What i've learned about atheism
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:47 am
So I've been thinking lately about the irony in atheists... and when I mean atheists, I mean the ones that stick to their guns, who try to define everything within a material worldview.
From my experience of dealing with atheists, I've seen them step into a pool of ironic stupidity....
think of this...
"The chances of gravity ceasing to exists is .000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %." If it did happen it would be a miracle.
"The chances of the universe being life permitting is .0000000000000000000000000000000001%." Yet to them, it isn't a miracle?!?!
I don't understand that type of "logic."
On top of, how can they truly be "logical," or know that they are logical?
In their worldview everything immaterial has to be explained through material means..well then, how do they account for immaterial things that can't be found in nature, like logic? Where is logic growing? Which atoms in our head are "logic?" On top of why is that a universe with no objective purpose (i.e. heat death to all of the universe) should be life permitting? And that the universe should follow immaterial laws that an atheists can't justify like the laws of logic, and gravity?
On top of, they use the terms "free thinker" a lot but that implies that have choice. In a universe where every succeeding action comes from a preceding event (material determinism) there is no true free will, or choice. Choice within itself is an illusion and is only the result of molecular anarchy and natural processes. Neuro scientists like Sam Harris/Steven Pinker totally agree with this.
To me, it looks like atheism can't even get off the ground. What they define within their worldview "logic and reasoning," they can't even get off the ground. Their worldview is truly based upon Socratic ignorance and is philosophically bankrupt. Do they honestly believe this world is created by ancient chemicals, infinite luck, and blind chance?
While I'm at it I may wanna bring up morals. First off, morals imply that we have a choice over the opposite (not having morals) which makes no sense because within their worldview there is no choice... Secondly there is no objective, concrete moral framework outside of the brain. In a practical sense, it's not that atheist can't be a good chap, or have some sense of ethics... it's the fact that all morals are a preference and are different from person to person, that's what true moral subjectivity is. The second an atheist tells another human what to do, they are being hypocritical and no longer consistent within their worldview. In short, an intellectually honest atheist would be a nihilist who says "I strongly dislike ______. or I prefer _________."
But how about the ones that use things like evolutionary psychology, or humanism as objective framework?
Well first off evolutionary psychology only explains what is, not what should be. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, nicely pointed "it is illogical to derive an ought from an is."
So saying something like "it is nice to help out your neighbors in the yard," is an IS statement. That does not mean it OUGHT to be that way. So with evolutionary psychology, it IS only stating what IS not what OUGHT to be. It gives you the grounds for societies that held up certain values (like altruism) over others (like cannibalism) and may tell you that one flourished while the latter died out but that doesn't mean that we must then follow values like altruism because that begs the question, what is OBJECTIVELY wrong with not having that value? ---then it becomes clear that evolutionary psychology is subjective and just as meaningless as any other moral system.
Another moral system is humanism. At it's core humanism values empathy, and would frown upon things like slavery but would love human freedom. Just like evolutionary psychology, it fails because it has no proof that empathy is a better value than something like selfishness. But even if a humanist brings forth evidence like "altruistic societies flourish while selfish societies die out," it begs the questions just like evolutionary psychology... what is objectively wrong with a person not wanting to have those certain values? So humanism, is just as valueless as anything else and is based upon human preference. That means, on a moral level (in an atheistic worldview) the Nazis hold just as much moral worth as a group of humanist.
...I think i'm done but other than that I HATE once atheists make the illogical comparison of God to something like the Tooth Fairy.
What's really funny is if that were true then the disbelief of the tooth fairy would produce stupidity like above but it doesn't. Only disbelief in God makes one that stupid.
From my experience of dealing with atheists, I've seen them step into a pool of ironic stupidity....
think of this...
"The chances of gravity ceasing to exists is .000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %." If it did happen it would be a miracle.
"The chances of the universe being life permitting is .0000000000000000000000000000000001%." Yet to them, it isn't a miracle?!?!
I don't understand that type of "logic."
On top of, how can they truly be "logical," or know that they are logical?
In their worldview everything immaterial has to be explained through material means..well then, how do they account for immaterial things that can't be found in nature, like logic? Where is logic growing? Which atoms in our head are "logic?" On top of why is that a universe with no objective purpose (i.e. heat death to all of the universe) should be life permitting? And that the universe should follow immaterial laws that an atheists can't justify like the laws of logic, and gravity?
On top of, they use the terms "free thinker" a lot but that implies that have choice. In a universe where every succeeding action comes from a preceding event (material determinism) there is no true free will, or choice. Choice within itself is an illusion and is only the result of molecular anarchy and natural processes. Neuro scientists like Sam Harris/Steven Pinker totally agree with this.
To me, it looks like atheism can't even get off the ground. What they define within their worldview "logic and reasoning," they can't even get off the ground. Their worldview is truly based upon Socratic ignorance and is philosophically bankrupt. Do they honestly believe this world is created by ancient chemicals, infinite luck, and blind chance?
While I'm at it I may wanna bring up morals. First off, morals imply that we have a choice over the opposite (not having morals) which makes no sense because within their worldview there is no choice... Secondly there is no objective, concrete moral framework outside of the brain. In a practical sense, it's not that atheist can't be a good chap, or have some sense of ethics... it's the fact that all morals are a preference and are different from person to person, that's what true moral subjectivity is. The second an atheist tells another human what to do, they are being hypocritical and no longer consistent within their worldview. In short, an intellectually honest atheist would be a nihilist who says "I strongly dislike ______. or I prefer _________."
But how about the ones that use things like evolutionary psychology, or humanism as objective framework?
Well first off evolutionary psychology only explains what is, not what should be. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, nicely pointed "it is illogical to derive an ought from an is."
So saying something like "it is nice to help out your neighbors in the yard," is an IS statement. That does not mean it OUGHT to be that way. So with evolutionary psychology, it IS only stating what IS not what OUGHT to be. It gives you the grounds for societies that held up certain values (like altruism) over others (like cannibalism) and may tell you that one flourished while the latter died out but that doesn't mean that we must then follow values like altruism because that begs the question, what is OBJECTIVELY wrong with not having that value? ---then it becomes clear that evolutionary psychology is subjective and just as meaningless as any other moral system.
Another moral system is humanism. At it's core humanism values empathy, and would frown upon things like slavery but would love human freedom. Just like evolutionary psychology, it fails because it has no proof that empathy is a better value than something like selfishness. But even if a humanist brings forth evidence like "altruistic societies flourish while selfish societies die out," it begs the questions just like evolutionary psychology... what is objectively wrong with a person not wanting to have those certain values? So humanism, is just as valueless as anything else and is based upon human preference. That means, on a moral level (in an atheistic worldview) the Nazis hold just as much moral worth as a group of humanist.
...I think i'm done but other than that I HATE once atheists make the illogical comparison of God to something like the Tooth Fairy.
What's really funny is if that were true then the disbelief of the tooth fairy would produce stupidity like above but it doesn't. Only disbelief in God makes one that stupid.
