Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?

Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?

We Christians are often called out and accused of trying to convert non-believers or adherents of other faith systems to Christianity, force them into something they don't want, and not respect them. They do however not understand, that we have a command by the lord Jesus Christ:  to spread the clear teachings of Jesus and the Apostles of the Gospel (Good News) with love and kindness,  and make disciples. To preach the gospel is one thing. A true religion / worldview is spread by using evidence and logical arguments, discussion and fair debates, allowing people to make up their minds and exercise their free choice to accept or reject the beliefs, and being able to point to a perfect sinless Messiah as an example of how we should try to act and treat others! We are not asked to interfere in the decision making of the receiver of our message. We are called to make the gospel of Gods grace, love, justice,  forgiveness and eternal life known. If someone by deliberate decision wants to become a Christian, then we are called to instruct the new convert in his new faith. The Christian has good reasons to confess his faith, first, to obey the Lords command, and secondly, to give others the opportunity to find salvation and eternal life.

What makes people reject God is not the ( lack of ) scientific evidence, but sin. They love darkness more than the light.

At many places, atheists express actively their non-belief in God. They most commonly criticize the bible as a book of fables and magic, not trustworthy. But why is that? First of all, the rationale of this thinking is logically fallacious.  The bible is false, therefore, (strong) atheism is true. That is an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.  The illicit negative occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. The proponents of strong atheism/naturalism, however, must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive reason and the evidence-based case using positive evidence that results in good justifications to infer naturalism or strong atheism. What the debater must present, is aa positive case for strong atheism by reference to the evidence that favours a atheistic interpretation of reality. But why do so many actively pursue this endeavor with the fervor of a believer, to express their unbelief ? What do active strong militant atheists try to achieve? Check and see any description of a Facebook group of atheism, what the goal of the group is, and you will not find a clear confession and delineation of goals. Question: Why are you not an A-UfOlogist ? or A-spiritist ? Why do so many spend so much energy, time, dedication to express what they do NOT believe?

What is the goal of the active atheist? The outcome of atheism is that there are no real binding moral values and duties. There can't be, if God does not exist.  Do whatever pleases you and what you want becomes the compass of actions. Get rid of God, and you do not need to fear God, nor that there will be judgment day, nor eternal punishment, nor hell. This seems to me to be the deepest desire of atheists. Get rid of God. He shall not exist. But why proselytize and try to convince others of this perspective and view of reality? Do atheists by doing this try to convince themselves that their worldview must be true? The more they repeat it, the more they believe it them self, and the more comfort they get?  It seems to me, that is one of the view possible reasons. But is it really? Can our existence without God existing be comfortable? I think, it can't, but it will lead, if thought all through, to desperation and nihilism.  

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, for example, believed that we have no choice but to build our lives upon “the firm foundation of unyielding despair.” Only by recognizing that the world really is a terrible place can we successfully come to terms with life. Camus said that we should honestly recognize life’s absurdity and then live in love for one another.Frankly speaking, atheism is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose and excitement.  If the atheist’s worldview is correct, then we are nothing but the result of accidental chemical processes and our thoughts are merely chemical reactions that take place in our brain. Therefore, nothing you ever do, or say, or even believe matters. In the end, we all go back to “star dust.” So, why argue? Why waste your time talking to someone about the truth or falsehood of something when it doesn’t matter in the end?   On what basis does human life have value? As Francis Schaeffer wrote: Modern man resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent when he makes this leap, because these values cannot exist without God, and man in his lower story does not have God.  It’s impossible to live consistently and happily within the framework of such a worldview. If you live consistently, you will not be happy; if you live happily, it is only because you are not consistent.  But as a theist, i believe i was created in God's image,  and therefore i am of great value.

Last edited by Admin on Tue May 02, 2017 7:13 pm; edited 14 times in total

View user profile


The Practical Impossibility of Atheism

The point is this: If God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.

Value of Life

Turn now to the problem of value. Here is where the most blatant inconsistencies occur. First of all, atheistic humanists are totally inconsistent in affirming the traditional values of love and brotherhood. Camus has been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life and the ethics of human love and brotherhood. The view that there are no values is logically incompatible with affirming the values of love and brotherhood. Bertrand Russell, too, was inconsistent. For though he was an atheist, he was an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom. Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste, and that he therefore found his own views “incredible.” “I do not know the solution,” he confessed.6

The point is that if there is no God, then objective right and wrong do not exist. As Dostoyevsky said, “All things are permitted.” But man cannot live this way. So he makes a leap of faith and affirms values anyway. And when he does so, he reveals the inadequacy of a world without God.

The horror of a world devoid of value was brought home to me with new intensity several years ago as I watched a BBC television documentary called The Gathering. It concerned the reunion of survivors of the Holocaust in Jerusalem, where they rediscovered lost friendships and shared their experiences. One former prisoner, a nurse, told of how she was made the gynecologist at Auschwitz. She observed that pregnant women were grouped together by the soldiers under the direction of Dr. Josef Mengele and housed in the same barracks. Some time passed, and she noted that she no longer saw any of these women. She made inquiries. “Where are the pregnant women who were housed in that barracks?” “Haven’t you heard?” came the reply. “Dr. Mengele used them for vivisection.”

Another woman told of how Mengele had bound up her breasts so that she could not suckle her infant. The doctor wanted to learn how long an infant could survive without nourishment. Desperately this poor woman tried to keep her baby alive by giving it pieces of bread soaked in coffee, but to no avail. Each day the baby lost weight, a fact that was eagerly monitored by Dr. Mengele. A nurse then came secretly to this woman and told her, “I have arranged a way for you to get out of here, but you cannot take your baby with you. I have brought a morphine injection that you can give to your child to end its life.” When the woman protested, the nurse was insistent: “Look, your baby is going to die anyway. At least save yourself.” And so this mother felt compelled to take the life of her own baby. Dr. Mengele was furious when he learned of it because he had lost his experimental specimen, and he searched among the dead to find the baby’s discarded corpse so that he could have one last weighing.

My heart was torn by these stories. One rabbi who survived the camp summed it up well when he said that at Auschwitz it was as though there existed a world in which all the Ten Commandments were reversed. Mankind had never seen such a hell.

And yet, if God does not exist, then in a sense, our world is Auschwitz: There is no right and wrong; all things are permitted.

But no atheist, no agnostic, can live consistently with such a view. Nietzsche himself, who proclaimed the necessity of living beyond good and evil, broke with his mentor Richard Wagner precisely over the issue of the composer’s anti-Semitism and strident German nationalism. Similarly, Sartre, writing in the aftermath of the Second World War, condemned anti-Semitism, declaring that a doctrine that leads to mass extermination is not merely an opinion or matter of personal taste of equal value with its opposite. In his important essay “Existentialism Is a Humanism,” Sartre struggles vainly to elude the contradiction between his denial of divinely preestablished values and his urgent desire to affirm the value of human
persons. Like Russell, he could not live with the implications of his own denial of ethical absolutes.

Neither can the so-called New Atheists like Richard Dawkins. For although he says that there is no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference, he is an unabashed moralist. He vigorously condemns such actions as the harassment and abuse of homosexuals, religious indoctrination of children, the Incan practice of human sacrifice, and prizing cultural diversity over the interests of Amish children. He even goes so far as to offer his own amended Ten Commandments for guiding moral behavior, all the while marvelously oblivious to the contradiction with his ethical subjectivism.

Indeed, one will probably never find an atheist who lives consistently with his system. For a universe without moral accountability and devoid of value is unimaginably terrible.

Purpose of Life

Finally, let’s look at the problem of purpose in life. The only way most people who deny purpose in life live happily is either by making up some purpose—which amounts to self-delusion, as we saw with Sartre—or by not carrying their view to its logical conclusions. The temptation to invest one’s own petty plans and projects with objective significance and thereby to find some purpose to one’s life is almost irresistible.

For example, the outspoken atheist and Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg, at the close of his much-acclaimed book The First Three Minutes, writes,

It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that somehow we were built in from the beginning.… It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.

But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself. Men and women are not content to comfort themselves with tales of gods and giants, or to confine their thoughts to the daily affairs of life; they also build telescopes and satellites and accelerators, and sit at their desks for endless hours working out the meaning of the data they gather. The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.

There’s something strange about Weinberg’s moving description of the human predicament: Tragedy is not a neutral term. It expresses an evaluation of a situation. Weinberg evidently sees a life devoted to scientific pursuits as truly meaningful, and therefore it’s tragic that such a noble pursuit should be extinguished. But why, given atheism, should the pursuit of science be any different from slouching about doing nothing? Since there is no objective purpose to human life, none of our pursuits has any objective significance, however important and dear they may seem to us subjectively. They’re no more significant than shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.´

If the atheist’s worldview is correct, then we are nothing but the result of accidental chemical processes and our thoughts are merely chemical reactions that take place in our brain. Therefore, nothing you ever do, or say, or even believe, matters. In the end, we all go back to “star dust.” So, why argue? Why waste your time talking to someone about the truth or falsehood of something when it doesn’t matter in the end?

Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:21 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile



Non-believers ask believers for proof about their claims ALL THE TIME. Yet, when it comes to matters of why they seek a debate with believers, they insist that their own claims are unquestionable, that we must accept their word and take what they have to say on faith. That's  a double standard.

Are most non-believers really genuinely looking  for God  ? If so, what standard have they set that would meet their requirement to acknowledge his existence ? If they have not set the bars, how can they know when the evidence is enough that points to God as the best explanation of origins ?  Are they really highly motivated in seeking for the truth where ever it may lead, even if that means it leads  to God ?! C.S. Lewis once said (paraphrased) that a non-believer is looking as hard for God as a thief is looking for a police station, meaning that he isn't: it's against his own moral interests to find God.

If you seek HIM like a starving man seeks for bread or a thirsting man seeks for water, then the Bible is filled to the brim with promises that you will find Him. Or more correctly, that He will find you.
"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." - Luke 11:10

View user profile


the quote from atheist/author Thomas Nagel comes to mind on these issues...because I contend the real issue is one of the heart/will. Good thinkers like Grasso put forward arguments to suggest a first cause/deity is crucial for eneregy/matter to start, then for intelligent life to start. Humans are a proud species...we like to go it alone...and the thought of acknowledging, net alone loving/worshiping a deity is abhorant to many, hence the blinkers. Anyway, Nagel let the cat out of the secularist's bag when he said, "“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.”

View user profile

5 Weak atheism on Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:08 am


Weak atheism

Craig : I think it is very popular on the lay level because it exonerates the unbeliever from having to give any defense of his viewpoint. For him atheism is just a psychological state and therefore it is neither true nor false. It is not a view. It's a description of one's psychology. Therefore the person who claims to be an atheist in this psychological sense makes no assertion and has nothing to prove because he doesn't make any claim. Philosophically a belief is just a certain type of mental state which means you accept a certain proposition as true. So it is absurd to claim that you have no beliefs. That is itself a belief – the belief that I have no beliefs. Think, for example, of babies who would have a lack of belief in God because they don't understand or have never heard the claim that God exists. But he thinks after you've heard the claim “God exists” then you have to have some sort of belief state regarding it. You are going to believe it or not believe it.

The atheist is one who believes that God does not exist. The theist believes that God exists. It is only the agnostic who fails to have a settled belief about those propositions

View user profile

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum