Consistant atheism

Over at the Christian Apologetics Project, they posted an article entitled If Atheists Were Consistent...

If it has not dawned on you, this past week has been a pretty bad one for the atheists.  Starting with Elliot Rodger and the stupid stunt he pulled, it has been demonstrated in several articles just how vacuous the whole idea of atheism truly is.

How exactly does Elliot Rodger have anything to do with atheism? Perhaps it hasn't dawned on the author that Rodger is unlike any atheist I've ever met, and I feel safe in saying that the vast majority denounce his actions and his terrible motives.

Whether Elliot was an atheist or not is immaterial, since what he did fit right in with the atheist idea that without God, or at least the ignorance of God, one is left to believe one is one’s own god, and can pretty much do what he/she thinks is right, just, and fair.

Sorry, but being an atheist does not lead me to the conclusion that I am my own god. Such a thought doesn't even make sense. I don't think that I can just do whatever the hell I want without a thought.
Not believing in God doesn't mean that there's no accountability. Also, it doesn't mean that I will act without consideration. Before I do something I may consider many variables. One being how doing X, Y or Z will effect others.

I may not believe in a god, but that doesn't make me think of myself as a god. Rather, it leaves me thinking even more about my loved ones and doing right for them, rather than for myself. True, I could physically do whatever I want... But so can a Christian. The difference is that I choose to do what I do based on what I feel to be right and to benefit others. Meanwhile, some Christians arrive at the same choice, but only due to avoid penalty. Which one is only looking out for themselves again?

Yet, one last thing needs to be said, at least for now, in respect to atheist consistency, and why he opines about anything.  Because if the atheist was consistent, and truly believed that there was no God, then he would not opine about anything.  Why?

 What the actual what?! I have a feeling this is going to be priceless...

As noted previously, atheists believe in nothing.  From nothing unto nothing is the whole idea of atheism in a nutshell.  We are all a bunch of big, fat zeroes, without any meaningful existence.  We are random accidents going nowhere, except to a hole in the ground, when all is said and done, and that’s it!

Too bad that's not what an atheist is. Atheism is not belief in nothing. Atheism is the lack of believe in gods and only the lack of belief in gods. Not believing in God does not mean belief in nothing. Atheists have plenty of beliefs, and they are as varied as the individual. I believe in my wife and the love we share. I believe in helping however I can. I believe in making the world a more beautiful place. I believe in the amazing explanatory power of science, and that it is out hope to solve the big problems we are due to face. I believe that over reliance on religion is holding us back from progress. The list goes on and on. But the only belief that atheism is concerned with is belief in gods.

Ditto for meaning. I may not feel that I have a transcendent prescribed meaning for my life. But I don't need a god to tell my what to value in life. The love of my wife and family are meaningful to me. The fact that my cats also display love towards me and trust me endlessly. I find meaningful relaxation in working on my cars or tending to our garden. I feel that reading and education are also things I value greatly. Simply living a good life, and touching the lives of others is very meaningful in my estimation.

I may not get a second go at life. But the fact that life it temporary doesn't make it meaningless.

Nay, it actually makes life just that much more meaningful. I get one go at life, and it is my goal to fill it with as much joy as possible. How is that remotely meaningless.

Oh, and saying we are all random accidents going nowhere tells me that the author truly hasn't the slightest understanding of life from an atheistic perspective.

Well, if that’s the case, then from nothing can nothing spring, particularly when it comes to opining in a meaningful way.  To assume for example, therefore, that molesting little children is wrong, would be wrong in itself, since to arrive at such an assumption would require something, not nothing, to objectively base that decision upon to give it meaning.

Sorry, but physics and abstract concepts are not one in the same. To determine that molesting a child is wrong requires only empathy. It matters not where the empathetic beings came from. As for physical 'nothing', we've yet to find an actual 'nothing' at all. But does a Christian really want to go down the road of nothing can come from nothing? Because if we do, one must then ask where their god came from.

Additionally, atheism doesn't even claim that something came from nothing. It doesn't even ask that question. Atheism is concerned with belief in gods and only belief in gods. An atheist is free to think whatever they want about our origins. That the Big Bang was born from a vacuum fluctuation, that the energy of the universe just always existed, that it actually did result from 'nothing', that life is just a dream, that we are all just parts of a computer simulation, etc. But it's important to remember that these would all be beliefs that are independent of atheism.

The same would be true whether one decided to opine about high electric bills, robbing the local 7-11, or that one’s parents were the greatest things since sliced bread (but not until after the child made it through his/her teenage years, when they know everything).

 But, the atheist just can’t control him.  He must keep handing out those opinions.  Again, why?

Because we are living beings. People with thoughts, and ideas that we want to express and share. As I've already mentioned, absolutely none of this is in conflict with atheism.

Because he, being created in the image of God, like all human beings, has been inherently instilled with a sense of right and wrong, even though he may choose to suppress that reality.  He knows that raping women and cheating on one’s taxes are morally, ethically, and meaningfully wrong, just like he knows that helping the tornado victim or honoring our military veterans is morally, ethically, and meaningfully right.

Luckily, the claim that we just know of an unchanging right and wrong is just plain incorrect. There are some concepts of right and wrong that are very common across cultures. But that is because we are social creatures. But in some places something we think to be wrong may be considered right. Also, it is a good thing that right and wrong can change over time. We changed our thinking and recognized that slavery was wrong.

If we just followed the Bible's morals slavery would still be just fine. The Bible is also a bad example for rape. Yes, rape is wrong. But being raped is just as harshly penalized. What more, rape is considered more as 'property damage' rather that a violation of a person's rights. We learn what is right and wrong, and sometimes we even correct the errors of the past. Far better than a concept of forever unyielding moral laws.

Nevertheless, given his rebellion against God, what he knows become meaningless when he fails to acknowledge God.

So... Does what the Christian knows become meaningless when in his rebellion he fails to acknowledge the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

So, every time he pipes-up and says thus-and-such is right, or thus-and-such is wrong, he contradicts himself and what he claims is true, which is that there is no God, and all events, persons, ethics, morals, or whatever, mean NOTHING!

Sigh... Do I even need to repeat myself for a third time? Atheism is a stance on one, and only one item; belief in gods. Everything else is a separate issue. We're talking about atheism here, not nihilism! Furthermore the idea that "events, persons, ethics, morals, or whatever, mean NOTHING" is patently false. Atheists can and do find meaning everywhere and anywhere. I feel sorry for the author if he only finds meaning where he thinks his god has told him to find meaning.

Well, if nothing has any meaning, which in itself would be a contradiction, then neither does the opinion of the atheist, which by giving it, is a contradiction as well.

You know what... I've repeated myself enough times already. There is no contradiction for anyone starting from an honest and accurate premise.

Therefore, if the atheist is to be consistent, and his opinion means nothing, then he needs to be quiet. Otherwise, he is telling everyone he does not really believe what he says he does. Instead, that God does exist, and that the atheist must contradict himself in order opine to the contrary.

Have you ever known a person or animal to just keep doing the same thing over and over but they never seem to learn? This article is going pretty much like that. No matter how many times the author hauls out the tired premise that nothing matters to atheists, it will not suddenly become true. Actually, I find life to be much more meaningful now, than when I was a Christian. So I really fail to see where he's drawing this conclusion from.

What this article speaks about is not atheists being inconsistent and contradictory. But there is one
thing that it is... A huge mess of a straw-man argument.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter