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?

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

44 thoughts on “The atheist dogma

  1. Arkenaten says:

    You failed to note that Debillis is a hypocrite and Giant Plonker of note. 🙂

    Happy New Year, Mak.

    Like

  2. john zande says:

    Awesome! Arguing with someone like Debilis is, however, pointless. You can’t “debate” willful ignorance. You can’t engage a closed mind.

    Like

  3. CHope says:

    Okay, somehow unfollowed you (like today, I think). I’ll fix it now

    Like

      • CHope says:

        Hey, Mak, come here, come a little closer, You wanna hear something funny? I appreciate what “guywithoutboxers” brings into our converations on this blog. Well, I didn’t realize he is literally a GUY WITHOUT BOXERS! Holy cow, Batman! I don’t remember the last time I saw so much dick! 😉

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          That made me laugh out loud, literally!
          That friend of mine makes my days 😀

          Like

          • CHope says:

            I know right?! I hope he doesn’t think I’m gossiping about him, he really seems like a nice and intelligent man. I just realized how I’m still a little bit old fashioned in spite of my resolution for sexy this year! ;0

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I doubt he would think that. He is a fine gentleman.
            You know the first time I visited his site, I was like, what the HELL!!!!

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            In fact, you visit his blog once or twice, you discover it is a very descent blog. He disparages no one and tells only his story and does a few interviews with people of same persuasion. Once can’t ask for a better friend.

            Like

          • CHope says:

            Mak, I guess I’m still a little bit of a “prude”. I’d visit his blog again, but don’t think I will just yet. I’m pretty much comfortable with just my husband’s dick. There are times when I don’t even want to see that one, especially when he’s acting like a dick himself.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            No problem dear friend! No problem at all.
            If there is one thing I admire about you and most of the people I interact with here, is your honesty.

            Like

          • CHope says:

            Oh trust me, no one here in west Tennessee likes my honesty! I get a lot of “you’re definitely not from around here!” comments. It’s funny because I don’t really talk much to people in my area, but when I do I get that kind of a response.

            Like

        • fojap says:

          I can’t believe you said this out loud. Do you have any concerns for the feelings of other people?

          Are you aware that it was your lack of sensitivity towards other people that caused me to stop hanging around Daz’s blog. You are so arrogant, rude and conceited.

          Like

  4. Ignostic Atheist says:

    Does materialism account for the fact that everything is ultimately just energy?

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Interesting question. I don’t know. I may have to check that out.

      Like

      • Ignostic Atheist says:

        I read up on it, and it seems that materialism can have a variable definition of what constitutes material (varying with scientific progress). The main weight seems to fall behind the idea of emergent behavior of that material.

        Like

        • e=mc2 works out to mass/material is energy, just moving slowly. In this, materialism deals with ‘all is energy’ but we only see it at the slower speeds.

          Like

          • Ignostic Atheist says:

            It’s more than that though, go deeper and material is quantum fields, deeper still and maybe it is strings. But, I don’t think it is necessarily dogmatic to believe that behaviors can emerge from material without knowledge of the ultimate material, because if you just take one of the higher order materials and show emergent behavior, then the concept holds for that behavior via lower order material.

            Does this make sense?

            Like

          • the emergent property that is in focus does not have to appear at the lower levels. Replication is an emergent property for all we know and then intelligence / mind an emergent property of that complexity of biology over chemistry which is an emergent property of particles and so on. The emergent proprty need not be a part of the lower levels of the reducible structure.

            We think of biology as some special event – emergent property of chemistry voila! From intelligence / mind can emerge other properties which IMO can move upwards and downwards… When the singularity in AI hits, we’ll see emergent properties again as a result of the previous emergent properties.

            Does that make sense.

            Like

          • Ignostic Atheist says:

            Yeah, it pretty much sounds like what I was trying to say, but I was also trying to say that it is not necessary to know the lowest order of material in order to make the assertion that behavior can be emergent.

            Like

          • Indeed we agree on that. I just think there have been a chain of emergent behaviors …

            Like

  5. aguywithoutboxers says:

    A very thoughtful and inclusive manifesto, my Nairobi brother! As for me, I have no problem with and welcome you as Mak I, Pope of the Atheists! Much love and many genuflections from the frigid hinterland here! 🙂

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Does me being pope come with infallible clause? I want to start making infallible statements that only my infallible self can change

      Like

      • aguywithoutboxers says:

        You’re the Pope, sir! You can decree whatever authority or power that you desire! All hail Mak the First! (trips over himself as he tries to prostrate himself while in the presence of greatness)! 😉

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          Hahaha! Now with that authority, I declare you a saint! From now you join in the unholy ranks of saints

          Like

          • aguywithoutboxers says:

            Nude with a halo? Does that make me a first-class act or a first-class clown? LOL! 🙂 Now that you are Pope Mak I, please, pontificate away! Much love, our unholy Pontiff!

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Yes, patron saint of all nudists- dead, alive and yet to be born! And all prayers that are meant not to answered shall be said through you from now till end times however long that will be!

            Like

    • CHope says:

      Please don’t think I’m trying to be mean, aguywithoutboxers. I was just a little taken back by your blog. I do thank you for the input you give on this blog, you seem so thoughtful.

      Like

  6. Sonel says:

    Very interesting Mak. Thanks for sharing and have a great day. 😀 *hugs*

    Like

  7. Good article. Debilis is definitly a thorn in the paw.

    Like

  8. In most cases, honest and TrueChristian are incompatible terms.

    Very excellent post! I think that saying that life has or needs “meaning” is just a vague word being paraded around. What is “meaning” intended to convey anyway? Do I need to do some philanthropic action? Not that I can tell. Do I like to? Yes. As a bit of an Epicurean/hedonist, I think that one should strive for enjoyment. No “meaning” needed.

    “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?”

    of course it is. And you’ll get the excuses that the TrueChristian didn’t “really” say they knew their god when the contradiction is brought up to them. This is one of those observations that will often make a TrueTheist run away in short order.

    Like

  9. “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.”

    I agree completely with that. I was trying to make that point in one of my posts.

    http://chandlerklebs.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-believing-god-exists-is-irrelevant/

    Like

  10. Jerome says:

    Good post and you make several valid points, but there is one thing I disagree with… That people who believe in gods are ignorant. I believe you can’t rule out the evils of indoctrination, of teaching children religion and effectively brain-washing them from an early age. It’s difficult to let go of all that. At least it was for me!

    Somewhat related, I notice that many atheists think that theists are stupid. I don’t believe there is any correlation between intelligence and theism. I think that some people are simply not able to see reality after being taught their religion (and that they must not question it) for so many years.

    Even though belief is completely irrational and I see it as madness, it seems some people will never be able to see that, and there is no use arguing with them because they absolutely can not see the bigger picture. But while we can not debate with them and ever expect ration or reason in return, we can try to explain ourselves and show how logical and sane it is to be an atheist.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Hey Jerome, thanks for reading and commenting.

      I don’t think I called theists ignorant. But I said, god is usually used in instances where people are ignorant of causes.

      I don’t think it is us who say the theists are stupid; many times it is them who imply this in their writings. I spend many hours with theists on a daily basis and I know they are quite intelligent. There is only one area of their lives they haven’t applied themselves as vigorously as they do elsewhere.

      Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s