Home » Uncategorized » ATHEISM IS STUPID III

ATHEISM IS STUPID III

Sacerdotus

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,678 other followers

Twitter

Blog Stats

  • 76,975 hits
April 2013
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Due to the fact that my previous postsAtheism is STUPID I and Atheism is STUPID IIhave been such a success, I have decided to make a third installment.  In this third part, I will focus on Presentism and Evidence.Presentism
Atheism is stupid in how it abuses the term “evidence” with the filter of presentism.  Presentism is defined as: “an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences”  In other words, people of the present many times impose their attitudes, experiences and understanding on people of the past.

By doing this, one will come out with unfair interpretations of the past.  Atheists are guilty of this.  They read certain passages in the Bible and cry foul!  Some passages seem to present God as this evil entity.  Others are violent, such as the “bashing of babies on rocks” verse (Psalms 137:9).  Atheists read this and immediate denounce the Bible as an evil book and God as an abuser of mankind.  This judgment is based on presentism.  The atheist is interpreting the past via experiences and understandings of the present.  The atheist completely ignores the literary style of the passage, the time and circumstance, and the audience.  These are a recipe for doubt and rash judgement against God and Scripture.

Granted, there are passages in Scripture that will naturally raise an eyebrow; however, those passages have their meaning that must be studied.  The passages in question will make more sense when looking at it via exegesis.  A lack of exegesis will result in either the formation of a new sect or atheism.  Students sometimes have trouble learning mathematics.  Basic arithmetic is not a big deal; however, when alegebra comes into play and students see the xyz’s and abc’s mixed with 123’s, then they become agitated.  To them, the concepts seem extremely illogical and complex to understand or complete.  However, when the rules of how to interpret these equations is carefully taught, students will begin to see how easy this math really is.  It may take a little more thinking as opposed to a simple 2+2=4 problem; nevertheless, the equations are doable.

Similarly, Scripture must be read carefully.  It must not be read like a newpaper and then attacked due to its apparent message.  Care must be taken to read it in context so as to avoid presentism.  Presentism must be set aside.  If presentism is used, then one will fall into the fallacious arguments of writers such as Christopher Hitchens or Thomas Paine.

Evidence
Evidence is a word atheists like to throw around – they ask: Where is the evidence?  When atheists ask theists for evidence for God and the theist cannot produce a man in a white robe, then they immediately cry out victory.  They believe that a theist’s inability to produce a 3D tactile presentation of God to be proof that no such being exists. In my “no evidence for God, therefore no God post,” I touch on this in more detail.

Evidence for God does not have to be in the form of an actual being.  It would be like demanding the animated body of President Lincoln in order to believe he existed.  As I write this, the Mar’s Rover is rolling around Mars looking for evidence of life or past life.  The Rover is doing this by collecting samples of soil.  Based on the composition of the soil, the Rover will be able to find evidence of life or past life.

Think about it:  NASA is studying Mars to find evidence of life. So why can’t we study nature to find evidence of God – its creator?  Why are atheists quick to knock down any arguments from design if NASA is looking for life based on the design of composition in soil samples collected?  One can see why atheism is indeed stupid or contrarian in regards to evidence of God.  Similarly, many NASA scientists believe life does exist on other planets.  They base this idea on the mere fact that the universe is huge and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies each with its own planetary systems.  Therefore, the logic is that if the universe has all this space with galaxies and planets, then life must be present elsewhere as well.

Ironically, when nature or the design of nature is used to show an intelligent creator, atheists do not want to hear it.  This makes absolutely no sense.  It is irrational to believe that order can come about from disorder.  It is irrational to believe that everything that exists-exists in this way by mere coincidence.  It is more probable to believe that an elaborate design has a designer that is intelligent and able to create order with aesthetic value.

Atheism is stupid for cherry picking what it considers evidence and what it does not.  Similarly, atheism is stupid for judging ancient texts via presentism.  They lose the true meaning by resorting to this mental filter.

We need to end the stupidity called Atheism.

Advertisements

23 Comments

  1. LEjames says:

    When an Atheist calls religion “silly” or when a Religionist calls Atheism “stupid,” the material becomes not even worth reading.

    With regards to presentism, I would argue that reading the Bible in its context, which I do specifically, positions it as text designed for its particular epoch.

    • Sacerdotus says:

      You need to broaden your horizons. As a former atheist, I can call atheism stupid. I know it well and know its fallacious nature. There is nothing wrong with critique.

    • Al says:

      +1 on that … I’m also not sure why exactly I’m consoling myself from the reality of god …

      if I believe in this person’s culturally determined god I:

      (1) evade death
      (2) have “eternal” happiness

      while:

      (3) screwing women left, right and centre
      (4) drinking my face off
      (5) mistreating my family
      (6) being a glutton
      (7) satisfying all my earthly wants

      Yeah, atheists are just too afraid of facing the reality of god. A god who gives you anything you want if you just go to church every week and say you believe in him.

      OHHH scary …

      • Sacerdotus says:

        Strawman fallacy much?

      • Al says:

        If someone claims you’ve caricatured their beliefs it must be true.

        Answer me one question: If you’re a born again Christian and you sin will you have “eternal life” with god?

        If the answer is no then god doesn’t save.

        If the answer is yes then god saves and you escape death while fulfilling your earthly impulses.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        I am Catholic, not a member of the born again Christian sect. Your question can be better answered by them.

  2. I’m a Christian and I would never call atheism stupid. I appreciate atheists — well, the ones who aren’t vicious and condescending — because they’ve done the very thing North American culture discourages: thinking about the BIG questions of life.

    • Sacerdotus says:

      Atheism and atheists are not the same thing. Atheism is a fallacious belief system. One can criticize a particular concept without attacking those who accept it. Thinking about the big questions in life existed way before Atheism. Religion and philosophy have always done this.

      • Good point. But I’m pretty sure if I tell an atheist person that atheism is stupid, the conversation isn’t going to go anywhere good.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        You would be surprised. Theythrive on a confrontational approach. I used to be an atheist so I know very well where atheists stand, how they think and how they are programmed to respond. The title of the blog post is naturally to get attention.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        You would be surprised. They thrive on a confrontational approach. I used to be an atheist so I know very well where atheists stand, how they think and how they are programmed to respond. The title of the blog post is naturally to get attention.

  3. Lab Rat says:

    Sorry but it seems like you say you don’t need tactile evidence for your god, but in your post you say

    “NASA is studying Mars to find evidence of life. So why can’t we study nature to find evidence of God – its creator?”

    NASA is looking for tactile evidence of the life that might have been (I personally don’t think there will be any of note but whatever) you ask why you can’t study nature for evidence of god….this would be tactile evidence. You can’t have it both ways: saying you don’t need evidence, looking for evidence, and if some is found using that as your proof of god.

    Another of your quotes:

    “Atheism is stupid for cherry picking what it considers evidence and what it does not.”

    You can’t cherry pick either, the sun coming up everymorning is evidence for Ra returning from the underworld in his Chariot, you don’t accept that because there is a scientific answer that better explains the phenomenon. We would rather find the scientific answer for all things and not leave any “evidence” for the gods.

    • Sacerdotus says:

      Yes, meaning atheists some times ask theists to present God in a test tube of sorts. Like NASA with the ROVER trying to prove life on Mars with soil, God can be proven using nature. See? For example: A woman is pregnant. No one saw the sex act. From the evidence of pregnancy, we know that the woman had a sexual encounter that resulted in pregnancy. We do not need to have a sex tape to prove it. Similarly, via the structure of nature and its processes, we can determine that there is a high probability that each has a designer. They did not result from an unconscious probability factor because the math just not possible.

      • Lab Rat says:

        “Like NASA with the ROVER trying to prove life on Mars with soil, God can be proven using nature. See?”

        No, I don’t, you can’t use physical evidence on one claim and not use it on the other.

        “A woman is pregnant. No one saw the sex act. From the evidence of pregnancy, we know that the woman had a sexual encounter that resulted in pregnancy.”

        Do you believe (as the mormons do) that your “god” had physical sex with Mary? I know its a stretch but had to bring it up…. I think she had sex, lied about it, was believed by the many ignorant masses of the time, and it has just gotten out of hand. We don’t need a sex tape to prove she had sex, but it would help to prove that she lied so long ago.

        I think probablility is on the side of science. It is more likely that science can explain most things, never everything, considereing we have discovered science to explain most of the phenomenae that have previously been attributed to the gods. Why would we attribute any others, even if they havent YET been scientifically understood, to a god?

      • Sacerdotus says:

        Elaborate on your first statement. My pregnancy analogy had nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception. God did not have sex with Mary. She did not lie. Jesus as a human on earth was the product of the power of the Holy Spirit. Science raises more questions than answers unfortunately. We can attribute primal causality to God because it is the most logical explanation.

      • Lab Rat says:

        You talk about the NASA using the rover to find physical evidence of possible life on Mars. You claim that nature is evidence of god but I don’t see how that can be. There is no physical, empirical evidence of your god. I am not saying that there never will or could be, I am just staying on the side of skepticism until it surfaces and I have no problem switching my position if the evidence surfaced.

        I know I can’t answer all of the questions and I am ok saying I don’t know how it started. I think it is better to say I don’t know than to use an idea from before we could correctly explain the sun, the moon, the stars, our body, disease, and weather.

      • Lab Rat says:

        Your quote…

        “A woman is pregnant. No one saw the sex act. From the evidence of pregnancy, we know that the woman had a sexual encounter that resulted in pregnancy.”

        There is no, and no need for, an exception like the immaculate conception. You say yourself that the evidence we have for pregnancy says babies come from a sexual encounter.

  4. Ill tell ya what’s stupid… going to church and thinking your eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a 2000 year old God that stole everything he did from other religions… what’s not stupid- science, evolution, tangible things that can be proved via the scientific method…. you know what’s stupid, people that think man and dinosaurs walked side by side and all the worlds scientists are conspirating against god

    • Sacerdotus says:

      Did you know the scientific method was formulated by a Catholic priest? So I guess science is stupid as well if we go by your logic.

      • Lab Rat says:

        Everyone was religious back then, it was the way they were raised and the world back then. We are able to change our mind about the world when new evidence comes to light, that is the way of science. Religion seems like the child not wanting to know that its true when their friends at school tell them Santa isn’t real. Saying that we shouldn’t claim scientific discoveries that were made by religious people only makes the science v religion war worse….

        Why can’t we be friends, why can’t we be friends, why can’t we be friends, why can’t we be frrriiieennndddss.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        You fail to realize that science as we know it came from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church sponsored and hired men to study and advance scientific knowledge. Before NASA and other science research facilities, the Catholic Church was there funding science. Friar Bacon gave us the scientific method. Msgr. Lemaitre gave us the “Big Bang” Theory and even corrected Einstein! To suggest that religion is some how aloof to science is an uneducated statement.

      • Lab Rat says:

        I understand that science is religion’s “baby” and don’t mean to imply that religion knows nothing of science or should have no part in science, but if science explains something differently that religion, which explanation should we use? Is the earth the center of the universe? No, we are but one small planet orbiting one small star in this vast universe. Religion has changed its views on stuff like the heliocentric theory but only because science proved it first. If there is an all knowing, why didn’t religion know it first, why do they have to change their teachings and claims?

      • Sacerdotus says:

        Well science only pertains to nature. I see no conflict there. Both religion and science must accept the realities of how things function in nature. Geocentrism was never part of dogma. It was the science of the time. The Church requested proof of heliocentrism from Galileo and he was not able to provide it. The Church has always been open to science, but with proof of its discoveries.

Leave a Reply

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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: