There are numerous self-congratulatory sites that are dominated by Atheists who are stuck at the juvenile level of both discourse and comprehension. I was referred to a site called whywontgodhealamputees.com where a “discussion” is, or at least was, in progress regarding why the Christian deity won’t answer Atheist prayers, and why Christians think prayers are answered. The subject wanders in and out of that, but it is essentially this: I, the Atheist, demand that the Christian god satisfy the following conditions, which I, the Atheist, claim to be the characteristics of a “real” God. Because the god of the Christians doesn’t produce to my demands, and doesn't match up to my concept of God, then the Christians have no god.
The Atheist understanding of the Christian god comes from the bible, of course, with verses being taken out of context and with a purely literal translation, disregarding any non-material application of the text. For example, when the text refers to metaphors such as in Matthew 7, and the text says something like this,
7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
…the Atheists demand to see their gifts, material thingys which they request cynically as proof that a deity does in fact exist. It brings to mind the video of an Atheist who demands that the deity hand him a cheeseburger, and only then would he believe in the existence of the deity. The absurdity of an irrational, nasty mouthed, evangelistic, anti-deity mortal making demands on a far superior being such as a deity is lost entirely on these individuals. Their claims are unfalsifiable, because they have caused their own conclusions to be inevitable.
Their Materialism prevents comprehension of the metaphors in the text above. What will be given if one asks? What will you find if you seek? Open the door to what? Cheeseburgers? World peace? Utopia? Healing all wounds, or preventing them in the first place? The metaphor does not refer to cheeseburgers. Nor does it refer to the perfection of the Atheist utopia on earth which they demand of a deity, and which they think that they deserve. Nor does it refer to the removal of obstacles, pain, suffering. What it refers to cannot be understood without actually asking (in humility), seeking (in humility), knocking (in humility). And what will be given is better than cheeseburgers.
The type of discussion there is mostly at the intellectually trivial level, with Atheists making their absurd demands on a deity which they do not and cannot comprehend, demands which the deity doesn’t satisfy, of course. There is a purposeful obtuseness in Atheism, an obtuseness compounded by the necessary, accompanying Materialism which radically limits the Atheist's ability to think outside. Only material evidence will suffice, even though they have no material evidence to the contrary.
The metaphorical reference to receiving something doesn’t refer to material wealth, or physical benefits, or anything physical whatsoever. It refers to receiving something which humans need and the deity wants humans to receive, namely deeper comprehension of the source. After all, humans already have life and free will and exist in space-time so that they have agency. Anyone, whether Christian or not, who views these types of biblical claims dispassionately can see the obvious, which is that Jesus, being the spiritual king of the Jews, not the conquering warrior king, was a spiritual being doing spiritual work for a spiritual deity. His parables and metaphors had spiritual meaning.
Atheists wish to take every metaphor as a literal truth no matter how absurd. There is no log in anyone’s eye, it is a metaphor for a spiritual defect. Claiming that statement to be false merely illuminates the non-comprehension of the claimant.
Regardless, the Atheists continue their arrogance as if they actually knew something about spirituality, about the 11th dimension of String Theory, about the cause of the universe, about grounded deductive principles, about what an actual deity would or would not do. They do not know any of these things. Arrogance and ignorance seem to go hand in hand with Atheism; they eschew any intellectual humility and they Special Plead their ignorance as they demand – irrationally – material evidence for the non-material, a demand they heatedly reject when it is placed on them, requiring some sort of material evidence for their rejection of theism. (At least falsify the original miracle at Lourdes! Do something - anything - to indicate that Atheists have some sort of actual knowledge in support of Atheism).
Atheists have no arguments of their own, no deductive case in support of their rejection of theism other than irrational Materialist demands. And they have no deductive case which supports their irrational Materialism. So they resort to skepticism, which is anti-rational and especially so when asserted with such arrogance; then to mockery and even the mockery is a demonstration of their irrational Materialism.
Along with no positive rational arguments for support, Atheists also have no empirical, material evidence in support of their Atheism, nor in support of their rejection of theism which is done merely on unsupportable skepticism (actually just a form of unsupported denialism) and false charges as are described above.
When an Atheist actually produces an actual argument proving that there cannot possibly exist a creating entity with the capability of interfacing with its creation, then they will have produced something about which a conversation is warranted.
But they do not, because they cannot.
So they will not, and they will dance wildly when confronted with that necessity for rational worldviews. Without either deductive arguments for their position or empirical evidence to support their position, they are merely making unsubstantiated claims. So they would rather attack ecclesiastic claims which they do not comprehend (or at least pretend not to comprehend – I think that they do not), which have no bearing on the existence of a creating deity, and then to mock them like childhood bullies as if that were a logic pursuit. In their mockery, they actually prove their retentive adolescent rebellion.
Atheists have all gone through the Atheist Void, where all authority is rejected including the authority of external morality and the authority of external logical principles. Atheists do not study these things because they “know” that their own thoughts are correct, that their own self-created morality and logic are correct tautologically, and therefore any deviation from that is incorrect. So there is no deductive argument required; there is no empirical evidence required; to the Atheist, his own self-derived truth and morality is so obvious (to him) that those who don’t sign up for his worldview warrant only mockery for their stupidity.
The Atheist mocks from inside his little Materialist world, anything which he cannot know by looking within his own small world and worldview. This is obviously irrational. Hence, conversations with Atheists are guaranteed to be irrational.
Just demand of the Atheist grounded deductive arguments which prove Atheism categorically valid and true, or demand empirical evidence which prove Atheism categorically valid and true. The Atheist will either mock, make irrational counter demands, or both, but never, ever will he provide a rational case proving the validity of his small world.
BTW, someone is posting as 40yearatheist and maybe as Stan at that site; it is not me. Engaging irrational radicals in conversation cannot produce rational discourse. That's why this site is devoted to separate analysis. I haven't commented more than three or four times on Atheist sites in the past half decade. There is no point other than to enrage them into further mockery. It's not worth the time it takes.
No comments:
Post a Comment