Future of Atheism:
Future of Atheism will be “Christian Atheism.”
Since Atheism can only copy but corrupt, forms of “Christian Atheism,” by any other name, have been around for a long time. This includes Atheist “churches,” by any other name such as “Humanism.”
In fact, arch-Atheist Richard Dawkins has self-identified as a “cultural Christian.”
Since when Atheists argue against Christianity—in fact, against the biblical theology as a whole—they are sawing off the branch on which they sit then some Atheists are starting to experience rare moments of clarity and so they beg, borrow, and steal from the very worldview-philosophy-theology they seek to discredit.
As G. K. Chesterton put it in his book Orthodoxy’s chapter “The Suicide of Thought”:
- But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything.
He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist.
And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything.
For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Neo Atheism will be a Christian whitewashed sepulture filled with a worldview that failed before it even began, a thing that is utterly collapsed and merely upheld with as much believability as was Bernie in the movie Weekend At Bernie’s—a dead thing made to seem alive.
First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless.
Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless.
Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet fatless.
New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religions, godless.
Along with such rare moments of clarity there comes neo-Atheists demanding to conduct internal critiques: basically, momentarily taking on a worldview which one does not hold in order to critique it from within.
For example, during my debate (aka the night of 1,001 interruptions) with Skylar Fiction, he was forced to admit time and again something that he has been forced to admit time and again (and again [and again]) that while he has literally made a name for himself by condemning the Bible and thus, Christianity, he actually cannot condemn anything (viably) because he is a moral relativist.
Now, consistency is not a universal imperative on Atheism but from some whereabouts he seems to have gotten the idea that if he was consistent than that would end his career as an Atheist missionary.
Thus, during a recent debate, he began by stating that for the purposes of the (contra Bible) debate he would grant objective morality.
It was both a brilliant move as well as one that utterly discredits him beyond repair.
It was brilliant because—since his interlocutors simply accepted it—he would not have to deal with all of that bothersome consistency stuff and have to admit that he cannot actually participate in the debate because he wants to fire and brimstone condemn but know that he cannot do so (cogently).
Yet, it also utterly discredits him beyond repair because when a debater begins by abandoning their position then, by definition, by default, they have instantly lost the debate.
Now, here is when it can get a little tricky. You see, it is actually not uncommon for a debater to say words to the effect of, “If I momentarily grant you that X, then…” This denotes a temporary internal critique.
Yet, it is quite a different matter altogether when one begins by granting because otherwise, they have no manner in which to critique based on their own worldview.
The issue is just what it is to do internal critique and I will add to the initial definition that it is much like putting on a glove. The glove is this lifeless, unanimated thing that is collapsed and just laying there. I then pick up the glove and insert my hand into it in order to see what it can do or rather, what can be done with it, what I can do with it, in fact.
Thus, for example, when I momentarily grant an Atheist’s worldview I am actually sneaking in my worldview into it. I suppose that theoretically, an utter, complete, 100%, unbiased, neutral internal critique may be possible. However, since on Atheism, for example, logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there is no universal imperative to adhere to logic, nor to demand others also adhere to it.
This means that if I truly fully and exclusively grant, as in take on, an Atheist worldview then the whole procedure comes to a grinding halt since the moment I grant it I need no longer be logical and so there is nothing left to do.
Yes, even though Atheists will beg, borrow, and steal from the biblical worldview since otherwise, they can only assert that they will adhere to logic as an emotively subjective personal preference du jour (now this, of course, would still be based on the Atheist’s hidden assumptions which must still be exposed). Yet, this means that the Atheist cannot then demand adherence to logic since demanding adherence to logic would, in this case, mean demanding adherence to an accident based on the Atheist asserting conforming to their emotively subjective personal preference du jour.
The future of Atheism, internal critiques, and nuance form one package. In this case, due to what I noted in the previous two points, Atheist are attempting to be more nuanced, to find a niche, to lubricate their views so they become much more slippery and hard to pin down.
For example, during a recent discussion (see video here) with a well, whatever he may choose to call himself—that was part of the issue—I noted to a certain chap that he was sounding like a materialist, he objected that he is not a materialist, and I noted that I did not claim he was one but that he sounded like one—this is actually part of nuancing a discussion.
He sounds exactly like a materialist, just like an Atheist missionary, but claims that he is not because way far down in .0000000000000001% of his mind there may possibly be an inkling that Atheism is not true, God is real, etc.—at least that is how I am characterizing it.
You see, if he actually is a materialist then I can aim various arguments against materialism yet, he argued exactly like a materialist but did not want to be held to it—did not want to sleep in the bed he was making.
The way I will put it is that he is a 99.9% materialist but since he is not 100% then anti-materialism arguments just bounce off of him. In other words, he is nuanced enough—at least conceptually even if not functionally—that he has some wiggle room, or so it seems to himself.
Another example is Skylar, again. Now, his opening statement was essentially that since he experiences feelings then (relative) morality is based on his feelings. Since he self-identifies as Atheist and evolutionist then I was arguing that he is asserting that (relative) morality is to be based on what on his view is an accidentally existing ape’s accidental ability to interpret accidental feelings, etc. but he cut me off to claim that I could not hold him to what are his views, after all, because he used to be a Christian and was then a deist.
Now, as utterly incoherent as that is, his point was to attempt to be so nuanced that I could not hold him to his current position because he used to hold to different positions—or something. The impression I got was more along the lines of that since he has changed his mind before, he might do so again at some point so that he could not be held accountable for his current position—or something.
These are merely three examples of the way things seem to be going with Atheist who—at some or another level of consciousness—seem to discern that their worldview is a fundamental level collapsed failure but are not ready to give up their Atheist missionary endeavors—aka, want to keep rebelling against God.
For more details, see my books on Atheism.
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.