For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[AlbertBall]

There are difficult questions that atheists direct at theists. We do not, or at least should not, pretend to have an answer for everything. There is much more that we don’t know than what we do know. Sometimes this gets translated into “Why don’t you ask (or debate) God, instead?”

The statement “If atheism is true, then nothing matters” is of an entire different nature. In fact, within a few decades after the publication of the Origin of Species you will find Darwinists making that same claim, but in reference to Darwinian evolution.

In the Darwinian view there can be no meaning that provides, among other things, an objective standard of right and wrong. There remains only impulse and instinct, as Darwin noted: “A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”

Julian Huxley said one of the first benefits of evolution is that it liberated the Englishman from sexual mores. Elsewhere he said “I had a motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning…For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”

The atheist-materialist view of evolution, i.e. Darwinism, negates the very possibility of meaning and value. Such were among Darwin’s deepest fears about his own theory: “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s min, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are not of any value or at all trustworthy.” 1881 letter to W. Graham)

Darwin previously asked in the Descent, “Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Darwin answered clearly in the negative. The other side of this coin, that the mind of man differs from the mind of anthropoid apes in degree only, is that one cannot trust the convictions of his own mind since there is nothing fundamentally or radically different in kind about the human mind.

In the Darwinian view of the world, there can be no higher or lower, no righteous and guilty, but only victorious and defeated.

In sum, atheists may object to a characterization of their world-view as being meaningless and devoid of value, yet they are forever at a loss to provide a genuine ground for meaning and value in their materialist world consisting of merely of space, and atoms swirling about the void with no purpose or final causes in nature.

Whence comes meaning and value, which the atheist struggles to assert in stark logical contradiction to his world-view?

Atheism and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

 

[itinerant1]

Atheism and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

The “evolution theory” of which I spoke, as most people know who are familiar with the problems of Darwinism, is not the science of evolution per se, which is just biological science, but Darwinian ideology, which is atheism with a veneer coating of science. Darwinians, in this sense, follow Darwin in taking their ideology for science. Hence, Darwinian ideology is practical atheism, or atheism applied to science.

This provides the lead-in to my next post in which I will counter your claim and state that atheism is much more than just a lack of belief in theism.

 

[itinerant1]

I agree, life is a struggle. I also struggle to understand the point of it all (THAT DOES NOT MEAN NOTHING MATTERS, before i get words put in my mouth ).

I mean i understand why it is that i exist. I am basically just another link in a 4 billion year old chain of self replicating molecules. However it pains me deeply we do not know the answers to other questions right now, like what caused the universe, is there life on other planets etc. For these are things i really want to know before i die, however it does not seem likely they will be answered im my life time. In fact we may never know the origins or our universe.

It does not seem very practical to grieve over things that will eventually make no difference to your being because your self will soon enough cease to exist altogether.

 

[itinerant1]

You not far off, remove vacuum and you are spot on. All atheists are, are people that lack a theistic beleif. Thats is it. No more, no less.

There are a couple of problems with your statement. First, acceptance of the existence of God is not necessarily a matter of faith or belief. There are other ways of knowing. For instance, the existence of a supreme being can be known deductively through philosophical demonstration.

Second, atheism is much more than just “a lack of theistic belief”. Atheism, at least commonly in its modern forms, involves an “act of faith.” As the eminent 20th century philosopher, Jacques Maritain said: “Absolute atheism starts in an act of faith in reverse gear and is a full-blown religious commitment. Here we have the first internal inconsistency of contemporary atheism: it proclaims that all religion must necessarily vanish away, and it itself is a religious phenomenon.” (The Range of Reason).

Hence, I must agree that atheism involves an “act of faith”, an act of faith that is inverted and has for its object something other than the supreme being. The psychological dynamic is there, yet it has become fixated or directed toward something inferior to the highest good.

 

[AlbertBall]

It does not seem very practical to grieve over things that will eventually make no difference to your being because your self will soon enough cease to exist altogether.

Who said life was pratical?

 

[AlbertBall]

There are a couple of problems with your statement. First, acceptance of the existence of God is not necessarily a matter of faith or belief. There are other ways of knowing. For instance, the existence of a supreme being can be known deductively through philosophical demonstration.

We if it can be i find it strange that never has been . Anyway i have never had much time for philosophy, when it comes to understanding the cosmos it is not fit to lace the boots of science, so i take such “proofs” with a pinch of salt. I prefer hard evidence thanks very much.

Second, atheism is much more than just “a lack of theistic belief”. Atheism, at least commonly in its modern forms, involves an “act of faith.” As the eminent 20th century philosopher, Jacques Maritain said: “Absolute atheism starts in an act of faith in reverse gear and is a full-blown religious commitment. Here we have the first internal inconsistency of contemporary atheism: it proclaims that all religion must necessarily vanish away, and it itself is a religious phenomenon.” (The Range of Reason).

I suggest you break down the word for yourself, anyway as you will see i do not go by the tag of atheist as it is an utterly redundant term. I do however find it ironic that atheists actually explain to theists what they believe, yet theists want to tell atheists what it is THEY believe, even although the atheist has already explained they do not hold the beliefs that they theist is painting them with. i.e. like me. I am by definition an agnostic atheist, as i understand that the existence of god in unknowable(agnostic), i therefore lack a belief in any god (atheist). Now you can try to tell me what I believe, however given that i have already just outlined it, do you not think that would be a little daft?

Hence, I must agree that atheism involves an “act of faith”, an act of faith that is inverted and has for its object something other than the supreme being. The psychological dynamic is there, yet it has become fixated or directed toward something inferior to the highest good.

It does not take faith not to believe in something, does it take faith not to believe in santa??

 

[AlbertBall]

The “evolution theory” of which I spoke, as most people know who are familiar with the problems of Darwinism, is not the science of evolution per se, which is just biological science, but Darwinian ideology, which is atheism with a veneer coating of science. Darwinians, in this sense, follow Darwin in taking their ideology for science. Hence, Darwinian ideology is practical atheism, or atheism applied to science.

This provides the lead-in to my next post in which I will counter your claim and state that atheism is much more than just a lack of belief in theism.

It is not a claim, its a simple fact. As for “atheism applied to science.” As an “atheist” and a practitioner of science, i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[anode]

The “evolution theory” of which I spoke, as most people know who are familiar with the problems of Darwinism, is not the science of evolution per se, which is just biological science, but Darwinian ideology, which is atheism with a veneer coating of science. Darwinians, in this sense, follow Darwin in taking their ideology for science. Hence, Darwinian ideology is practical atheism, or atheism applied to science.

This provides the lead-in to my next post in which I will counter your claim and state that atheism is much more than just a lack of belief in theism.

Many theists believe in the science of evolution. The scientific support for the validity of Darwin’s ‘theory’ proceeds by the day. You could argue that a god is behind it; the ‘theory’ and theistic belief are entirely separate.

Atheism means just that, a-(not)and-* theism* (belief in a god). That’s all. It has nothing to do with evolution, altho’ atheists certainly don’t believe that the non-god created the earth in 6 days! Most atheists believe in evolution but then again, most mainstream Protestants, Jews, and Catholics do, too.

 

[itinerant1]

It is not a claim, its a simple fact. As for “atheism applied to science.” As an “atheist” and a practitioner of science, i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Apparently you are out of the loop on the great debate that has been ensuing for decades.

 

[itinerant1]

Who said life was pratical?

It’s not a matter of life being practical, though I’m not sure that makes any sense. As the Buddhists are first to point out, the real problems are not life itself, but how we choose to respond to it, and that is where the problems lie.

 

[itinerant1]

We if it can be i find it strange that never has been . Anyway i have never had much time for philosophy, when it comes to understanding the cosmos it is not fit to lace the boots of science, so i take such “proofs” with a pinch of salt. I prefer hard evidence thanks very much.

I suggest you break down the word for yourself, anyway as you will see i do not go by the tag of atheist as it is an utterly redundant term. I do however find it ironic that atheists actually explain to theists what they believe, yet theists want to tell atheists what it is THEY believe, even although the atheist has already explained they do not hold the beliefs that they theist is painting them with. i.e. like me. I am by definition an agnostic atheist, as i understand that the existence of god in unknowable(agnostic), i therefore lack a belief in any god (atheist). Now you can try to tell me what I believe, however given that i have already just outlined it, do you not think that would be a little daft?

It does not take faith not to believe in something, does it take faith not to believe in santa??

The truths of philosophy, of the *philosophia perennis, *are known more certainly than the claims of science. To prove otherwise, one would have to philosophize.

I have taken from atheists also, what they claim to believe. Perhaps you are unaware of the views of prominent atheistic thinkers. They will tell you about their “faith.” Your posts are repeated non-stop denials of everything, on whatever side of the fence. It is a very curious phenomenon.

What do you know about Nietzsche’s atheism, Bertrand Russell’s atheism, or Montaigne’s skepticism? I suspect you know little of the great thinkers in western civilization, regardless of their ideological or philosophical persuasion. I know of a good many atheists who would not agree with many of your statements. So, don’t be misled into thinking you represent atheism or understand its many and various expressions.

 

[itinerant1]

Many theists believe in the science of evolution. The scientific support for the validity of Darwin’s ‘theory’ proceeds by the day. You could argue that a god is behind it; the ‘theory’ and theistic belief are entirely separate.

Atheism means just that, a-(not)and-* theism* (belief in a god). That’s all. It has nothing to do with evolution, altho’ atheists certainly don’t believe that the non-god created the earth in 6 days! Most atheists believe in evolution but then again, most mainstream Protestants, Jews, and Catholics do, too.

A totally inexcusable straw man argument on your part, since I made it clear beyond question that I was not referring to the science of evolution.

 

[itinerant1]

What is an “agnostic atheist” but an atheist who likes to use superfluous terms.

 

[SnakeMauler]

I used to be a skeptic, perhaps you could call me an atheist, agnostic, or someone who just hated going to church. However, now I feel God every second of the day and think about Him every second of the day and I just can’t believe there was a time where I wasn’t completely compelled to improve myself and a time where I didn’t feel it.

 

[itinerant1]

Atheism and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

For the purpose of clarification, I will repeat and expand on what I said earlier. I am not associating the science of evolution with atheism. I am highlighting the intimate association of Darwinian ideology with modern atheism. Darwinian ideology is the product of Darwin’s interpretation of everything in nature, including the mind of man, through his materialist philosophy or ideology.

Hence, one can, and should, distinguish between good Darwinian science and errant Darwinian ideology. Regarding the latter, Richard Dawkins said, and I am not sure he was the first to say it, that Darwinism made it “intellectually respectable to be an atheist”. With Darwin, as with most materialist, philosophic materialism entails atheism.

The natural sciences treat of the natural order and can say nothing about the supra-natural order. Science studies physical being, matter and energy, while philosophy and theology study meta-physical being.

Scientism, which maintains that only science can give us reliable knowledge to the world, is not a scientific position, it is a philosophical position that has made errant epistemological assumptions to the extreme in which science replaces philosophy amongst its adherents. Paradoxically, scientism is thereby incapable of critiquing itself, since that can only be done by a higher discipline, i.e. first philosophy.

Furthermore, the paradox continues since agnosticism and atheism are not derived from the natural sciences or scientific knowledge. Agnosticism and atheism, like materialism, are philosophical positions. This does not mean the agnostic or atheist need have any philosophical training, though some so. The atheist makes a philosophical judgment about the existence of God; it is a philosophic faith of sorts.

When the atheist maintains that only science gives of reliable knowledge of reality, he is making a non-scientific judgment about science. That judgment is meta-scientific or philosophic in nature.

To claim that reality is only physical or material is not a claim derived from or supported by the natural sciences; it is rather, a metaphysical claim, one that is appropriately termed metaphysical materialism. Perhaps it can be said that metaphysical materialism and atheism are different sides of the same coin. The same can be said regarding Darwinian ideology and atheism.

Again, evolution science, of which I am an advocate, is not in question here.

 

[AlbertBall]

What is an “agnostic atheist” but an atheist who likes to use superfluous terms.

Or an atheist that understands that belief and knowledge are two different things.

Out of all the things i have came across when debating religious individual, this is the one that baffles me the most. I cannot fathom why so many individuals cannot grasp that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

It really is SO simple…

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

 

[AlbertBall]

Hence, one can, and should, distinguish between good Darwinian science and errant Darwinian ideology. Regarding the latter, Richard Dawkins said, and I am not sure he was the first to say it, that Darwinism made it “intellectually respectable to be an atheist”. With Darwin, as with most materialist, philosophic materialism entails atheism.

That is not what Dawkins meant, he was referring to the fact the we now have a completely naturalistic explanation of our origins.

What on earth does claiming “only science gives of reliable knowledge of reality” have to do with atheism? I know plenty of atheists, including myself, and i don’t know any that claim “**only **science gives of reliable knowledge of reality”. It just so happens when it comes to understanding the cosmos, science is the BEST method. There are not the same thing.

To claim that reality is only physical or material is not a claim derived from or supported by the natural sciences; it is rather, a metaphysical claim, one that is appropriately termed metaphysical materialism. Perhaps it can be said that metaphysical materialism and atheism are different sides of the same coin. The same can be said regarding Darwinian ideology

and atheism.

Again claiming that reality is only physical or material had nothing to do with atheism, which is a term used to describe someone that does not have a theistic believe, nothing more.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sonny1954]

I regard atheism as much a leap of “faith” as Theism, since the atheist’s position can never be verified by the scientific method. But that’s not why I’m posting.

I WANT to believe…to know by faith. I was reared to believe and I have believed, quite strongly at times, until the last couple of years. Now, for some reason the idea of an invisible Father in the sky who will admit those people who follow his rules on earth into some fantastic “Disney Land in the sky” seems childish and silly. In short, my life experience has taught me that a life as posited by the Christian Heaven is too good to be true. We’ve all heard the saying “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

IF the First Cause that kick-started this earth into existence were to let me into his playground, it would by definition be disappointing. To live is to have hopes dashed and dreams crushed. That’s pretty universal.

I’ve even verbally said “God, come in” and “Jesus, the door is open”, but nothing happens. HOW do any one of You ask Jesus into your lives in a way that induces him to enter? Someone please answer. He pays no attention to me.

 

[kimmielittle]

I regard atheism as much a leap of “faith” as Theism, since the atheist’s position can never be verified by the scientific method. But that’s not why I’m posting.

I WANT to believe…to know by faith. I was reared to believe and I have believed, quite strongly at times, until the last couple of years. Now, for some reason the idea of an invisible Father in the sky who will admit those people who follow his rules on earth into some fantastic “Disney Land in the sky” seems childish and silly. In short, my life experience has taught me that a life as posited by the Christian Heaven is too good to be true. We’ve all heard the saying “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

IF the First Cause that kick-started this earth into existence were to let me into his playground, it would by definition be disappointing. To live is to have hopes dashed and dreams crushed. That’s pretty universal.

I’ve even verbally said “God, come in” and “Jesus, the door is open”, but nothing happens. HOW do any one of You ask Jesus into your lives in a way that induces him to enter? Someone please answer. He pays no attention to me.

Hiyas

Jesus is already in…maybe, He wants you to follow Him out to the garden?

 

[AlbertBall]

I regard atheism as much a leap of “faith” as Theism, since the atheist’s position can never be verified by the scientific method. But that’s not why I’m posting.

I WANT to believe…to know by faith. I was reared to believe and I have believed, quite strongly at times, until the last couple of years. Now, for some reason the idea of an invisible Father in the sky who will admit those people who follow his rules on earth into some fantastic “Disney Land in the sky” seems childish and silly. In short, my life experience has taught me that a life as posited by the Christian Heaven is too good to be true. We’ve all heard the saying “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

IF the First Cause that kick-started this earth into existence were to let me into his playground, it would by definition be disappointing. To live is to have hopes dashed and dreams crushed. That’s pretty universal.

I’ve even verbally said “God, come in” and “Jesus, the door is open”, but nothing happens. HOW do any one of You ask Jesus into your lives in a way that induces him to enter? Someone please answer. He pays no attention to me.

Why don’t you try to clear your mind of belief. Then look at the world as an adult and not someone that has been “reared to believe”. Start with a blank slate, then draw new fresh conclusions. May i suggest you start with my fav series of all time…

youtube.com/watch?v=_3NAW1U-swc&feature=PlayList&p=372AB978696EBC6B&index=0&playnext=1