www.dunkelheit.at : Just' To Say .. - The Problem With Atheists

The Problem With Atheists - Live And In Color

I just ran across an article which very well proves the point on why I have problems with some, if not most, atheists. I'd like to quote some of it here, especially the parts where it contradicts itself.

Under the point "Atheists are arrogant," which tries to dismiss that matter, we can read:

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. [...] When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

I'm sorry, but this is a lie, and in itself demonstrates a large misunderstanding of science common to most atheists. Science is not about knowing, it is about theories and models and their viability. The matter of "truth" is a rather philosophically one, but claiming to know the "truth" and calling it "honesty" is, in fact, arrogant.

Why? Because to say "I came to this conclusion by the scientific method, therefor it is true" means to say that you can't be wrong. Admitting that you don't really know if your theory is the truth, but think it is because of a large probability or evidence in context of your system of thought and it's axioms would mean to admit that the other side might also be right. Atheists usually don't do that.

Don't get me wrong, people are free to believe what they want, be it either christian, muslim, or atheistic beliefs. But when one of these groups start to claim their view as the truth, it is arrogant and not very far-sighted.

I know atheists being very capable of being aware of these facts. But most I encounter are not. These "atheistic extremists" are in some kind of constant denial of other possibilities than those they understand, except, or have been told as truth.

The article itself is made up as a defense of atheism. But looking more closely, it's rather a shot at putting all non-atheists into the corner of fanatic religous people. Well, seeing that atheism in itself is a religious system, we should say "all other fanatic religious people." Because I don't see any difference here, except modern acceptance.

It brings up attacks on atheists like

Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

and I have to ask: What in Hasturs name has that to do with the matter? Anybody making such absolutistic claims shouldn't be taken serious. Because personal feelings (like the meaning of life) or scape-goating (responsibility of one or another group) has nothing to do with the question if atheism is the path to the truth or not.

Although it is kind of funny, because most atheists have a strict anti-religious point of view and claim that religion is responsiblefor the greatest crimes in human history. I'd say that backfired to the author of the original article, didn't it?

But let's go on to "Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance," where the author writes:

Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection.

The word "is" was highlighted by me. I believe, in fact, that this is true as well. The only difference between me and the author seems to be, that I don't claim this is the absolute truth. I believe it is, but neither can I prove it, nor can it be proven wrong. Of course, in scientific context it seems to be the case. But simply stating that it is this way, and no other way is possible, is arrogant.

Anyway, let's go further and look at "Atheists are arrogant" again:

One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows.

That's odd. Seeing that most of the atheistic arguments against any spiritual statements seem to be "You're wrong, and that's scientifically proven," the fact is that scientists, pseudo-scientists and atheists in fact do claim to know the answers just by looking at the questions from their own point of view. As we've seen earlier, even the author itself claims to know how evolution works.

Under the point "Atheists are closed to spiritual experience" the author claims:

What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of [spiritual] experiences.

No, of course they don't. But atheists do tend to make unjustifiable claims about truth on the basis of science. Most atheists will answer he question "Does a god exist?" with "No." Even the much wider open questions "Does magic work?" or "Does occultism work?" is often answered with such a quick "No, of course not." that it almost seems like a trained reaction.

The fact is, atheists don't know if there is some kind of god as much as christians, muslims or others don't know it. That's why it's called "faith." If it's so bad for theists to claim something unprovable exists, why is it alright for atheists to claim the opposite, while still unprovable?

While it has nothing to do with this discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to one of the next passages:

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

The article is filled with these anti-christian propaganda. While I'm all up for bashing of christian fixation (which is usually not accepted even by atheists if it goes against their own moral system), what has this to do with the topic of the article, which claims to be "10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism"? If you need to attack other beliefs, despite how ridiculous they are or seem to be, doesn't that tell you anything about the stability of your own system of belief? No? I thought so. Nevermind then. Keep on dreaming, you might get hurt opening your horizon too far.

Let's get over this point and skip to number eight, "Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding."

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not.

Despite the fact that the religious nature of science never occured to the author, if atheists are so free in their minds to accept that human understanding and knowledge is limited, mostly by a specific point of view and the fact that you're never able to be sure, not even that you really exist, why in Satans (sidekick!) name is the author so sure that "religious people" are wrong? Why doesn't he write a two page manifesto about his thoughts and presents us the things, thoughts and experiences that led him to this faith?

It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it.

As we have seen above, it doesn't seem to be that obvious. Sure, following the Bible, the Koran, or any other book is as useful as following the telephone book of NYC and thinking Ronald McDonald is your own lord and saviour. But why do atheists bring the point that we simply can't understand the universe in it's entirety only up against other systems of belief, and ridicule it when they're measured by their own words? You know how such a behaviour is called? Double Moral Standard.

And now, my dear reader, let's come to the final point, number ten. This is a nice number in a qabalistic viewpoint, and brings up our alltime favourite dispute between moralists and darwinistic satanists (sic!). The author calls it "Atheism provides no basis for morality," and it states:

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, [...]

I don't have to quote more than that, do I? Cruelty, is wrong. If you don't think that there is an absolute value of right or wrong, you're wrong too! At least that's what I always hear from christians, atheists and the other absolutists. So if the author can state that cruelty is wrong, why can't a christian state that abortian is wrong, or why can't I state that uncontrolled excessive population is wrong?

But wait! For the first time of the article, there's an actual answer here:

We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

So what does this say? Not much really. The author is indeed absolutely correct when he states that common morals have developed over time. This also means that they are inherited by our previous generations and only slightly altered. In fact, they are even so much hard-wired, that it is hard to question common morals at all, without becoming a public target. The only problem with the above statement is that moral standards, even if developed over thousands of generations, have nothing to do with "right" or "wrong." They are merely a bunch of "do's" and "dont's" that you have to accept. The author claims they have been refined by "thinking." Thinking by whom? By the masses. By the administrative instances. And, for a large part, by religious rulers.

And with these words, I'd like to close today's rant. Thank you, and good night.