Friday, December 27, 2013

Atheism Is a Religion.

It has ordained ministers. Creeds. Churches. Megachurches with mottos. And prayer.

According to their creed and prayer, they worship their own minds. And that's how they achieve elitism.

And they pray for this:
"deliver us from denial of logic",
...which is an admirable pursuit except that Atheists (the capitalization is justified, just like Presbyterians) use non-aristotelian rationalization as their logic rather than grounded deductive testable logic. So when they say "logic", they mean something entirely foreign to the standards of objective deductive processes.

Their statement of faith is both non-coherent and ignorant of the actuality of the entities which they blindly worship:
“Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.”
The "facts of science" do not support that belief system, cannot support it, and will never support it. Science has nothing to test regarding non-physical phenomena, including thought - which is non-determinate; or beyond death; or whether non-scientific facts can exist. So this belief statement asserts a blind belief in something which is, at its base, logically absurd, and that directly contradicts their claim to logic (at least to the type of logic which is part of rationality and reason).

There will be Atheists who object to all this, but at the core, they really are all of similar beliefs: personal intellectual and moral superiority; Scientism; Rationalization; Denialism.


Al said...

Atheists have an unhealthy ego. Do they even entertain the notion that Nihilism maybe is very psychologically and spiritually destructive on moral grounds? Pure Chaos.

I've actually argued with a few on the Internet (waste of time.) Their lack of historical knowledge about Christianity and the way the scientific method operates is very painful...

Even my old genetics prof said himself that there is no "Truth" (Capital T) in science but only paradigm changes. Like that changing of seasons...

I love your blog by the way.

Michael said...

The universe created itself and all the laws that govern it... and then life sprung forth from nothing. Not only does this take faith to believe in but also a breathtaking denial of reality, including observation of the material world. When they proclaim "Death is complete, and irreversible," that is an assertion predicated on faith -- it has to be -- because they haven't died and therefore do not know what happens afterward.

I can tell myself that the Sun and Moon don't really exist but they still would even if I were thoroughly convinced otherwise. So too is it with the denial they're engaging in. I suspect they do believe in God and are attempting to suppress that belief because it makes them uncomfortable.

The difference isn't that Christians are any less sinful or better than they are, it's that we admit our fault and have faith that Jesus will wash away our sins and reward us with eternal life, if found worthy. Pray, hope and don't worry. It isn't worth it to throw away eternal life for the sake of science, academia, the respect of your peers, social or political stature, etc. You're not taking any of it with you when you go, so why put faith in these passing things? Rather, put faith in the loving, merciful God who created everything from nothing.

Stan said...

If Atheists actually harbor a belief in a deity, they suppress it to the subconscious. For a large part, Atheists are either damaged during childhood which produces a general rebellion against authority which occurs during adolescence, or they are naturally egocentric (including narcissistic) and are attracted to cult of elitism and self-worship. The attraction of being the elitist who makes up your own morals (and those for everyone else) is the carrot; the stick is the onerous rules of Christianity which preclude wantonness, especially sexual, and places moral demands restricting personal behaviors which the potential Atheist cannot abide.

Note that these Atheist “churches” do not specify any actual morality other than how good the Atheist already is, how empathetic and giving and tolerant etc., contra all evidence to the contrary. Nor do they acknowledge any culpability of Atheism for the Atheist massacres of the 20th century, nor the firm declaration of Humanism specifying totalitarianism in the First Humanist Manifesto. Atheism is self-satisfaction oriented, rather than character development (some AtheoLeftists insist that character development is discriminatory: just too hard for some people).

For Atheists, their changeover to superiority is complete merely upon reciting three words: “ain’t no god”. That act opens the door to elitist superiority and closes the door to actual moral principles, as well as to disciplined deductive logic.

Michael said...

I cannot lie and state why each and every atheist doesn't believe in God. It could be ego for some, fear for others. Or, perhaps some weak-minded folk are influenced by their anti-religious peers or whatever nonsense is being spooled out by the media.

One thing I do know is that militant atheism, when adopted by the state, invariably leads to mass genocide. There can be no denying this.

yonose said...

(Part 1 of 2)

Stan and everyone interested,

How the obvious big irony this actually is...

Actually, I'm happy there are so many Atheists that came out of the closet this way. This may be shown this way:

A and B are true,
Atheism is a religion.

A = Atheism is a worldview
B = Congregates people

A can be demonstrated, by appling any kind of definition, whether is the "lack of belief" or "denial of existence" or "no belief", etc, because the definition of a worldview is precisely an invidual, inter-subjective, and then, maybe collective, construct of the mind expressed by language and the contextualization of meanings, when it is intended to be undestood in the context which is to be expressed. No matter if it is right or wrong at this lenght. The expression of worldviews has an inherent co-determinant with politics, but it is not the concept of worldview per se. Politics, in essence, ideally should be about the rational usage of coercion by argumentation.

B, In a socio-political context, is defining (and applying my very own blatant reductionism, by playing the "mind-like" Atheist game, as I am a former atheist)religion AS merely the congregation of people, for a political purpose which is only applied to secularism/atheism and their possible, logical implications (I did this in order to avoid hidden premises).

By the behavioral aspects of these types of atheists, it is correct to conclude:

A is true,
B is true,
THEN Atheism is a religion.

And that, by doing an overly reductionistic, simpified view of a 1-Tier level, use of Aristotelian Logic.

If one follows this "reasoning", then it is easy to expose the self-defeating ideological tenets of New Atheism. What infuriates them more, is that the argument above is actually a politically correct one (which resembles some part of the reality), in the groupthink fashion they love to criticize everyone else.

Ending part 1...

yonose said...

(Part 2 of 2)

...from part 1.

I will briefly show why the argument above is factually incorrect:

1)It is using a reductionistic view of what religions are, when applied in a comparative context and by defining their purpose, both of which are necessary in the inclussion of the definition of the word "religion".

2)Atheism is not just a worldview anymore. It is a complete political, cultural and sociological issue. And from some not long time ago it had been, it has just reborn quite recently. BUT, From the actual definition of Religion which Atheists are against, these are historically speaking about the perennial nature of spiritual knowledge, and about the undestanding of an homogeneous reality which trascends our being (Which is against the materialist and logical positivist worldview). Whether the belief systems are classified from classical theism to process theism to panantheism, is not the scope of the argument, as I am only arguing of what all of them have in common(There are good arguments against religious pluralism too, more commonly agains shallow views of religious pluralism).

So actually, the argument works like this:

A and B are true,

To define a prosperity cult, I will briefly say that it comes from the term "Prosperity Theology"

More of which you can learn here

Which comes from the "Prosperity Gospel", that has no actual value in the appropiate teaching of the scripture.

That way, those fake churches and some mega-churches (not that all mega-churches teach the Prosperity Gospel) spread all over third-world countries and economically poor communities selling pseudo-cristianity like a commodity. That problem is actually a cultural and socio-political one.

I will add a one-level mode to the argument:

For A to be true, it needs to have a political nature, which is demonstrated to be tautological by the way it was defined.

For B to be true, it needs to be contextualized in the same way as A, so that the second premise B follows premise A.

At the end, it should work like this:

A is true,
B is true,
Atheism is NOT a religion.

A is true,
B is true,
Atheism is a prosperity cult.

In summary, I agree with Stan's view. But technically speaking, this type of militant atheism IS NOT EVEN A RELIGION. It is something much much worse by comparison.

Kind Regards,


yonose said...


A is true,
B is true,
Atheism is a prosperity cult.

Kind Regards.

Stan said...

Very interesting.

I don't get the connection of Atheism with prosperity teaching, though. Unless you mean to connect the falseness of Prosperity Theology with the falseness of Atheism, perhaps. But even then Atheism would be similar in that regard to Prosperity Theism, without being identical to Prosperity Theism.

The definition of religion is difficult; in looking at the various definitions around the web, a great many definitions exist, some of which are contradictory. I use the defintion of religion as follows:

Religion: Beliefs regarding the probabilities of a particular theory (although materially untestable) of origins, teleology and destiny to be higher probability than all other theories.

It seems that every Atheist has his own definition, just as he has his own definition of morals and logic.

I do think that your definition of religion as worldview works too, since it amounts to the same thing: the set of beliefs regarding the relationship of the person to the universe, beliefs which filter the person's view of reality, the extent of reality, and the subsequent viewpoints and opinions regarding reality.

Could you perform a Reductio Ad Absurdum on your argument, to test it?

TJay said...


Is it correct to say that although the non-physical (like consciousness) is not quanitfiable and can't be measured directly,we can however still detect it indirectly through its secondary effects,therefore its a reality?

Stan said...

No, cause and effect doesn't work for non-material causation. Here's an example, using consciousness: The current arguments being made against the existence of consciousness being causal include deception be the subconscious, which actually does all the decision making and implementation. This results in the "homunculus" theory, which is that another being (other than your conscious self) exists in the brain, is deterministically driven under the physical constraints of the universe, implements actions and then transfers information of that fact to the "conscious" mind. The conscious mind is just a receptical for memory, but to that mind it "seems" to have been creative and implementive in contradiction to determinism.

Bottom line: there are all sorts of fantasy constructs which can be dredged up to try to disprove human agency, in the face of the fact of human agency. If one depends on cause/effect only, then one is trapped in materialist limitations.

But if materialism is thrown aside, then science is no longer useful for that particular knowledge search.

yonose said...


I apologize. I'm taking care of an infection. I will review the argument once again and apply the reductio ad absurdum later in a better state of mind.

Kind Regards.

Stan said...

Better health to you, Yonose, and a great New Year, too!

TJay said...


Let me see if I understand you correctly.
Consciousness cannot have an effect on the material because it falls outside the realm of cause and effect.
You also gave me arguments in favor of determinism but not for a causally efficacious consciousness.Therefore consciousness is causally inert.

I don't know much about quantum physics but I understand there's a controversial experiment called the "double-slit interference pattern" that "proves" consciousness collapses the wave function.If this experiment is true then there must be some other law/principle that consciousness operates under.

Steven Satak said...

I am kinda curious about that double slit experiment myself. Because it was used to support Scott Adams's 'affirmation theory' and that seems to have worked well for him (despite the fact that he's an avowed and quite egocentric atheist).

In fact, if it *supports* Adams in his contented self-worship - "what is is what you make is" - I would reject it immediately. He's essentially describing the old dream of magic... power without paying the price. But I can't seem to find anything off the bat that takes the collapsing phenomena and addresses it in reference to the world at large.

Stan said...

TJay said,
”Consciousness cannot have an effect on the material because it falls outside the realm of cause and effect.”

I think we have gotten astray from the original issue which was this:

”we can however still detect it [consciousness] indirectly through its secondary effects,therefore its a reality?”

Let’s back up, and ask whether we need objective, replicable experimental knowledge (empirical) of consciousness, or whether inferential knowledge is sufficient. In dealing with Materialists here on this site it is necessary to first ascertain whether material empirical knowledge is even possible for a given target of knowledge. For consciousness, it seemingly is not possible to tell a conscious human from an automaton. However, the individual human has subjective experiences which he believes to be conscious experiences, yet that cannot be experimentally reproduced. In philosophical circles this is called “qualia”, or “what it is like…” (e.g. what it is like to see the color red). The inability of physical science to address these qualia issues is one reason that consciousness is addressed primarily by philosophical types rather than by experimental researcher types.

So I did not mean to say that consciousness does not have an effect on the material; what I meant to say was that the relationship cannot be proven under Materialist cause and effect even though every individual believes subjectively that if he consciously decides to raise his arm, and his arm is raised, that he consciously caused it to happen.

This means that either consciousness exists even though cause and effect fails as a method of examination, OR that humans are deluded in thinking that they are conscious. This issue cannot be decided empirically, so if the first choice is true, then there exists non-deterministic causal ability in humans. If the second choice is true, then humans are completely deluded about all so-called conscious activity, including the idea that consciousness is non-existent. The second choice is clearly non-coherent and therefore illogical and without value.

”You also gave me arguments in favor of determinism but not for a causally efficacious consciousness.Therefore consciousness is causally inert.”

I gave the Materialist arguments; that in no manner leads to the conclusion that consciousness is causally inert. It merely means that your statement, consciously typed on a keyboard, cannot be accounted for within the Materialist false limitations on existence. In order to account for consciousness, a non-material accounting must exist… OR they are delusions of conscious rationality. Bertrand Russell called that a “separate and yet unknown type of substance” in his attempt to keep consciousness in the Materialist realm, but Materialism doesn’t allow for non-mass/energy existence, even if it is called “unknown substance” rather than the intellectually honest “unknown causal ability”. So that argument also steps outside of Materialism.

Materialism cannot prove that its own premises are valid, using the tests which it requires for validation of knowledge: Materialism is non-coherent under standard principles of logic, and is therefore false.

Stan said...

Even Einstein rejected the idea that existence requires observation: "you mean that the moon ceases to exist when I don't look at it?"

But this was brought up long before quantum physics. A prime example was Berekely, who brought up the same controversy which resulted in this famous set of limericks:


There was a young man who said God,

must find it exceedingly odd

when he finds that the tree
continues to be

when noone's about in the Quad.


Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd

I'm always about in the Quad

And that's why the tree

continues to be

Since observed by, yours faithfully, God

Steven Satak said...

@Stan: I am not askin if the double-slit involves anything like "does it exist if I am not looking at it".

The information is there, but apparently in a state that resolves only when a human observer looks at it in real time. Images taken show only a blur.

Perhaps I have my information wrong?

TJay said...


There's a few peer-reviewed articles on the studies that was performed on the role of consciousness on physical systems.

Dean Radin's (senior scientist at Institute of Noetic Science) positive results were published in Physics Essays.

There's also a more detailed article that rules out any other factors that may have caused the collapse of the wave function,such as instrumentaion,body heat,etc. but it will take a while to find it.

Stan said...

Feynmnn said, "If you think you understand quantum physics, then you don't".

That said, there is a principle called quantum superposition which is explained here.

For example, in the development of quantum computers, it is expected that the familiar 0 or 1 state common to all digital computers will become 0 AND 1, as commented upon here.

Also see Schrodinger's Cat.

There is a dispute regarding the existence of wave/particle prior to observation. Feynman claimed that all possible existences/paths are taken, and called this the path integral. But it required the use of "imaginary time" (i*t) in order to get correct answers.