The following discussion took place due to a question posted to the Quora site, “Question for athiest, Why do atheists believe in atheism? Nothing creating nothing is confusing for me.”
Mike replied
Question for athiest …
Answer from one atheist …
Why do atheists believe in atheism?
“Believe” its a loaded word in the context of discussion about religion and atheism. I don’t “believe” in atheism in any sense of “faith without evidence” or based on some spiritual conviction. I have the evidence of my own experience. I look inside myself for belief in any gods and find none.
Nothing creating nothing is confusing for me.
I don’t see why, most religions (and especially Christianity) embrace the doctrine of Creatio ex nihilo – creation out of nothing. If nothing can exist without being created, then where do gods come from? And if there is a category of things that are eternal or can have simply have “always been” then I don’t see why entire universes cannot also be in that same category of things.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
If you reject God’s existence then you believe in that: unsure why Atheists complain about semantics by playing semantic games.
Also, you based your reply on only one definition of Atheism, see: https://truefreethinker.com/atheisms-sects
Indeed, “Nothing creating nothing is confusing” but such is what A LOT of Atheists demand.
Creatio ex nihilo is creation out of nothing but not from nothing, it’s creation out of nothing by someone. Thus, it has nothing to do nor does it affirm, “nothing can exist without being created” but that what was created was not created form a pre-existing something.
By definition, the Biblical God (the only one about whom I’m speaking) came from nowhere but is eternal but the entire universes possesses no such properties, no such characteristic—unless you want to deny the most up to date modern cosmology just to keep “faith” in Atheism.
Mike
If you define your god as the one thing that can avoid self-contradiction, then your argument works logically. However, you cannot demonstrate any reason why that premise should be valid.
Ken Ammi
You seem to be implying some sort of universal imperative to adhere to logic and demonstrate but how so, on Atheism?
I’d also have to know to what you’re referring by “self-contradiction.”
Mike
I don’t necessarily imply some universal imperative to adhere to logic, I just don’t know any other way to reconcile contradictions. Nor, BTW, does the Catholic Pope, who said “Truth cannot contradict truth.”
Even if these things I have pointed out are not contradictory, are you entirely comfortable with a God who tells His people to stone to death disobedient children? Doesn’t it make you flinch just a little to know that God has instructed that rape victims who do not cry out loudly enough during their assault must be stoned to death?
Ken Ammi
Well, “don’t necessarily” seems slippery: as if you might, at some point.
The issue is that if you flatly don’t “imply some universal imperative to adhere to logic,” which Atheism does not, then you’re done complaining about logical fallacies—but then again, that’d be if you subjectively care to be consistent, since there’s nothing wrong with being inconsistent on Atheism.
Why, on your worldview, even bother seeking to “reconcile contradictions” since you “don’t necessarily,” there’s part of the problem coming up already, “imply some universal imperative to adhere to logic”?
That “Truth cannot contradict truth” would be a universal imperative so, there it is again.
So, you seem to need to decide since without universal imperatives—which, BTW, you can’t just decide to assert on Atheism since it provides you none—then you can’t condemn a God who tells His people to stone to death disobedient children (and you clearly have not looked into that issue—beyond reading an Atheist talking point about it, or so it seems to me) nor about what to you are accidentally existing apes believing that and stoning smaller accidentally existing apes.
As for, “God has instructed that rape victims who do not cry out loudly enough during their assault must be stoned to death”: that is shockingly ignorant and incoherent—especially during an era of information overload. Please stop getting your theology from Atheist missionaries, since it seems that such is whence you are getting it.
But then again, on Atheism, you couldn’t condemn any of that either.
Mike
I may be ignorant, but I have read the Bible (something I apparently have over you) and I can quote it to back up my statements:
Deuteronomy 22:23 If there is a virgin pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and sleeps with her,
Deuteronomy 22:24 you must take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death–the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. So you must purge the evil from among you.
Ken Ammi
On Atheism none of that matters anyhow, right? What does it matter what an accidentally existing ape does to another accidentally existing ape in an accidental universe wherein there’s no universal imperative against accidentally existing ape doing whatever they want to other accidentally existing ape.
Your assertion was “God has instructed that rape victims who DO NOT CRY OUT LOUDLY ENOUGH during their ASSAULT must be stoned to death.”
If you read the text, which is outlining basic laws from which specific cases would be adjudicated, it offers various examples: this one is clearly about how it was a case of her consenting to it which is why “she did not cry out in the city” where she would have been heard had she needed assistance.
Mike
If you read the text and the context, women are property. The don’t get to offer or withdraw consent and more than Mary did.
Never the less, the words stand on their own. Atheists don’t need to find excuses for a God who (if you believe the Bible) expresses and enforces abhorrent moral values.
Basic laws, such as stoning to death of disobedient children and treating rape like a property crime, are how this society works.
Ken Ammi
I see you want to avoid the fact that your own worldview invalidates your emotive complaints (no surprise, actually, since being consistent isn’t a universal imperative on Atheism).
Do you mean “women are property” (not that there’d be anything wrong with that, on Atheism) like when I call my wife well, “my” wife?
“go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac…They said, ‘Let us call the young woman and ask her.’ And they called Rebekah and said to her, ‘Will you go with this man?’ She said, ‘I will go.’ So they sent away Rebekah…” (Genesis 24).
But when you say “Atheists don’t need to find excuses for a God who (if you believe the Bible) expresses and enforces abhorrent moral values” that’s where you’re 1,001% wrong unless you’re claiming Atheists are some sort of special class of people who can rain down brimstone and fire just ‘cause they subjectively feel like it du jour—which would discredit their condemnations, of course (as is the case).
As an Atheist you not only have no premise upon which to condemn “how this society works” since that was way back when, right, and you believe the “morality” “evolved” correct (and note the tens in the word evolve“ed”)?
Mike
Sorry, I missed the “tens” in the word evolve“ed” and have no idea what that means to you.
Let me be clear: I don’t have to make excuses for the repugnant values and actions of the God of the Bible and it seems to me that you are making it very clear that you find that position unsupportable, which is an indirect way of excusing those values. Do you support slavery? Are you in favour of stoning to death disobedient children? Where do you stand on genocide or infanticide?
I’m not in favour of any o those things. Nor do I have to find excuses for a God who not only does endorse those things but does so (if you believe it) in writing; clearly and explicitly.
As for when being treated more like property than people, the evidence is clear:
Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, or his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
(… or any THING than belongs to your neighbor)
Deuteronomy 22:23 If there is a virgin pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and sleeps with her, Deuteronomy 22:24 you must take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death–the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. So you must purge the evil from among you.
Stone to death rape victims who do not cry out? (Don’t forget that the God of the Bible is also described as “unchanging” so this is still on His list of approved things.
Ken Ammi
I was just curious since MANY Atheists have asserted to me that it evolve“ed” so I always have to ask them when it stopped evolving (and how they know that, etc.).
You seem to not be applying your worldview implications into your views (not surprising, actually, since being consistent isn’t a universal imperative on Atheism).
No, you “don’t have to make excuses for…” but you also have no premise whatsoever for condemning (allegedly) “repugnant values and actions of the God of the Bible” nor slavery nor stoning to death disobedient children nor genocide or infanticide (do you oppose abortion, BTW?) nor stoning to death rape victims who do not cry out (again, you just don’t understand what you’re reading).
See, you’re merely emoting—period, full stop—and your emotions are not a standard (especially when, on Atheism, emotions are just accidental byproducts). See, when you say “I’m not in favour of any o those things” it’s on the exact same level as if you told me which ice-cream flavor you don’t favor.
Oh, so by “being treated more like property” you mean enjoying special protections under the law.
Mike
Religions clearly evolve. Particularly Christianity. Gone are the days when Jesus’ return was going to happen within the lifetime of those present in the time-setting of the Gospels. Gone is the jealous, angry God. (Quietly set aside is the incompetent God who, despite being omniscient, fails to notice important details and who, despite being omnipotent, just can’t get things to work out the way He wants)
I’m reading the same Bible as you. And quoting it (see above) so we see the same context. I just don’t have to make up excuses for it. I keep making that point.
What is unclear about the God of the Bible’s clear and unequivocal support and endorsement of slavery? What twisted apologetics can you bring to counter the actual words of the Bible in full context?
Yes, to an extent I’m emoting. I don’t like the idea that people would worship a being who (in His own words, if you believe it) would have such repugnant values. But the facts remain because the Bible is a document and we can both refer to the same words. At least one of us doesn’t have to find some strange meaning to the words or some obscure interpretation to try and “fix” what the God character says rather than accept the face value interpretation.
If you still believe that God’s instructions and endorsements of all those values is somehow “right” then we have reached the end of our discussions.
Ken Ammi
Your reference to “Religions” will be ignored since you’re just painting with a broad brush broom and I’m no interested in discussing every single religion there’s ever been.
You seem to assert “Religions clearly evolve” as a negative but isn’t that in keeping with your worldview?
Since, supposedly, “I’m reading the same Bible as you” I’m unsure how you’ve reached your mischaracterizations about when Jesus’ return was going to happen and a supposedly jealous, angry God…set aside,” etc. but the issue I will focus on is how any of that is even an issue on your worldview—even if accurate.
Thus, why deal with “the Bible’s clear and unequivocal support and endorsement of slavery” (wherein you’re being as generic as when you referred to “Religion”) without bothering to tell me how, on your worldview, there’s something wrong with “slavery” in the first place. See, you begin with conclusions (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism) by merely asserting things and making demands.
But you hit your worldview’s nail in the head when you say “…to an extent I’m emoting. I don’t like…” but you emoting about what you don’t like is just a subjective personal preference du jour—on the level of telling me you like a certain ice cream flavor.
So, before you run away if I “still believe that God’s instructions and endorsements of all those values is somehow ‘right’” you first need to tell me what would be “wrong” with that on your worldview.
Yet, the problem is that I’m expecting logical consistence from someone holding to a worldview according to which there’s no universal imperative to be logically consistent—such is why Atheists are only ever consistently inconsistent (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).
Mike
And you, dear Ken, seem to argue that your God cannot be the moral nightmare He is described as being because (for some strange reason) atheism accepts that these values evolve and God doesn’t.
Ken Ammi
It’s fascinating to witness your constant refusal to deal with issues that are inconvenient to your worldview.
Now, by asserting “these values evolve” you’re discredited yourself from asserting
God is a “moral nightmare” since you can’t apply today’s evolved values to yesterday.
Thus, you’re discredited the excuses you have for rejecting God.
Mike
Seriously?
You think denying that moral values have remained static and never changed is some sort of faulty logic?
Ken Ammi
I affirm moral values have NOT remainned static and HAVE changed.
Well, that ended the discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.