewish or muslim monotheistic god, nor the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Muk Muk of the Volcano (perhaps because thesauros is unfamiliar with this particular incarnation of the Greatest Conceivable Being.)

      Funny, that.

      Also note The Greatest Conceivable Being never seems to become associated with a unicorn endowed with the Greatest Conceivable Spiral Horn nor is presented as a triumphant proof for the titular god of squid. Such coincidental (not to mention anthropocentric) mysteries are hard to fathom. Fortunately, we have christians who are on hand to explain how this (broken) reasoning just so happens to qualify their multiple personality god(s) as the Greatest Conceivable Kahuna.

      The tightrope of hypocrisy is walked by those unwilling to admit that the same reasoning pertains to gods already rejected but, lacking evidence for any, all are equivalently dismissible.

      1. Tildeb,

        You are being an intellectual “slouch” here. Learn about the ontological argument before you talk incoherently about it.

        There is no lack of evidence for God. The big bang IS the evidence for God. You believe something can come from nothing… which undermines all of science.

      2. Dan, the Big Bang is an event into which you are assigning agency. Again, like thesauros, you are inserting an incoherent notion of time relative to the event with the phrase comefrom. Until you grasp why the premise of ‘before’ is incoherent in the ontological argument (that tries and fails to utilize the physics of the Big Bang) to excuse the supposedly necessary causal agency of Oogity Boogity for the later effect we call the Big Bang, you will continue to attribute causation that is logically incoherent rather than honestly understand why the mistake makes what follows equivalent to simply making shit up and inserting it where we – meaning you as well as I – currently know nothing. This is just another version of the god of the gaps argument.

      3. Tildeb,

        The Kalam cosmological argument acknowledges, which you seem not to know, there was no time before the big bang. It’s obvious, which is exactly why the cause is timeless. The cause exists outside of time. If we use a term like ‘before’ it is in an analogous way. Again, try learning some point of the argument and you will see that your objections are already dealt with.

      4. Saying something is ‘outside’ of time yet magically able to allow the time-based notion of a ‘before’ to somehow continue as a cohesive concept is to do nothing but play with the meaning of words, a play that effectively renders them incoherent. The argument cannot stand when this premise is examined and found to be incoherent.

        Show me evidence of time that exists ‘outside’ of time! I dare you!

      5. You know, Daniel, there’s a reason why the ontological argument fails and can be demonstrably shown to fail (which I’ve explained to you before); the underlying assumption of ALL the variations assumes that motion can only be caused by motion. That’s why we stumble across the same trope repeatedly about the necessity for a Prime Mover. It is an argument based on a lack of understanding physics. Galileo taught humanity to reject claims of inherently personal ‘natures’ presumed to cause effect in both animate and inanimate objects and look for agency-less unguided impersonal ‘forces’.

        Someday, my hope is that you will leave Aristotelian physics behind you and rejoin the rest of us who have moved past this pre-sixteenth century understanding you cleave to. It’s factually wrong.

    2. Only the God of Christianity possesses all of these characteristics.

      How do you know this? What’s your god got that some other god has not? Take Allah for example. Or Sky Woman. Apsu and Tiamet etc.
      Creation myths are a dime a dozen.
      The number of attributes you can assign them are limited only by you fertile imagination.

      Take a sweaty, magic football sock.
      Is the sweaty, magic football sock infinite and eternal?
      Hmm, why yes. Yes it is.
      Is the sweaty, magical football sock immaterial or Spiritual?
      Well, goshdarn it, it must be! The sweaty, magic football sock exists outside of time. (But we knew that already, right?)
      The sweaty, magic football sock is the cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, and it’s immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.

      (please note that it’s “Fine Tuned” as opposed to the lesser “fine tuned”.)

      The sweaty, magic football sock cannot be “scientific” because neither matter / energy existed until the Singularity, nor did the laws of physics (i.e. the laws that science has observed and identified), have anything material to act upon or govern until Big Bang.

      (Perfect, just perfect! Who would disagree that a sweaty, magic football sock is not “scientific”-complete with scare-quotes around the naughty word “science”?)

      There is no reason for any universe to exist, let alone a life sustaining, mathematically precise, moral universe. Whatever brought this universe into being did so because of a decision. The sweaty, magic football sock did it with purpose and planning. Therefore the sweaty, magic football sock of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal. The sweaty, magic football sock chose to bring the universe into existence.

      (Personal? Oh yes. Sweaty, magic football socks are very, VERY personal.) 🙂

      The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.
      That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. That Cause (note the capital letters) is….the sweaty, magic football sock.

      Why a monotheistic God? Because there can be only one Greatest Conceivable Being.

      I appreciate the use of capital letters. They lend great authority.
      If you had written “greatest conceivable being” without capital letters then it would have much less believable.
      (shakes head sadly)
      Why on earth can there be only one?
      Other theologies are quite comfortable with the idea of multiple gods.

      Quick List of Gods

  3. In your opinion, is there or is there not a meaning and a direction in the matter and energy we see around us? Do trees, rocks, water, planets, clouds, sunlight and other things have a meaning or a direction?

    1. A meaning? A direction? You’re doing it again, using descriptive words about relationships and then using them as if they were independent nouns. Asking me if a tree has a meaning or a direction is a really poor question because it assumes these words have a clear one-to-one relationship with reality independent of the minds so engaged. Clearly, they don’t, which makes the questions entirely ambiguous.

  4. “[Humanity] is, and always has been, a maker of gods. It has been the most serious and significant occupation of our sojourn in the world. Nearly every race and people have tried their hand at making a god of some kind around which their religious aspirations and superstitions could cluster, and on all occasions have found the material for their deities near at hand.

  5. Since these and any number of deities which cannot be disproved are no longer taken seriously today…

    It’s not just the old gods. It also covers the current gods in vogue that are supposedly around today and raking in the big money. Allah, Vishnu, Xenu etc. They are taken quite seriously by their believers yet those who don’t believe in those particular current brands are unimpressed. That includes atheists and theists alike.
    An atheist not wasting any of their time and money on Allah is behaving exactly the same as a Scientologist not wasting any of their time and money on Allah. A Muslim not wasting any of their time and money on Mormonism is behaving exactly the same as a Jannist not wasting their time and money on Mormonism.

    Obsolete gods did business in suspiciously the same manner as the current gods.

    But, atheism is not merely the denial of a certain dogma about God or gods, it is the reversal of a deep seated assumption in the soul; the sense that there is a meaning and a direction in the world it sees.

    Why are you making things up?
    If this really and truly is atheism then…why are there no atheists around who actually, um, say this? We live in the age of the Internet. Youtube is a great resource. What is the huge hassle with just going to primary sources and finding out about atheism?
    Atheism is an incredibly simple thing to understand.
    There’s no set of rules to follow or club to join. There’s no need to buy a particular book and read it from cover to cover. There’s no “creed” or “lifestyle” or “worldview” or “code of conduct” or manual or secret handshake.

    Atheism means an absence of belief in god or gods.

    That sums it up nicely.
    Anything else is added by you.
    Not us.
    Just you.

    But, atheism is not merely the denial of a certain dogma about God or gods, it is the reversal of a deep seated assumption in the soul; the sense that there is a meaning and a direction in the world it sees. This denial is the real root of atheism…

    That nonsense is from 100% from you. You made it up yourself.
    Shame on you.
    If you have to create phantoms as opposed to dealing with what atheists actually do say then it’s a tacit admission of the weakness of your position.

  6. Clearly, holding firm to a purpose that has no basis in reality is a good thing to you. I guess we should just let all the lunatics out of the asylums. No doubt they would create more blog posts just like this one.

      1. So, nothing of substance prompted you to write no argument against it. Reasonableness is leaving atheism quicker than I thought. Those who reject purpose eventually find they can have no purposeful discussion.

      2. See? You already assume I reject purpose, which I don’t. Also, I can, in fact, have a purposeful discussion, just not with you. You go in circles and don’t even pay attention to the people you argue with who are clearly smarter and more educated than you.

      3. There is purpose to our lives. It is whatever we make of it. If we assign a humanesque intelligence to nature, we not only cheapen our existence but it also spotlights the obvious imperfections of this intelligent being.

      4. You say there is no purpose in the universe or in the causes that produced you, yet you can somehow make your own. Where does this made up purpose come from? What is it made of? You indulge in delusion, Jason. Any sense of purpose you have is delusional. It has nothing to do with reality.

      5. You are proving me right by putting words in my mouth and offering nothing. Your arguments are not even weak because they don’t even constitute an argument. You aren’t saying anything.

      6. It’s quite fitting for you, being a product of purposeless forces, to produce no purposeful discussion. By your own reasoning, there was no substance in my work for you to respond to, yet you did respond. It just highlights your lack of purpose, your essential delusion. And since you say I’m “not saying anything”, it also highlights the fact that you can’t even recognize purpose because there is no purpose in reality. Do you imagine you are separate from reality and can therefore manufacture purpose. If that is the case, you are supernatural .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s