The term “atheist” derives from two Greek components—a negative prefix, a, which signifies “no,” “not,” or “without,” and the noun theos, “God.” A kindred form of the term is found in Ephesians 2:12, where Paul notes that pagan Gentiles were “without God” (atheos), i.e., without a relationship with the Lord.
In considering the meaning of the term, it must be noted that the word has some flexibility.

In its broadest sense, atheism repudiates belief in any sort of deity transcendent to man. “Matter” is all there is.
In a more limited aspect, one may contend: “I believe in my own kind of ‘God,’ but I do not believe in the ‘God’ of the Bible.” The “deist” falls into this category. In reality, however, this is a form of atheism.

One may be a theoretical theist, but a practical atheist. That is, he claims to believe in the God of the Scriptures, but he lives as though there is no God.
Atheism has been aptly called “the fool’s religion.” That descriptive is not meant to be insensitively harsh; rather, it is an affirmation of stark reality. “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). Atheism is “religious,” and it is “foolish.” Note the following.

First, the English word “religion” enjoys considerable elasticity. Professor Vergilius Ferm, who was head of the Department of Philosophy at The College of Wooster, noted that one may be “religious” and “not believe in god (in any conventional sense)” (1945, 647).

A number of atheistic organizations have incorporated as “religious” entities in recent years in order to secure tax-exempt status. In July of 1999, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (Madison, Wisconsin) conducted a national mini-convention in San Francisco (about 150 people showed up). The meeting was punctuated with fervent services—the congregation waved their hands in the air, and sung hymns (like “Nothing Fails Like Faith”). A Bay Area journalist wrote a piece about the debacle under the title, “Nonbelievers keep their faith alive.”

Second, the descriptive, “fool,” is an apt characterization of the atheist. In Psalm 14:1 the Hebrew term nabal describes one who is “spiritually senseless,” as well as the person who is characterized by “moral depravity, spiritual irresponsibility, and social insensitivity” (cf. Isaiah 32:6) (Pfeiffer, et al., 1999, 628; Douglas, 1974, 433).
Atheists are not guided by reason. In his opening remarks to the saints in Rome, Paul refers to the heathen Romans as those who “refused to have God in their knowledge” (1:28 ). He refers to them as “vain” (empty) in their “reasonings,” “senseless” in heart, “fools” who have rejected wisdom (vv. 21-22), and “without understanding” (v. 31).

Disbelief in God is the epitome of intellectual irresponsibility. In this article I will discuss atheism from three vantage points—its motives, its irrationality, and the utter void it brings to the lives of its adherents.

Atheism’s Motives
Atheism arises out of human rebellion. After citing the arrogant claim, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1), the psalmist provides the motive behind the infidelity: “they are corrupt, they have done abominable works. There is none that does good” (see 14:2ff).

Derek Kidner has well noted:
“The assertion, ‘There is no God,’ is in fact treated in Scripture not as a sincere if misguided conviction, but as an irresponsible gesture of defiance. In the context of Psalm 10:4 it is expounded as a gamble against moral sanctions; in Job 21:7-15 as impatience of authority; in Romans 1:18ff. as intellectual and moral suicide” (1973, 79).

This base disposition may be illustrated amply from a sampling of modern atheistic writings. Bertrand Russell - who affirmed: “I see no reason … to believe in any sort of God”- subsequently wrote: “Outside human desires there is no moral standard” (1957, 33, 62).

Atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre declared: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist.” He further stated that without God there are no “values” that can “legitimize our behavior” (1961, 485). He went so far as to affirm: “We can never do evil” (1966, 279).

In his popular book, The Meaning of Evolution, the late Professor George G. Simpson of Harvard, a militant opponent of Christianity, sought to find some rationale for morality. In a chapter titled, “The Ethics of Knowledge and of Responsibility,” Simpson revealed more than he intended when he declared: “Man has risen, not fallen” (emphasis added).

Supposedly, then, humanity is free to evolve its own code of ethics; Simpson denied there is any “absolute ethical criterion” to which men need to yield (1949, 309ff). Man is his own god!

It is hardly difficult to see the self-centered motive that underlies the creed of atheism.

Atheism’s Irrational Tenets of “Faith”
While atheism boasts of its “rational” approach to the major issues of existence, actually, this ideology is woefully barren of logical procedure. Consider the following:
“Thou shalt not believe in causation.”

Atheism’s creed flies in the face of the fundamental law of science—the law of causation. One writer, James Gillis, expressed it quaintly.
“Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exists without the cause, life comes from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow’s ear, and a Beethoven Symphony from a kitten’s walk across the keys.”

In logic there is a maxim which affirms that “every effect must have an adequate cause.” Since the Universe exists, the question that challenges the thinking person is this: What was the “cause?” Whence came the “matter” of which the Universe is constituted? The philosophy of unbelief has suggested two possibilities.

The Universe is eternal.
The idea that the Universe has always existed is out of vogue today—even with most skeptics. Robert Jastrow, a professed agnostic, has argued (upon the basis of scientific data, e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics) that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future” (1977, 15).

The Universe created itself from nothing!
Others have postulated that the Universe created itself from nothing. Professor Victor Stenger described it in this way: “[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void.” (1987, 26-27).

That meaningless assemblage of words is the nearest thing to a literary “black hole” one could imagine (so dense, no light can escape).
First, if there was ever a time when nothing existed, nothing would exist today—for nothing produces nothing but nothingness!

Second, there are no scientific data that indicates matter has the ability to create itself. If such were the case, there ought to be some evidence of it; but the First Law of Thermodynamics argues that no matter is being created. Logically, then, one is driven to the conclusion that the Universe had a non-material commencement. But atheism casts logic aside and opts for a self-serving superstition.

“Thou shalt not observe order or design.”
Atheism cannot explain the order or design that is characteristic of our Universe.
Note that the very term, Uni -verse, suggests a mechanism of unity. The ancient Greeks called the Universe kosmos, which conveyed the basic meaning of “arrangement” or “order,” because they observed that the “world” was characterized by order.

The heavens are regulated by “ordinances” (cf. Job 38:33; Jeremiah 31:35). It hardly seems reasonable that this structured adornment is the result of a gigantic explosion (the mythical “big slam”), and yet that is precisely what skeptics believe.

If the Universe is characterized by design, it must have had a Designer, for it is a fundamental premise of “critical thinking” that design demands a designer.
Atheist professor Paul Ricci has conceded that if the Universe reveals “design,” there must have been a designer (1986, 190). Elsewhere I have argued the case for the “design” of the Universe in greater detail (Jackson, 2000).

The human body, with its integrated systems, e.g., bones, muscles, nerves, circulation, digestion, etc., eloquently testifies that the human being has been “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Dr. William Beck, a skeptical professor at Harvard, authored a textbook on physiology which he called Human Design (1971). The title conceded more than the author intended. Is it reasonable to assume that Beck’s volume—a skillfully crafted conglomerate of paper, ink, cloth, glue, stitching, and a lengthy message conveyed by symbols—is testimony to intelligent design, but the author who produced the book is but an accidental “freak” of nature? What kind of reasoning is that? It is atheistic reasoning!

“Thou shalt not confess the true origin of life.”
Atheism cannot explain the presence of biological life upon our planet. That mysterious essence known as “life” is a fantastic phenomenon that baffles the most brilliant within the scientific community.

Atheists believe that life was “spontaneously [accidentally] generated,” though there is not a shred of scientific evidence to demonstrate that postulation. In fact the maxim, “life comes only from life,” is so firmly verified that the concept is called “the law of biogenesis.”

Professor Harold J. Morowitz of Yale University, a biophysicist, and a militant evolutionist, acknowledged that the probability of sufficient “chance fluctuations” of the components necessary to form a living cell are on the order of 1 in 10 to the 340th million power. That’s a one followed by 340 million zeros! (1968, 99).
This figure is beyond one’s ability to even fathom. If the Universe were 30 billion years old (which it is not), that would only be 10 to the 18th power seconds. The entire known Universe, from one end to the other, is only estimated to be about 10 to the 28th power in inches!

Atheism, however, thrusts aside all evidence and common sense, and speculates that conditions on the primitive earth must have been so radically different from what they now are, that life somehow could have “jump-started” itself. The truth is, since life does not have the ability to create itself, it must have been fashioned by an eternally living Cause. That Cause is God (cf. Acts 17:25).

“Thou shalt not blame anyone for immoral conduct.”
Atheism cannot explain the concept of morality and ethics. Why is there in man, a sense of the “right” and “wrong,” when no other biological creature upon the globe entertains an ethical sensitivity?

In his book, The Meaning of Evolution, Dr. George Simpson began chapter XVIII, titled, “The Search For An Ethic,” with the following words:
“Man is a moral animal. With the exception of a few peculiar beings who are felt to be as surely crippled as if the deformity were physical, all men make judgments of good or bad in ethics and morals.”

Later he concedes that man “is the only ethical animal” (1949, 309ff).
But how does one determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”? Simpson and his atheistic kinsmen do not have the remotest idea.
The skeptic’s creed book is Humanist Manifestos I and II. Therein this statement is made: “Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction” (1973, 17, emphasis original).

This affirmation is ludicrous on the very face of it. If man is “autonomous” (a term signifying “self-law”), then there could never be a “situation” in which he could do wrong. He is a “law unto himself” (cf. Romans 2:14).

And so we are left with this curious circumstance. According to atheism, raw matter somehow produced an ethical mind, which concocted a “rubber” code of ethics which every man can manipulate to justify his own conduct, because, in the final analysis, he is morally autonomous, and thus ethics are irrelevant anyhow! What a circuitous route that leads to nowhere!

The Void of Unbelief
Finally, one must sadly note this. There is a voidness of soul that is an abiding companion of atheism ever haunting its devotees as no physical malignancy ever could.
After the death of former “Beatle” George Harrison, news sources quoted him as saying (in those final days when he knew cancer was consuming his life): “When all has been said, there are only three questions that matter. Where did I come from? What is my purpose? And where am I going?”
Had he posited these intriguing inquires to an atheist, he would have drawn a perfect blank.

As noted above, the atheist knows absolutely nothing relative to his origin. Moreover, from the skeptical vantage point there really is no purpose in human existence.
Professor Simpson declared that man’s discoveries about the Universe have led him to the conclusion that there is neither “purpose” or “plan” in his being (1949, 345).
And it is for certain that atheism has no “hope” beyond a cold hole in the ground. When Pierre Curie was killed in a tragic accident, his illustrious wife, Marie, who had abandoned the faith of her younger years, could only view his corpse and wail, “It is the end of everything, everything, everything!” (1937, 249).
The Scottish skeptic David Hume described himself as being “in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty” (quoted in: Smith, 1945, 553).

And yet he once characterized his personal philosophical speculations as “cold and strained and ridiculous” (Brauer, 1971, 417).
Atheism is a bleak, worthless ideology. It robs the brain of reason, the conscience of moral guidance, the mind of tranquility, and the soul of hope.

Article

Appears this post was too intellectual for some people to even try and as Muslims say refute  the technicalities of truth contained therein.

frosbel: Appears this post was too intellectual for some people to even try and as Muslims say refute  the technicalities of truth contained therein.

Your post had too much nonsense in it for atheists to be bothered.

First Atheist Church of True Science: http://www.factschurch.com/

From http://unitedcor.org/sacramento/page/groups (various Atheist groups -'do not neglect the assembling of the brethren' and all that)

FACTS is Sacramento's (and maybe California's) only Atheist church. We meet on the Monday nearest the new moon each month, so that we can peer farthest in distance and time into the night sky. We have an Ermnal (ask us when you arrive) of songs, a Moment of Science, a Sign of the Brain, a Freethink Drink and (hopefully) a grand time as we skeptically join together. Our goal is to spread "godless goodness," with charitable works to help those in the local community. New members are always welcome.

Church of Atheism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-jMLaGPlBQ


And of course the US Supreme Court has confirmed that (evangelical) atheism is a religion.

https://www.nairaland.com/765094/heard-there-different-kinds-atheism/2#9227593

https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/9#9232422

Enigma: First Atheist Church of True Science: http://www.factschurch.com/


Church of Atheism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-jMLaGPlBQ


And of course the US Supreme Court has confirmed that (evangelical) atheism is a religion.

https://www.nairaland.com/765094/heard-there-different-kinds-atheism/2#9227593

https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/9#9232422

Please, watch your video again to see what the atheists said about the stupid church of atheism

"The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

frosbel: Appears this post was too intellectual for some people to even try and as Muslims say refute  the technicalities of truth contained therein.

The article is not too intellectual. It is too lengthy, too cumbersome, too repetitive and contains concepts completely wrong.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a theological position.

Ptolomeus:
The article is not too intellectual. It is too lengthy, too cumbersome, too repetitive and contains concepts completely wrong.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a theological position.

There's one thing I like about time....


Time reveals truth........


Atheists will always argue that they are irreligious........
But time will show how religious they are......


Ptolemeus I read frosbels post from d beginning to the end....

It wasn't cumbersome and repititive,it was just plain truth.....

Atheists have no where to run to or hide.....

They must @ d end of d day come to d conclusion that there is a God......

And its gonna be soon...............


@logic boy.......

Today u were defending ur atheist countries ,saying they were more peaceful than religious nations,,............

I see u support ur fellows,always ready to defend them.....

Very soon u'll realize ur in a religion.........

Thanks frosbel, I have argued exactly these same things myself I was actually in the process of making a proper statement to post on the issue of God. I must confess it may not be quite as referenced as yours but I'll try all the same.

Wait for them, The militant atheists led by one illogical "logicboy" who likes to call himself a "superior atheist" and will resort to insults when he can't make a point (oh I see he has already been here) , they are coming. instead of trying to tackle the issues set before them, they will start beating around the bush and making unrelated arguments.

It amuses me how someone can devote his life to debates over something that doesn't exist to him.

Mr_Anony: Thanks frosbel, I have argued exactly these same things myself I was actually in the process of making a proper statement to post on the issue of God. I must confess it may not be quite as referenced as yours but I'll try all the same.

Wait for them, The militant atheists led by one illogical "logicboy" who likes to call himself a "superior atheist" and will resort to insults when he can't make a point (oh I see he has already been here) , they are coming. instead of trying to tackle the issues set before them, they will start beating around the bush and making unrelated arguments.

It amuses me how someone can devote his life to debates over something that doesn't exist to him.

Kai, see my life! Wetin I do you?

Bros, no vex!

logicboy:

Kai, see my life! Wetin I do you?

Bros, no vex!

Lol, I no dey vex, but I lie? I know say you go soon start your sermon na. I been just dey read your citation. abi I no try?

ijawkid:

There's one thing I like about time....


Time reveals truth........


Atheists will always argue that they are irreligious........
But time will show how religious they are......


Ptolemeus I read frosbels post from d beginning to the end....

It wasn't cumbersome and repititive,it was just plain truth.....

Atheists have no where to run to or hide.....

They must @ d end of d day come to d conclusion that there is a God......

And its gonna be soon...............


@logic boy.......

Today u were defending ur atheist countries ,saying they were more peaceful than religious nations,,............

I see u support ur fellows,always ready to defend them.....

Very soon u'll realize ur in a religion.........

Dear friend.
First, I clarify to you that I am not an atheist.
That will avoid falling into errors and preconceptions.
What I said is true. Atheism is not a religion but a theological position. I said nothing more, and that is absolutely true, nobody can deny.
You claim that atheists eventually believe in God, but that's something that I do not subscribe. I reiterate to you that I am not an atheist, but I respect the theological position of each.
Finally, I express my opinion ... if you think my opinion is to defend someone, is something that you will be responsible, not me.
I think Logicboy not need defenders, but abound corporations in Nairaland
My respects.

From Humanist Manifesto I: http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. . . . .

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture. . . .

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

From Humanist Manifesto III: http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

So, basically another religion then.

And even continues

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe.

Ah ha ---- a belief system. i.e. a religion.

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, daycare, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will finally be achieved.

Then perhaps we will be able to say with Tom Paine that “the world is my country, all [hu]mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.” It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.

John Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” in The Humanist (1983)

Oh, one thing to add! I'm sure the resident evangelical atheists will soon troop down to shout that "humanism" is different from "(evangelical) atheism".

Don't believe them for a minute; it is a lie.

"Humanism" is simply an attempt to provide a sort of respectable veneer for evangelical atheism. It is nothing more than that.

They make the attempt out of a variety of motives including e.g. shame and guilt about the hopelessness, meaninglessness and purposelessness at the end of atheism as a philosophical position/stance.

Enigma:

"Humanism" is simply an attempt to provide a sort of respectable veneer for evangelical atheism. It is nothing more than that.

If atheism is a religion because of "religious humanism", is theism a religion because of christianity?

Enigma: Oh, one thing to add! I'm sure the resident evangelical atheists will soon troop down to shout that "humanism" is different from "(evangelical) atheism".

Don't believe them for a minute; it is a lie.

"Humanism" is simply an attempt to provide a sort of respectable veneer for evangelical atheism. It is nothing more than that.

They make the attempt out of a variety of motives including e.g. shame and guilt about the hopelessness, meaninglessness and purposelessness at the end of atheism as a philosophical position/stance.

What do you understand by the word "atheism" and what do you understand by the word "humanism". Do you think they are identical and can be used interchangeably? Answer carefully because it will expose how you think.

thehomer:

What do you understand by the word "atheism" and what do you understand by the word "humanism". Do you think they are identical and can be used interchangeably? Answer carefully because it will expose how you think.

Please visit my new thread! I'm now a born again!! lol. Atheism and Humanism are not the same. One is a theological standpoint, the other is a philosopy. However, they are nothing compared to God!!


https://www.nairaland.com/953661/lets-give-thanks-god-everything

Thanks frosbel, was going through some saved pages of the unnatural circumstances and how modern scientists aka atheists/evolutionist were bent on "covering/destroying" evidence of the unnatural. Moreover your post is another "lighter" of the "arrangee" going on in the name of science, to make man believe he is god to himself.

hisblud: Thanks frosbel, was going through some saved pages of the unnatural circumstances and how modern scientists aka atheists/evolutionist were bent on "covering/destroying" evidence of the unnatural. Moreover your post is another "lighter" of the "arrangee" going on in the name of science, to make man believe he is god to himself.

So, science is a conspiracy?

Anyways visit my new thread- I am born again....lol

https://www.nairaland.com/953661/lets-give-thanks-god-everything

Enigma:
"Humanism" is simply an attempt to provide a sort of respectable veneer for evangelical atheism. It is nothing more than that.

Come on, you yourself don't believe that. You only said this to stir the hornets nest.

logicboy:


So, science is a conspiracy?

Anyways visit my new thread- I am born again....lol

https://www.nairaland.com/953661/lets-give-thanks-god-everything

I wont want the post be digressed to another topic. take ya tym, paragraph by paragraph and present your rebutal to the above argument.

hisblud:

I wont want the post be digressed to another topic. take ya tym, paragraph by paragraph and present your rebutal to the above argument.

What is the argument? That atheism is a religion or that evolution is fake? we shouldnt be debating this in 2012

@logicboy, sorry i meant this post not argument.

frosbel: The term “atheist” derives from two Greek components—a negative prefix, a, which signifies “no,” “not,” or “without,” and the noun theos, “God.” A kindred form of the term is found in Ephesians 2:12, where Paul notes that pagan Gentiles were “without God” (atheos), i.e., without a relationship with the Lord.
In considering the meaning of the term, it must be noted that the word has some flexibility.

In its broadest sense, atheism repudiates belief in any sort of deity transcendent to man. “Matter” is all there is.
In a more limited aspect, one may contend: “I believe in my own kind of ‘God,’ but I do not believe in the ‘God’ of the Bible.” The “deist” falls into this category. In reality, however, this is a form of atheism.

One may be a theoretical theist, but a practical atheist. That is, he claims to believe in the God of the Scriptures, but he lives as though there is no God.
Atheism has been aptly called “the fool’s religion.” That descriptive is not meant to be insensitively harsh; rather, it is an affirmation of stark reality. “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). Atheism is “religious,” and it is “foolish.” Note the following.

First, the English word “religion” enjoys considerable elasticity. Professor Vergilius Ferm, who was head of the Department of Philosophy at The College of Wooster, noted that one may be “religious” and “not believe in god (in any conventional sense)” (1945, 647).

A number of atheistic organizations have incorporated as “religious” entities in recent years in order to secure tax-exempt status. In July of 1999, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (Madison, Wisconsin) conducted a national mini-convention in San Francisco (about 150 people showed up). The meeting was punctuated with fervent services—the congregation waved their hands in the air, and sung hymns (like “Nothing Fails Like Faith”). A Bay Area journalist wrote a piece about the debacle under the title, “Nonbelievers keep their faith alive.”

Second, the descriptive, “fool,” is an apt characterization of the atheist. In Psalm 14:1 the Hebrew term nabal describes one who is “spiritually senseless,” as well as the person who is characterized by “moral depravity, spiritual irresponsibility, and social insensitivity” (cf. Isaiah 32:6) (Pfeiffer, et al., 1999, 628; Douglas, 1974, 433).
Atheists are not guided by reason. In his opening remarks to the saints in Rome, Paul refers to the heathen Romans as those who “refused to have God in their knowledge” (1:28 ). He refers to them as “vain” (empty) in their “reasonings,” “senseless” in heart, “fools” who have rejected wisdom (vv. 21-22), and “without understanding” (v. 31).

Disbelief in God is the epitome of intellectual irresponsibility. In this article I will discuss atheism from three vantage points—its motives, its irrationality, and the utter void it brings to the lives of its adherents.

Atheism’s Motives
Atheism arises out of human rebellion. After citing the arrogant claim, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1), the psalmist provides the motive behind the infidelity: “they are corrupt, they have done abominable works. There is none that does good” (see 14:2ff).

Derek Kidner has well noted:
“The assertion, ‘There is no God,’ is in fact treated in Scripture not as a sincere if misguided conviction, but as an irresponsible gesture of defiance. In the context of Psalm 10:4 it is expounded as a gamble against moral sanctions; in Job 21:7-15 as impatience of authority; in Romans 1:18ff. as intellectual and moral suicide” (1973, 79).

This base disposition may be illustrated amply from a sampling of modern atheistic writings. Bertrand Russell - who affirmed: “I see no reason … to believe in any sort of God”- subsequently wrote: “Outside human desires there is no moral standard” (1957, 33, 62).

Atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre declared: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist.” He further stated that without God there are no “values” that can “legitimize our behavior” (1961, 485). He went so far as to affirm: “We can never do evil” (1966, 279).

In his popular book, The Meaning of Evolution, the late Professor George G. Simpson of Harvard, a militant opponent of Christianity, sought to find some rationale for morality. In a chapter titled, “The Ethics of Knowledge and of Responsibility,” Simpson revealed more than he intended when he declared: “Man has risen, not fallen” (emphasis added).

Supposedly, then, humanity is free to evolve its own code of ethics; Simpson denied there is any “absolute ethical criterion” to which men need to yield (1949, 309ff). Man is his own god!

It is hardly difficult to see the self-centered motive that underlies the creed of atheism.

Atheism’s Irrational Tenets of “Faith”
While atheism boasts of its “rational” approach to the major issues of existence, actually, this ideology is woefully barren of logical procedure. Consider the following:
“Thou shalt not believe in causation.”

Atheism’s creed flies in the face of the fundamental law of science—the law of causation. One writer, James Gillis, expressed it quaintly.
“Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exists without the cause, life comes from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow’s ear, and a Beethoven Symphony from a kitten’s walk across the keys.”

In logic there is a maxim which affirms that “every effect must have an adequate cause.” Since the Universe exists, the question that challenges the thinking person is this: What was the “cause?” Whence came the “matter” of which the Universe is constituted? The philosophy of unbelief has suggested two possibilities.

The Universe is eternal.
The idea that the Universe has always existed is out of vogue today—even with most skeptics. Robert Jastrow, a professed agnostic, has argued (upon the basis of scientific data, e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics) that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future” (1977, 15).

The Universe created itself from nothing!
Others have postulated that the Universe created itself from nothing. Professor Victor Stenger described it in this way: “[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void.” (1987, 26-27).

That meaningless assemblage of words is the nearest thing to a literary “black hole” one could imagine (so dense, no light can escape).
First, if there was ever a time when nothing existed, nothing would exist today—for nothing produces nothing but nothingness!

Second, there are no scientific data that indicates matter has the ability to create itself. If such were the case, there ought to be some evidence of it; but the First Law of Thermodynamics argues that no matter is being created. Logically, then, one is driven to the conclusion that the Universe had a non-material commencement. But atheism casts logic aside and opts for a self-serving superstition.

“Thou shalt not observe order or design.”
Atheism cannot explain the order or design that is characteristic of our Universe.
Note that the very term, Uni -verse, suggests a mechanism of unity. The ancient Greeks called the Universe kosmos, which conveyed the basic meaning of “arrangement” or “order,” because they observed that the “world” was characterized by order.

The heavens are regulated by “ordinances” (cf. Job 38:33; Jeremiah 31:35). It hardly seems reasonable that this structured adornment is the result of a gigantic explosion (the mythical “big slam”), and yet that is precisely what skeptics believe.

If the Universe is characterized by design, it must have had a Designer, for it is a fundamental premise of “critical thinking” that design demands a designer.
Atheist professor Paul Ricci has conceded that if the Universe reveals “design,” there must have been a designer (1986, 190). Elsewhere I have argued the case for the “design” of the Universe in greater detail (Jackson, 2000).

The human body, with its integrated systems, e.g., bones, muscles, nerves, circulation, digestion, etc., eloquently testifies that the human being has been “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Dr. William Beck, a skeptical professor at Harvard, authored a textbook on physiology which he called Human Design (1971). The title conceded more than the author intended. Is it reasonable to assume that Beck’s volume—a skillfully crafted conglomerate of paper, ink, cloth, glue, stitching, and a lengthy message conveyed by symbols—is testimony to intelligent design, but the author who produced the book is but an accidental “freak” of nature? What kind of reasoning is that? It is atheistic reasoning!

“Thou shalt not confess the true origin of life.”
Atheism cannot explain the presence of biological life upon our planet. That mysterious essence known as “life” is a fantastic phenomenon that baffles the most brilliant within the scientific community.

Atheists believe that life was “spontaneously [accidentally] generated,” though there is not a shred of scientific evidence to demonstrate that postulation. In fact the maxim, “life comes only from life,” is so firmly verified that the concept is called “the law of biogenesis.”

Professor Harold J. Morowitz of Yale University, a biophysicist, and a militant evolutionist, acknowledged that the probability of sufficient “chance fluctuations” of the components necessary to form a living cell are on the order of 1 in 10 to the 340th million power. That’s a one followed by 340 million zeros! (1968, 99).
This figure is beyond one’s ability to even fathom. If the Universe were 30 billion years old (which it is not), that would only be 10 to the 18th power seconds. The entire known Universe, from one end to the other, is only estimated to be about 10 to the 28th power in inches!

Atheism, however, thrusts aside all evidence and common sense, and speculates that conditions on the primitive earth must have been so radically different from what they now are, that life somehow could have “jump-started” itself. The truth is, since life does not have the ability to create itself, it must have been fashioned by an eternally living Cause. That Cause is God (cf. Acts 17:25).

“Thou shalt not blame anyone for immoral conduct.”
Atheism cannot explain the concept of morality and ethics. Why is there in man, a sense of the “right” and “wrong,” when no other biological creature upon the globe entertains an ethical sensitivity?

In his book, The Meaning of Evolution, Dr. George Simpson began chapter XVIII, titled, “The Search For An Ethic,” with the following words:
“Man is a moral animal. With the exception of a few peculiar beings who are felt to be as surely crippled as if the deformity were physical, all men make judgments of good or bad in ethics and morals.”

Later he concedes that man “is the only ethical animal” (1949, 309ff).
But how does one determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”? Simpson and his atheistic kinsmen do not have the remotest idea.
The skeptic’s creed book is Humanist Manifestos I and II. Therein this statement is made: “Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction” (1973, 17, emphasis original).

This affirmation is ludicrous on the very face of it. If man is “autonomous” (a term signifying “self-law”), then there could never be a “situation” in which he could do wrong. He is a “law unto himself” (cf. Romans 2:14).

And so we are left with this curious circumstance. According to atheism, raw matter somehow produced an ethical mind, which concocted a “rubber” code of ethics which every man can manipulate to justify his own conduct, because, in the final analysis, he is morally autonomous, and thus ethics are irrelevant anyhow! What a circuitous route that leads to nowhere!

The Void of Unbelief
Finally, one must sadly note this. There is a voidness of soul that is an abiding companion of atheism ever haunting its devotees as no physical malignancy ever could.
After the death of former “Beatle” George Harrison, news sources quoted him as saying (in those final days when he knew cancer was consuming his life): “When all has been said, there are only three questions that matter. Where did I come from? What is my purpose? And where am I going?”
Had he posited these intriguing inquires to an atheist, he would have drawn a perfect blank.

As noted above, the atheist knows absolutely nothing relative to his origin. Moreover, from the skeptical vantage point there really is no purpose in human existence.
Professor Simpson declared that man’s discoveries about the Universe have led him to the conclusion that there is neither “purpose” or “plan” in his being (1949, 345).
And it is for certain that atheism has no “hope” beyond a cold hole in the ground. When Pierre Curie was killed in a tragic accident, his illustrious wife, Marie, who had abandoned the faith of her younger years, could only view his corpse and wail, “It is the end of everything, everything, everything!” (1937, 249).
The Scottish skeptic David Hume described himself as being “in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty” (quoted in: Smith, 1945, 553).

And yet he once characterized his personal philosophical speculations as “cold and strained and ridiculous” (Brauer, 1971, 417).
Atheism is a bleak, worthless ideology. It robs the brain of reason, the conscience of moral guidance, the mind of tranquility, and the soul of hope.

Article

@Enigma, Humanism and atheism are not exactly the same thing but then again all secular humanists are atheists. Humanism is an attempt to make sense of the immorality that results from rejecting God.
At this point, I dare say that there cannot be any atheist who doesn't have a belief system that guides his morality because once you say there is no God, you are confronted with the problem of how do we measure good and evil? by answering that for yourself (which ever way you choose) you end up with a belief system or moral guide akin to a religion. hence if the statement that "atheism has no moral codes or guidelines" is true then no one can possibly be a true atheist or else anyone who is a true atheist would be the worst of tyrants (even the worst of tyrants must justify their deeds to themselves).

phxc:

Come on, you yourself don't believe that. You only said this to stir the hornets nest.

In the final analysis what I said is what it is.

It may sound confusing because of the appropriation of terms and the idea that e.g. a deist or even a Christian can be a "humanist" of some sort. Really, that is then not correct because what those truly are is best would then be better described as "humanitarian". Humanists are atheists and "humanism" is an attempt to cloak evangelical atheism with some respectability.



EDITED

hisblud:

I wont want the post be digressed to another topic. take ya tym, paragraph by paragraph and present your rebutal to the above argument.

Dude, It does not matter how clear you try to make it, the guy will still start from the premise that there is no God so it won't make sense to him.

Personally I believe that when you start from a neutral ground, the argument for the existence of God is by far much more compelling than the argument for His inexistence.

I would rather see a proper atheist manifesto detailing the the atheist stance than a bunch of one-liners. I want to see "an atheism is true because......"

Addendum

See e.g. here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/humanism.shtml

While atheism is merely the absence of belief, humanism is a positive attitude to the world, centred on human experience, thought, and hopes.

The British Humanist Association and The International Humanist and Ethical Union use similar emblems showing a stylised human figure reaching out to achieve its full potential.

Humanists believe that human experience and rational thinking provide the only source of both knowledge and a moral code to live by.

They reject the idea of knowledge 'revealed' to human beings by gods, or in special books.

Humanist ideas

Most humanists would agree with the ideas below:

There are no supernatural beings.
The material universe is the only thing that exists.
Science provides the only reliable source of knowledge about this universe.
We only live this life - there is no after-life, and no such thing as reincarnation.
Human beings can live ethical and fulfilling lives without religious beliefs.
Human beings derive their moral code from the lessons of history, personal experience, and thought.

How does that differ in substance from the belief aspect of evangelical atheism?

Enigma:

In the final analysis what I said is what it is.

[b]It may sound confusing because of the appropriation of terms and the idea that [/b]e.g. a deist or even a Christian can be a "humanist" of some sort. Really, that is then not correct because what those truly are is best described as "humanitarian". Humanists are atheists and "humanism" is an attempt to cloak evangelical atheism with some respectability.

So a theist with humanist views is a "humanitarian" while an atheist with humanist views is an evangelical atheist. Keep approporiating terms and confusing yourself.

lol

For the fun of it, let me address one point that I deliberately ignored earlier.

Christianity is not a religion because of "theism"; rather Christianity is a religion because of what it is, what it stands for, what it does and what it practices.

Militant/Evangelical atheism is not a religion because of "atheism"; rather militant/evangelical atheism is a religion because of what it is, what it stands for, what it does and what it practices.

Those who will get it will get it.

Enigma: For the fun of it, let me address one point that I deliberately ignored earlier.

Christianity is not a religion because of "theism"; rather Christianity is a religion because of what it is, what it stands for, what it does and what it practices.

Militant/Evangelical atheism is not a religion because of "atheism"; rather militant/evangelical atheism is a religion because of what it is, what it stands for, what it does and what it practices.

You're still being vague. Christianity is an established religion and this militant/evangelical atheism cannot be said to have rites, dogmas, ceremoniies etc. If humanism is your best example of militant/evangelical atheism, then you are just appropriating words again to make them mean what you want because humanists are not "militant".
At least you've admitted that atheism itself is not a religion. So go ahead and add militant/evangelical to it, to make yourself feel better.

Those who will get it will get it.

This kind of thing will not be understood by those who don't understand this kind of thing.