The atheist dogma

I am writing this post as an explanation of my views on several issues and with an explanation for each. This is done specifically for Debilis and other theists who think like him. In order to do this, I would like us to attend to definitions first and dogma we are told

 is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology, nationalism or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm, or the ideology itself. They can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Atheism at the minimum is a lack of belief in gods. There are no authorities. Well, unless you refer to me as one! You don’t have to like this definition, in fact you can create your own definition, but atheism will remain a lack of belief in gods and for those who find it offensive, it also the default position. No child is born with an idea of gods, they must be taught this and they adopt the religion of their parents or caretakers. For the same reason, a catholic has never been birthed in a Muslim household. There is no set principle in the definition of atheism accepted on authority. None whatsoever. All other positions are open for grabs. Anyone who has spent time in atheist circles will see this to be the case. The only place where there is agreement is on lack of evidence for deities. There is not even agreement on what would make them believe there is a god. To mix any other issue with this is to miss the point by a mile.

With definitions behind us, let us get to the reason why this post is being written. This post will be as brief as the issues will allow. I will link his post at the end for anyone interested to see why I have had to write this post. For those who have interacted with him, it must be known to you that his modus operandi is to always shift goal posts so that at all times he comes out clean on the other side trumpeting, oh but you didn’t answer me! Am sick and tired of this and it is not an honest way of engaging in an intellectual debate.

On gods

I know there are no gods. There is no coherent definition of a god to even begin to discuss whether one such thing would exist and as such all talk about god is meaningless. In every instance the word god has been used, men have been ignorant of causes. It is my contention that god exists in the abode of ignorance. Only men who are ignorant of causes and are not willing to admit it, give the answer god.

Percy Bysshe Shelley in his Necessity of Atheism writes

Every time we say that god is the author of some phenomenon, that signifies that we are ignorant of how such phenomena was able to operate by the aid of the forces or causes that we know in nature. It is thus that the generality of mankind, whose lot is ignorance, attributes to the divinity, not only the unusual effects which strike them, but moreover the simple events, of which the causes are the most simple to understand by whomever is able to study them.

On morality

Whereas, I find the talk of morality cumbersome, I contend first and foremost that morality is useless if there are no obligations to one another. I have said above that gods don’t exist and anyone who claims they have a say on morality is one who, for lack of a better word, doesn’t think. To help with this however, I suggest one reads Euthyphro dilemma . There are those who have argued that without god all is permitted and some have made Ivan say this in The Brothers Karamazov. On the contrary, with god all is permitted. A robber steals and repents, he goes to heaven. My friend John does good all his life except believing in fairies and the theist tells us he is going to hell! Come on! Think, it will not kill you!

On meaning of life

I say with Albert Camus that life is absurd and I join the author of Ecclesiastes in saying all is vanity. A chasing after the wind. Life is itself meaningless. Everyone, the theist and the atheist are all busy trying to find meaning in their existence. Where they got the idea that life has to have meaning to be lived is a question that am hoping someone will shed some light on.

On the origin? of the universe

There is nothing that can help me to arrive to the conclusion about whether it had a beginning or has always been. I can only speculate. Don’t get me wrong, I know a little of my cosmology and am not dismissing it. Anyone who has read a bit of BBT will understand it doesn’t tell us the nature of the universe before inflation if we can talk about a beginning.

On freewill

I contend we don’t have freewill for the simple reason that all acts of will have precedent causes, we may be ignorant of what and how many they are but this doesn’t make them absent.

On materialism

This happens to be Debilis pet topic, almost all his posts on atheism have something on this. First I will say here, the world is my idea. As I perceive the world, so it is for me. And as such, if I don’t exist, I have no idea of the world and for all intents and purposes the world doesn’t exist.

If materialism means

that all things are composed of material, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material properties and interactions. In other words, the theory claims that our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action.

I don’t see a problem here unless Debilis is going to offer an example of substance that falls out of the above criteria. Unless he uses a different meaning for materialism, I know of nothing else. While on this topic, I recently shared the thoughts of Bishop Berkeley, an idealist. Allow me not to repeat those thoughts here.

On holy books

That all so called holy books are works of man. They have the stamp of man on all pages. There is no divine intervention. There is no reason to think there s divine intervention in the first place. The fact they bear the stamp of antiquity doesn’t challenge this point. It is possible that in some of them, men aspire to higher ideals and make claims of gods, they are all and one work of men and further the nature of the man writing them is seen on every page. For the savage, his god is a barbarian, murderous, and stupid to just say the least and the civilised man like the Greek, his god is civil and almost takes after the best among them.

On Jesus Christ

While there are those who believe he was an historical figure, I don’t buy this line. My question is which Jesus? The one conceived of a virgin- then hell no! A different Jesus- these could be many just like there are many Johns! And tell me the apostles or the gospel writers were witnesses! They were not and you need only read the bible accounts to know this- one and all of them!

If there is any matter I have left out, feel free to ask me what I think about it. I will definitely offer a response and you are free to agree or disagree.

The atheist dogma

postscript:  On gods

It is really odd that a theist or a Christian will say that God is unknown/unknowable and claim that nobody can know the mind of God, but still make religious claims about the character and will of God.  It’s just really out of place that a religion or a church will say that god is incomprehensible to man but believe with certainty and knowledge that they know and worship the one true God, but all others not just have no knowledge of God, but also worship the wrong god.  Is it not contradictory that a person can say they know God and have a personal relationship with God, but in the same breath say God is Unknown and Unknowable?

If freewill is true

A lot has been said about freewill and once in a while one finds a post by a theist on freewill that leaves you with quite a new set of questions to be asked of the theist and here is just one such post. The author starts by writing

The belief that most people hold to is that God loves everybody and wants to save everybody. That He has given man a free will, and cannot save a man unless that man, of his own free will, decides to let God save him.

then continues to say if the above statement is true, then

1. The Bible is mistaken when it describes man as dead in sins.

2. God is not sovereign. His will is subject to man’s will.

3. Praying to God for the salvation of sinners is a mistake. We should be praying to men to use their will to let God save them.

4. Salvation is not dependent upon God, but man.

5. Man gets a portion of the credit in salvation.

6. Salvation cannot be said to be 100% grace. Man’s will is the key that unlocks the grace of God. Grace cannot work unless man turns the key.

7. God’s will has no say in the ultimate destiny of the sinner. In reality, God’s will is meaningless in the salvation of the sinner. The will of man controls his own destiny.

8. The death of Christ was at best a gamble, dependent upon the will of man, and in reality a failure, because many He died for are lost anyway.

9. The security of the believer hinges on his own will.

as arguments against freewill and whereas I am not looking to be saved nor  believe there is a god, I find his statements to be almost legitimate.