Quest for Truth 171 Atheist Dogmas

Quest for Truth – HPN

In a solo episode, Keith shares thoughts on the parade of lies, and falsehoods that those in the camp of skeptics and atheists pass off as truth. The usual segments are tossed aside, and to help break up the monotony, the Retrobots do the work of presenting the common claims made by atheists.

The material was drawn from a book, written in the 1930’s, so some may claim that the author’s facts may be out of date. However, to the skeptic, what’s to fear? Certainly science will shed more light on the naturalist worldview, and even more religious myths of the charlatan will be exposed, right? Wrong. As science has advanced, more of the historic claims in the Bible, even the Old Testament, are being proven true. if the Bible is more trusted, with scientific advances in archaeology, it only seems reasonable to actually read it to learn what is being recorded in it.

Granted, opinions on the morality contained inside scripture will probably always be debated, but most of the time an atheist argument goes down is something like this:

1. lay down unfounded myth claims, ones that can, and usually are later proven by archaeological finds.
2. Propose assertions that nobody in the faith community believes. Something on par with the prosperity gospel types, or those who predict the end will come on a particular day.
3. Sets forth a morality claim that anybody in the human race should believe, implying that people of faith are somehow outside that number.
4. Then set out to build imaginary castles in the sky, all the while not accounting for the foundation full of holes, and on the shakiest of sand.

This book, despite its age, is no different from any of the top name authors in our modern world. The arguments against faith and the supernatural are entirely opinion , and though the claim is that science will somehow prove the believer in the supernatural wrong, it never has, and never does.though there may be no room in the naturalistic worldview for supernatural explanations, the more light the naturalist tries to shed in the darkened box of science in our universe, to the person of faith, it only broadens what they knew was already there.

Atheist Dogmas

Notes from the book: The Necessity of Atheism
By DM Brooks
Circa 1930’s

In his dedication:
The author makes the claim that gods came to an end long ago. The gods died when the one claiming to be the one true god came on the scene. They laughed themselves to death.

As silly as an opening statement as that is, Keith actually agrees, although when you consider the use of the word “gods” in its meaning as any lesser supernatural entity. Otherwise known as demons, or fallen angels. They certainly are laughing on their way to their death.

Forward

Religion is a crutch, and free thinkers don’t need the encumbrance.

According to Miriam Webster’s Dictionary:

Religion

1. the state of a religious
   • a nun in her 20th year of religion
   • the service and worship of God or the supernatural
   • commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Keith’s responds to say the point is, that humans are creatures of habit. If the practices of religion are anything, they are habits. Not all religious practices are meant for all people at all times. Some of those practices aren’t even meant for more than a select group.

Even if religion is a crutch, even the skeptic has habits they do “religiously” where they find meaning and purpose. If not an organized religion , the free thinker still has some habit of comfort to fall back on to form their version of morality and truth as they see it.

A person with a healthy mental state doesn’t need dogmas to teach right living.

From Miriam Webster’s Dictionary:

Dogma

1. An authoritative code.
   • something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
   • a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma
   • a point of view put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2. a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

This begs the question, “Where does right living, or morality come from then? A dogma is a basic truth. A simple assertion that is simple to prove. You don’t have to know why its true, it just is. the example is given that the grass is green. Do you really have to know why? It just is. look outside your window, and the assertion is easily proven true. Granted, it might be just as true to claim the grass is brown, but it depends on what time of year it is, rain fall, and other factors. But when grass is thriving, its green, its natural color. Now, you could be a skeptic, and still demand the dogma is childish, and want more knowledge. You could study biology and learn about chlorophyll, and the process that makes grass grow, but you’ll still find out what the dogma told you is true.

Truth is as simple as making an assertion, then demonstrating it.

Another question Keith raises, “Is it mental illness that relates to lack of morality? ” if a healthy person is supposed to make right moral choices, isn’t that what’s is implied?

If the person of faith is making right moral choices, based on whatever dogmas they use, is it only the mentally ill skeptic who makes wrong choices? Maybe we should do away wit prisons, and lock away the law breakers into mental Institutions.

It seems reasonable that a dogma is still a good way of learning right behavior. But you don’t have to stay there. It takes more than just knowing what’s right, it takes practice in the face of real fears, rejection, and clashes in world view.

Religion seeks to save for the next world, while ignoring how to live in this world.

Actually, no. too many people already have it the other way round, thinking they need to do good first, then comes salvation.

Teachings in religion offer plenty of good morality for this life. The supernatural bonus is an added promise. Why do you think religion doesn’t teach morality? Just because it clashes with your worldview?

The supporting claim often is that the Bible contradicts itself. That the religious person takes every verse in the Bible as a command straight from God. Honestly, it sounds like the skeptic is the one who believes this. Life is all about context. the Bible is a book for life. Should it be any surprise that it holds different messages for different stages in life? Besides different messages don’t equate to contradictions.

religion is an active menace in harming secular society.

Yes, it probably is. since morality in religion may conflict with the morality perceived in any given worldview.

Do the points of conflict prove that one worldview is better? As human beings, there is a lot of overlap in what we see as good.

In other areas, worldview are bound to collide, and one prove to be toxic to the other. Which one will be right? I’d say one with the longer running track record of bringing good to civilizations. The kind of worldview that has proven to transform society once it’s allowed to abound in it.

Religion hasn’t been useful for thousands of years.

Sure it has.

Why is it so pervasive, even in primitive, isolated cultures around the globe? Why do people cling to it, practice it willingly, to the point of death, even when secular governments make laws against it? Secular laws can define a morality, but it needs outside force to motivate practicing it. Religion teaches that motivation comes from within, or by drawing on a higher power, God, to do the right thing. If religion teaches an eternal, supernatural authority, isn’t it more reasonable to fear, or look forward to, eternal consequence?

In the battleground between the supernaturalist and the naturalist, evidence is compared to, As using antiquated weapons as bow and arrows, against modern battleships.

That would be a matter of opinion.

The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. The more you don’t know, the more you need to accept on faith, even in science. The more you discover, the more you find what has long ago been created.

The natural doesn’t rely on coercion, implying that religion does.

How does religion force its way? Has religion been abused for political gain? Yes, when the word of God has been removed, and secular ideas forced into doctrines. When men corrupt religion to suit their own political agendas, all manner of evil might be done in the name of religion.

Every time the Bible, the word of God gets plugged back into religion, transformation, and reformation takes place. Every time, it has been a boon to the society it’s in, and it explodes to regions around it.

One key tactic today for the secular person, or naturalist, is to shame and berate the moral holdouts when they don’t pollute religious teaching, and remove God from the picture. This goes for other genres of worldview as well, but isn’t that what coercion is all about? Even this author, before the preface is finished makes a statement of wishing utter destruction on those of faith.

Religion is sinking into the past.

Again, a matter of opinion,

Religion thrives, even in times of open persecution. In fact, other than in times where the Bible is returned as the center of religious practice, its during times of persecution where Christianity has thrived, and grown the most.

The naturalist seeks the utter destruction of all supernaturalism. Science and reason are the mortal enemy of supernaturalism.

Now who is forcing who? Is this the example of good morality, through logic, and reason?

Are you simply out to prove that there is no supernatural? Because you can’t do it. Of course, there is a wide range that falls under the umbrella of supernatural. The superstitious should be exposed for the fraud that it is.

Are you out to demolish the people who believe the supernatural? I find this to be the opposite of free thinking, open minded thought.

the religious are stuck in mental immaturity. Free thinkers, and the educated rise above the need for it.

More matter of opinion.

This only proves that some people require a minimum of evidence for faith. Others need a more full image, but the more evidence shown them, the more they have to deny. Until they wouldn’t recognize truth if it were shown them in full.

Granted, if you feel that the simple, basic truth in a dogma is lacking. Its OK to challenge it, explore it, plumb its depths, and you will find one of two things. Either its still just as true, or its a mystery. If its a mystery, the lesson it teaches may not be for you to know at this stage in your life. It may remain a mystery all your life. It doesn’t mean its bad, or wrong. It only means its not for you to know. It certainly isn’t a reason to toss aside the entire bible over, and it certainly doesn’t define a contradiction.

the religious are stuck in brutal passions, hatred, and fear.

I suppose that commands to love, and not judge are brutal.

I suppose the commands to show mercy, and share what you have even to your enemies, is going against passion, loving til it hurts.

Hatred? Well, when it comes as an offense to love, sure. But religion teaches to not act on it. Believe it or not, God’s wrath is slow, and his mercies are new each day. Quick in coming.

Fear? There’s really only one person, or thing we should fear. God. The ironic thing though, if we fear him, then there is no fear.

The naturalist feels the modern man enjoys the benefit of scientific progress, while mentally living thousands of years ago.

Technology is great, glad we have it, but the reality is that humans haven’t really evolved much. We still are the same as we were thousands of years ago. Some matters of technology are actually prohibited in scripture, but we do it anyway. Cross breeding, pollinating, etc.

Technology can sometimes outpace what humans are ready for. It has often been pointed to as the downfall in the kids these days and lack of morality. Secular educators, and psychologists recognize the harm of rapid tech advancements, and scramble to improve on the lapse in moral choices.

Thoughts of an after world deaden senses to life in this world. An opiate of the people.

Yeah, but a nice opiate. One that out weighs, and outlasts our experience on earth. If its not true, there’s little lost. If it is true, there’s everything to gain.

beliefs should be tested. Proving their worth, and to cultivate the intellect.

Yes. When a dogma is doubted, test it. Examine it. Ask why its there, what’s its context. Who was it written for, their immediate context, and is it applicable in any way to my current situation.

The teaching may be found lacking, if its one of those, commandments of men, but just because it remains a mystery, there’s no reason to toss it out. The application may not be for you, or in this stage of life.

Sure, cultivate intellect, but cultivate faith as well. Its called building evidence for a stronger faith.

Men were born for the sake of men.

What a sad conclusion.

We were made to honor God. However, since he’s immortal, invisible, and dwells in another realm, we can honor him by honoring each other. We can look forward to a future in spiritual immortality, but while we’re on this earth, the best thing we can do is to live well, and play well together. If the rules in the Bible aren’t designed for that, then nothing else is either. Again, its a matter of the skeptic claiming a moral advantage, not realizing the supernaturalist Christian has already been there. The skeptic view fits in the box of what religion teaches, but the box of religion is far too large for the skeptic to comprehend.