Timothy Birdnow

On Facebook an atheist sneers at God. I sneer right back.

Hilton Wayne Holder says: That's the true difference between those who don't believe in Gods, and hence an afterlife. You have everything to die for, and we have everything to live for.

Let’s have a real conversation about atheism and the nature of belief. Do you really think atheism has any moral significance or is a philosophy? Or could it be that it's simply a refusal to believe in what doesn’t have evidence to back it up?

Consider this: Why did communist elites ban religions like Christianity in their countries? Could it be that communism itself needed to replace the idea of a god with the state? If their ideology were based on truth, would they have needed to suppress competing beliefs?

If we’re truly aiming for peace and happiness, wouldn’t it make sense to rely on integrity, reason, and evidence? Can we agree that clinging to ancient religious dogma, which often promotes outdated and even barbaric ideas, isn’t the best path forward?

Think about this: If you argue that the universe was created by a creator, doesn’t that lead to the endless question of who created the creator? How does this stack up against what science and astronomy have already uncovered about the origins of the universe?

And why, if there were a powerful "skydaddy,” hasn’t he shown up to introduce himself in a civilized manner? Isn’t it more reasonable to rely on what we can see, understand, and prove?

Why do most refuse to challenge the narratives we've been taught. Could embracing reason and evidence, rather than holding onto unproven beliefs, be the key to a more harmonious and thriving human experience?

Isn’t it interesting how many Christians argue that without God, we wouldn’t know right from wrong? But does morality really depend on divine instructions like the Ten Commandments? Or could it be that humans are capable of figuring out ethical principles on their own?

Think about this: If we rely on fear of punishment from a higher power to maintain order, does that mean we’re not capable of understanding morality through reason and compassion? What if, instead of following dogma, we used rational thought to determine what is right and wrong?

Could it be that a rational philosophy, which rejects fear and violence, is better suited to guide us toward ethical living? Wouldn’t relying on reason, evidence, and shared human experiences help create a world where everyone can thrive?

Consider how religions have often enforced their beliefs through violence and fear. Even though Christianity and Judaism have softened over time, isn’t it true that some religions still practice violence in the name of their gods? Could this be because dogma, by its nature, doesn’t allow for questioning or progress?

So, if we want to create a better world, shouldn’t we focus on reason and compassion rather than relying on ancient texts that have often led to division and conflict? What if true morality comes from within us, through understanding and empathy, rather than from fear of divine punishment?

Shouldn't we re-think what it means to be moral. Could embracing rationality and rejecting dogma lead us to a more peaceful and just society?


Tim replies:

Hilton Wayne Holder you destroy your own argument when you say "Could it be that communism itself needed to replace the idea of a god with the state?" That itself argues for the reality of God or gods; Mankind knows in its heart there is a being, and entity, greater than itself. Or do you think this idea just sprang from nowhere? The very fact of it's existence and the fact it cannot be killed even by the gulag and the firing squad speaks volumes.

"Or could it be that it's simply a refusal to believe in what doesn’t have evidence to back it up?"

There is considerable evidence to back up the concept of God. The Anthropic Principle is one. The Big Bang another.

Is there smoking gun proof? No, but much of our science does not have such smoking gun proof. How do you think we find extra-solar planets? By observing their effects on the parent star. The same holds true for our knowledge of God (that and Divine revelation.)

Your atheism has zero evidence backing it up, I might add; it takes a larger act of faith to believe in a universe that created itself out of nothing than in one created by a being who has been active in the human condition for our whole history.

"If we’re truly aiming for peace and happiness, wouldn’t it make sense to rely on integrity, reason, and evidence?"

Who decides what is "integrity, reason, and evidence"? There is no objective reality if one assumes a universe without a God. What anyone believes is good enough.

The fact is there is Natural Law and we observe it. It does not REQUIRE religious faith but without religion Natural Law is quickly dismissed in favor of something more pleasing to us. That is how relativism comes to take over and has taken over.

We now live in a society driven by relativism, and that is the fruits of YOUR philosophy. You have no changeless core.

"Can we agree that clinging to ancient religious dogma, which often promotes outdated and even barbaric ideas, isn’t the best path forward?"

No we can't. Because the fruits of your belief system has been the horrors of Naziism, Bolshevism, and the modern degeneracy. The problem is not "outdarted and barbaric ideas" as you mischaracterize them but rather a tossing out of the baby of Faith with the bathwater. Atheism dismisses the very thing that civilized us.

Why is the world in such bad shape now? Because we became "the West" as opposed to Christendom, tossed out our Judeo-Christian heritage in favor of "enlightenment" and that has proven far more barbaric and ignorant than the worst abuses of Medieval Christianity. Read The Little Black Book of Communism sometime. Read Solzhenitzen.

"If you argue that the universe was created by a creator, doesn’t that lead to the endless question of who created the creator?"

You clearly don't understand that the universe itself is in direct violation of it's own laws of thermodynamics. How did the universe create itself? Yours is a b.s. college freshman argument. In point of fact God is TRANSCENDANT and not bound by the physical laws of this universe. BUT the universe very much is, yet remains in a state that violates it's own physical laws, laws of entropy. What makes more sense; God created the universe or it created itself by spontaneously altering it's own laws?

"How does this stack up against what science and astronomy have already uncovered about the origins of the universe?"

Science and astronomy haven't uncovered a single thing that refutes the God hypothesis. Not one thing. On the contrary it has done a good deal to strengthen the hypothesis.

In the Book of Genesis the Bible says the universe existed but was cold and dark and timeless until God said "let there be light". We now know FROM SCIENCE this is exactly how it went down. Cosmic expansion actually began BEFORE the Big Band lit everything up. What an amazing coincidence! A bunch of wandering goat-herders in the Bronze Age discovered the Big Bang!

That is why atheists have so desperately sought to eliminate the Big Bang. Fred Hoyle created the Steady State, which is totally illogical; it presupposes virtual quanta keep making new matter as the universe endlessly expands. Of course this misses the very fundamental point that as the universe expands those virtual quanta will be in lower and lower energy states, and if the universe is eternal it would long ago have suffered heat death. Hoyle also needed to explain how life formed in so short a time so he postulated aliens transmitting life from an older part of the universe. But how could this life move so far (it would have had to come from outside the galaxy, quite a ways outside) in the allotted time? Details, details. In the end Hoyle had a ridiculously Byzantine system to explain what he simply refused to admit.

"And why, if there were a powerful "skydaddy,” hasn’t he shown up to introduce himself in a civilized manner? Isn’t it more reasonable to rely on what we can see, understand, and prove?"

Why should He? Do you really think you deserve to meet Him? He HAS shown up and introduced Himself, repeatedly. To Abraham, to Moses, to the Prophets, to the whole world as Jesus. But despite that, despite miracles to prove He's there, you refuse to believe in Him.

Google Marianne appartions. Google Zeitun. Fatima. Lourdes. For that matter Google demonic possession. If there is a devil there must be a God.

What of Near Death Experiences? Many have had them, the world over.

And if God showed himself unequivocally to be there what does that do? It FORCES everyone to behave out of abject fear. There would be no free will, people wouldn't be able to make free-will choices. We would all be slaves.

'Could embracing reason and evidence, rather than holding onto unproven beliefs, be the key to a more harmonious and thriving human experience?"

What evidence do you have that would be the case? The worse countries have been those that embraced atheism. Ask any refugee from Venezuela.

"But does morality really depend on divine instructions like the Ten Commandments? "

Yes. It depends on an objective set of rules that can be ascertained without the Ten Commandments but not wholly understood. And in point of fact human beings will fudge them mercilously if it is in their interests if these are just determined by our viewpoints and our limited rational skills. Every murderer, every rapist, every criminal of every stripe has done that very thing. In their minds they were justified because they CHOSE to be. What went wrong in them? They rejected an objective moral code in favor of a relativistic code.

What, pray tell, makes any sort of ethical code sans Divine mandate absolute? Nothing. It is only of value when it serves your interests.

How many Communists hold to an ethical code that they believe in? Many. How many are actually moral and good people? Few.

"Or could it be that humans are capable of figuring out ethical principles on their own?"

What is there to "figure out"? In the animal kingdom animals eat or are eaten. The lion does now wrestle with the morality of killing a gazelle. All of our evolution is geared toward the law of the jungle. So how do we "figure out" ethical principles in a world governmed by survival of the fittest? We don't. We KNOW there is such a law though. Why?

It has nothing to do with "figuring it out" but rather with sensing a morally superior entity. Natural Law stems from the fact we sense there is a law written into the fabric of the universe. So who put that there? How does it exist there? And why don't the animals see it?

The idea we just "figure it out" is ludicrous.

"does that mean we’re not capable of understanding morality through reason and compassion?"

What makes us compassionate? Animals aren't, by and large. And reason? Do you really believe in reason in a place where Kamala Harris is running ahead of Donald Trump? Why do reason and compassion exist at all? How could such a thing evolve? The fact is most animals will eat their own young if they get hungry enough. We don't. Why is that?

It has nothing to do with reason or compassion.

"What if, instead of following dogma, we used rational thought to determine what is right and wrong?"

Because we won't do that. We will inevitably choose that which is to our own benefit. Maybe not all of us and not always, but enough times to lead to chaos and hatred and warfare.

For example, even though the West was taught Christianity and it's view that we are all brothers and should be kind to one another we've had countless tragedies over the years. Why? Why did the Spanish king massacre Jews, despite the admonition of his own religion against it? Because he chose to ignore that which was clearly stated because it served his purposes. This is not unique to Christianity, nor any religion. It is the human tendency to lie to ourselves and to seek advantage.

Without a concrete Law in place many will fudge right up to the edge - then go over it.

"Could it be that a rational philosophy, which rejects fear and violence, is better suited to guide us toward ethical living?"

How do you reject fear and violence? In point of fact there has been far more fear and far more violence from those espousing atheism than ever from religious folk. Look at Pol Pot. Look at Mao and his Cultural Revolution. These are not people who reject fear and violence. On the contrary fear and violence become more necessary in a society that is relativistic as it is the only tool to enforce compliance with someone's idea of right and wrong.

You cannot have freedom in a world governed by "rationality" alone. Those whom you deem irrational will have to be suppressed.

Hilton, your argument is reminiscent of a freshman philosophy class; sounds nice and wonderful but in the end does not stand up to the light of reason.

"you believe something that I don't,"

Exactly. You BELIEVE. You just don't believe in God. But you make an even bigger leap of faith because there is no God waiting to catch you in your mind. You are leaping into the abyss. Ask Nietzsche how that worked out for him.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:48 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 2316 words, total size 14 kb.