"I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here: and this idea of a creating hand refers to God."This presages the conversion of another influential 20th Century Atheist, philosopher Antony Flew, some three decades later. Flew also was reviled with similar epithets of "senility", rather than an actual assessment of his new position.
H.T. to Physicalismisdead
I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe,
ReplyDeleteHe's changed his mind based on how he feels. How very smart.
Sartre's entire Atheist life was emotionally driven.
ReplyDeleteIt's the Atheist way. There is no material, scientific evidence which supports either Atheism or Philosophical Materialism, nor is there any deductive logic which provides incorrigible proof of their validity. Atheism is a feeling, an emotional decision, commonly a rebellious reaction coupled with a feeling of freedom. The feeling of freedom from absolutes results in an emotional rejection of even the basics which are the foundation of logic and rational thought. Free Thought is free of grounding which leaves it either circular, infinite regress or unfounded belief (ideology). Circular thought and infinite regressions are logic fallacies. For most Atheists it seems that they have not even thought it through that far; it is just ideology: blind unsupported belief.
Stan... if I interpret your statements correctly, there *is* no way to discuss atheism with an atheist. Not to their profit or yours. They, not you, are governed largely by emotions and feelings. I have always found that any discussion with an atheist quickly degrades into insults. The atheist almost always claims the intellectual high ground, but seems to drop the first insult every time. It's like facing a guy in the ring who claims to be a black belt in some martial art, but is the first one to aim a kick at your crotch or a gouge at your eyes.
ReplyDeleteThey also insist I provide scientific evidence for something that I've plainly established is not to be found in this world. It would be like asking someone to find the architect in the paneling of a house he designed. Instead, I am told the house assembled itself over a very long period of time.
I have read that if inarguable proof ever were found, it would be the kind that no rational man could dispute, and that it would signify the end of the world, since that would effectively eliminate free will.
I suppose we shall have to content ourselves with pointing out that atheism, whatever else it has going for it, is self-contradictory. As Lewis noted, he 'left that ship (Materialism) not at the call of poetry, but because he did not think it could keep afloat. Something else had to be more true than that".
Steven,
ReplyDeleteYes. I do this, not in the hope of ever reaching through to an Atheist, but to demonstrate the Atheist thinking that they believe is “logic”. By using actual disciplined logic in the analysis of Atheist thinking it is easy to see the actual noncoherence of their positions. Few Atheists study the discipline of logic; they are more interested in evangelizing their ideology.
The Atheist self-image of having the intellectual high ground does not seem to come from the study and understanding of actual deductive logic, but is an artifact of Scientism and the empirical requirement for material evidence. But they appear to have no comprehension of any evidentiary theory other than Materialist, and they do not generally even understand science. They seem to acquire this attitude during their anti-authoritarian period and self-elevation to elitism. And it is the self-endowed elitism that throws out insults instead of arguments.
Many times here on this blog an Atheist will start out with his particular reasoning, and when the illogic is pointed out, the Atheist will seem to think that rather than his thinking having an error, I am too non-elite to comprehend the complexities of his personal theories and personal thought processes. But logic, being an actual discipline with actual rules and all, can’t be defeated with false logic.
Yes, arguing with Atheists is futile, unless there are uncommitted observers present who wish to have their worldviews based on logically valid and true propositions. So it is the observers of the conversation who count to me. Atheists are possessed of an ideology and that ideology provides them a sense of freedom which they do not wish to lose, even to logic, and worse, the actual existence of Truth.
I think I read that Lewis said that he never felt anyone's mind had been turned against materialism through mere argument alone - but that by exposing the myth of Scientism *as a myth* and explaining his own position as rational, he felt he could (hopefully) remove a few roadblocks that were keeping some otherwise good people from making a clear choice.
ReplyDeleteThat's the impression I am getting here - you are simply exposing the atheistic fraud for what it frankly is - self-worship and the elevation of the ego above all others - spiritual pride in all its old swollen glory.
And of course, this is a very old story. It explains at one stroke the atheist insistent claim to superiority of every sort - intellectual, moral, cultural, rational. Of course, none of those things actually exists except in the minds of folks who, honestly or otherwise, believe that 'if it looks good, it *is* good'. This never applies to anyone else's beliefs or behavior, but inconsistency seems to be a common theme with atheism.
One more note and I am done: the heinous things atheists are most eager to lay at the feet of theists seem to be things of which they are guilty in abundance. But of course, the difference is that theists take their orders from a Big Daddy in the sky and thus presume a lack accountability. Apparently, this character flaw is actually worse than the deaths of the innocents.
Atheists, when they are not denying that heinous things ever happened in the first place, seem almost *glad* to admit there was 'liquidation of the ideologically unfit'. As though taking responsibility for such things was just another day's work and a source of pride, so long as you provided justification and there were no witnesses!
Never mind how many died - did the killers own up to it like men?
Steve