Conflicts for Atheism- something to think about
Maybe you can "sticky" this too for the Atheist, seeing that you have anti-Theism and anti-Christian posts along the same lines...maybe even it out a little; if you acknowledge freedom of speech and promotion of thought anyway...
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I am not trying to argue. I am not even stating my own beliefs. I am simply giving you some things to think about.
Some Problems with Atheism:
The term G-D.
Atheism= greek: A=no Thesim=god; therefore Atheism is No-G-D, not just No-christian G-D, or No-Islam G-D, etc... it is clearly NO-G-D.
G-D=One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed. (American Heritage Dictionary)
So G-D is NOT JUST a creator, and NOT JUST a saviour, G-D is anything you worship, idealize, or follow- if you follow this thing you must also trust it or be submissive to it.
If G-D is anything you worship or follow (submit to or trust) then nobody is an Atheist because everyone follows something. Maybe you obey social laws, therefore social laws are your god.
Maybe you worship Dawkins, then Dawkins is your god, or at the very bottom of the spectrum, maybe you worship or only follow yourself; that means you are your own god, and if you are your own god one thing is clear, you are NOT an Atheist.
You can not simply assume all gods are the same or even supernatural, etc... To do so is to ignore the full context. Maybe you don't believe in a creator, but a creator is not the only type of god.
The Problem of Absolute Knowledge:
In order to be an Atheist or atleast believe there is no Biblical concept of G-D, you must either A) Know there is No-G-D or B) Have faith in atheism.
However this is the oldest argument in the book.
In order to Know without a doubt there is no G-D you would have to know absolutely everything about the entire universe, BUT if you knew everything about the entire universe you would have to be omniscient. If you are omniscient you have now takin on one of the very characteristics you have sought to disprove, therefore contradicting your orignal question.
If you admit it is just a faith, well then how can you criticize a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc... for having faith in a G-D, you have the same type of faith, just in the opposite direction. Therefore to call them stupid for having faith is to call yourself stupidf or having faith. You are both only believing by faith.
The Kalam Argument:
The Big Bang Theory is the top held scientific concept for the Universes Origin.
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was CREATED sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Then one must ask, "What causes an act?" Obviously an agent does. Well then, what causes an agent to act? Even more so in this situation, where did the agent come from? As Norman Geisler noted " To suppose something can pop into existence out of nothing goes against all scientific observance and rationality." The Kalam argument and Big Bang Theory leave us wondering about the initial cause, what agent was there and where did it come from?
The Problem of Purpose:
What purpose does Atheism leave us with? Atheism infact leaves us to look towards nihilism. With no purpose, how does one discern between good & bad, right and wrong? Nothing would be the greater good, but all would be equally meaningless. If everything is equally meaningless, then why even live (nihilism). To continue to live would be in contradiction to your own belief. If you believe that truth is relative then you have an another problem. If truth is relative then everything is right and wrong at any given time. Therefore Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism are all correct and there is no point to say any Theist is wrong. Besides, to hold that truth is relative would mean that the statement that truth is itself relative and therefore sometimes truth is absolute. Otherwise, the statement that truth is relative is an absolute showing again truth is absolute. However, if there are absolutes, then purposeless atheism leaves us without a way to define good and bad, right and wrong.
One may claim that Atheism leaves us with the purpose to evolve. Well how do we know humanity is good? Where does the human get its value? Maybe humanity shouldn't be continued. Perhaps we could take the Nietzschean outlook on it and practice a sort of "Social Darwinism." However, Hitler put this theory into practice and look at how Hitler was responded to and is now viewed. Perhaps one could claim that we are to live for ourselves and do what is good for us, but perhaps for me it is good to kill as many people as I can, but how would this be good for them? What gives me right to kill them and take away their rights? What gives them the right not to be killed and take away my right to kill?
You get the point- Atheism leaves us without Purpose and Ethics...
The Metaphysical Problem:
Nihilism: A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Science can not answer metaphysical questions. Atheism gives no answers to metaphysical problems other than to be the leading path to nihilism. In short, this leads to the end of
free-thinking, because Atheism concludes that there is no after-life (which can't be scientifically proven either way). Atheism concludes there is no G-D (which also can't be scientifically proven either way). Atheism leads to a lack of purpose, so why even continue to think, it is meaningless to find answers anyway. Relativity of truth or skepticism also leads to the hault of thinking:
Philosophy-from Greek philosophiā, from philosophos, lover of wisdom.
Wisdom-accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment
Knowledge- acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.
(All American Heritage Dictionary)
The Point: If one believes there to be no absolute truth or no way of knowing if there even is truth; then one can know this for sure, he is not a philosopher. To be a philosopher is to love wisdom, which is knowledge, which is truth. Therefore to be a philosopher you must assume a truth can be reached meaning anyone who is agnostic of truth can not a philosopher because their assumption is that one can not know.
Atheism is unlivable:
True Atheism is unlivable because it leads to nihilism which basically leads to meaninglessness. Why then would we communicate, no truth will ever be found. Why would we attempt to love, love is not even there. Why think, no answers will be found. Why even live, life is simply a meaningless pursuit to nothing that will never mean anything.
Think now: Do you live life this way? If so, how do you make decisions, nothing you can do can be of greater benefit even to yourself, all is meaningless. Why are you reading this, it is pointless anyway... Why do you communicate, isn't communication to get across points and ideas, but if those points and ideas are meaningless, why even bother? You can't say its fun, because what is fun anyway? If fun is whats good and we can't define good, there is no way to define fun... You aren't learning, everything means nothing so you are simply learning nothing.
Atheism is intellectual suicide.
A final quote to think upon:
But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy 1909
I will also explain my name, since I am sure you have jumped to a million conclusions by now.
A Fool Curses G-D.
If you don't believe in G-D and you curse Him, you look foolish for cursing what you don't think is there, and yet if you believe G-D is there cursing Him is equally as foolish, because to curse G-D is to curse your very idea of means to a good life.
I'm not claiming these are all the conflicts or even the worst conflicts; but they are some to think about.