Some may say there are worse evils in the world than Christianity. I think those people would be right. I mean, there was a time when Christianity was the force that pummeled, crushed, or absorbed people into conformity with their belief system. But these days, one of the more dominant imperialistic worldviews (meaning the way of thinking that is trying to spread and dominate by any means necessary) is fundamentally atheism. Some may wonder why this site focuses on “Jesus” and Christianity than something that seems a lot worse. I mean, if a christian is pulled away from Christianity, they could fall into atheism. Some may even wonder why I would even claim that atheism is worse that Christianity.
About the first question about why focus on Christianity, for me personally, it’s because it’s something that I’ve experienced for myself, something that I have more intimate knowledge with and something I still have to deal with on a regular basis. Just because it is not what it used to be, doesn’t make it any less wrong, especially for the Jewish people who have always been the focus of Christianity’s rage or conversion campaign, both historically and nowadays. Rage, because according to some, the Jews killed the “Christ”, the majority of them still refuse to convert to Christianity, and because they, as the chosen people, still remain faithful to the first and fundamental covenant of Moses – at least those who actually take it seriously – and their continued existence and rejection of Christianity brings into question the very reason for Christianity’s existence. If those who most intimately knew the Torah and the Prophets rejected Jesus, then why should anyone else? Conversion campaign for many of those same reasons.
Through my own experiences and studies, Christianity, in a way, has become my specialty. That’s not to say I’m an expert, but I’ve got a special passion in and against that direction. So that’s why I spent a significant portion of my time speaking about the wrongs in Christianity’s foundations, even though I do have a lot of respect for many who hold to its doctrines.
But why is atheism worse?
At the very least, the christian worldview attempts to have an ultimate foundation in the Creator of the universe, even if I believe their depiction of him is skewed somewhat. But atheism …?
Believe it or not, atheism covers a lot more than you may believe. Atheism has even worked its way into other worldviews like Christianity, diluting and embittering their teachings. It is the way things become when a culture and government only wants to be purely secular, meaning godless, in order to appease its multicultural society. It is one of the fundamental principles of how many scientists view the world and how they view science. And a secular culture that sets atheistic science up to a high pedestal soon become drenched in the poisonous rain it sends down upon its “worshipers” and “devotees”. This sort of mindset pervades the media and education in that secular culture which sends soundbites and messages into the heads of children to ensure they follow the main atheistic principle and eschew much to do with God, with an ultimate foundation to life, meaning and morality. Just to add, most countries in the world have a secular government!
When I speak of atheism, I mean it both mentally and practically. Atheism, to me, means “without God”. Yes, I know that is a wide and general definition, but I do get more specific. There is the devout believer in atheism that states categorically that the universe is essentially without God, there is no transcendent Ruler or Creator of the universe, and all there really is is matter and energy. Then there is the practical atheist which conducts his life and makes his choices without God, as if there is no Ruler and Creator of the universe. That incorporates the vast number of people who class themselves as agnostic, mistakenly thinking that being an agnostic is some sort of middle road between theism and atheism. But then they make most of their choices and live their lives as if there is no God. Theoretically they may say “ooh, I’m not sure” or “I don’t think there’s enough choice this way or that” or “there’s not enough evidence to believe there’s a God” or whatever ignorant state they leave their minds in. But practically, they live their lives as if there is no other standard to follow that those fundamentally made by humans. Unfortunately it also includes people who claim to accept the existence of God, yet disregard his laws, or make them changeable according to human whim.
But what makes this way of thinking worse than Christianity? I’ve already given colored commentary on it already calling its products “poisonous” and implied that atheism employs indoctrination.
Essentially atheism is a negative, a not, a void. Understand that by saying, whether with one’s heart or one’s actions, that there is no God, you are inevitably saying there is no ultimate or objective or absolute standard of morality (right or wrong) or truth. You are saying that there is no real meaning or purpose to anything that exists. So many things that define our human existence becomes ultimately meaningless and empty.
The fruits of the “not”
Come on, David! How can you say that? I’m an atheist/agnostic and I have plenty of meaning in my life. I try to be a moral and good person. In fact, it is faith in this “god” that has caused so much evil in the world, so much pain and misery, so many wars. If there is one thing that I am not, it is a “not!”
That, or something like it, would be what I’ve heard from the mouths of those trying to justify some real existence to atheism. They have to defend their position, right? I can imagine someone like Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris, or some of my work colleagues or some normal person on the street. Some will say that by being purely rational we can construct a decent morality. They will point out how they love their families, or their friends, or the environment, or politics and the government, or their fellow man, or something or other. They will point to the fact that simply because they see something as having meaning, then it actually does have meaning. A baby’s cry. A mother’s love. And so on and so on.
But the problem is the philosophy, not so much the people who give it life, although they have their share in its spread across the world. Just look at what exactly the foundations and natural fruits of the philosophy are and I think you’ll get at least a hint of why I see it as fundamentally worse than Christianity.
Atheism states there is no God and there are no gods. In this worldview there is no supernatural, or to put that in more clearer words, there is nothing beyond matter, energy, time and space. That’s all there is. I mean there may be a few yet to be explain phenomena but essentially matter and energy is all there is.
Just stop and absorb that for a while: there is nothing but matter and energy, time and space.
Matter cannot go beyond matter. Energy cannot go beyond energy. It just is.
Let’s imagine that something like the theory of evolution is correct or some other naturalistic theory of the history of the entire universe. All you can have is matter and energy!
I think you get the point now, so I’ll move on.
In light of all this, tell me something: why are we here? What is the purpose of the existence of humanity as well as anything else? Is purpose an intrinsic property of matter or energy? Can it be observed and quantified in a laboratory and given units of time and space? Nope! In a universe of matter and energy, there is no purpose. Everything just is! We didn’t come to be because an intelligent purposeful Designer put us here. We’re just here. That’s it. Think of a hydrogen atom, or a rock. There is no mind or purpose to that thing. It just is.
Add to this that, in the atheistic mindset, we live on a small insignificant planet that is nothing in comparison with the size of our galaxy and even our universe. Imagine it! Most people would not even notice something as small as an ant pass them by much less a speck of dust. We are even less than that in comparison with the universe. And the time that we exist for the billions of years forced upon us by atheistic scientist for the age of the universe is less than a blip. As a race, we are practically nothing.
[For now, I’m gonna lump atheists and agnostics in the same boat since these days there is little difference between them. So when I use the word atheist, I’m included most self-claimed agnostics.] So if an atheist comes to you and says “I do have meaning in my life” when you look at the overall scheme of things, the basis of his belief or lifestyle, his “meaning” has no meaning. He’s just a purposeless blob of matter and energy trying to say that another bunch of purposeless atoms is something more than a bunch of atoms. But really, it ain’t! In his own brain, that thing that haphazardly arose from a process that had no goal in mind (evolution or whatever other naturalistic theory you have), that “person” or cause (which is nothing much more than mental trickery) is meaningful. It’s very subjective, i.e. only and fundamentally based on the person, the individual but has no bearing elsewhere. When such a person says they have meaning and purpose, then it just reflects the human tendency to wallow in illusion before its purposeless existence is cut off.
The ingredients, the matter, is purposeless. The process, the naturalistic evolution, is purposeless. That person and/or cause are both just a product of the purposelessness. Really it’s all an illusion having at its base the very root of his beliefs: the “not,” the negative!
But he needs to believe that there’s more. Why?
What makes it worse is that if this atheist accepts any grand theory of the atheistic “origin” and development of the universe and life, inevitably a thoughtless process that is really only concerned, at its core, with self-preservation (actually it has no real concern as it has no mind, but we can pretend), then it makes his thoughts even more ludicrous. And the root of the atheist’s existence is an illusory self-preservation. His science, his loves, his needs, all that he is is a purposeless combination of purposeless matter and energy that wants to stay combined in the way it is. It’s almost like saying the numbers 6, 7, and 43 want to stay together. And so what! What difference does it make?
But if our ingredients, our configuration, our being human is all about staying the way we are – self-preservation – then what is the purpose of our science, our loves, our needs, etc? What does it say about our science, loves and needs? Where does this thing call “truth” come in? What is the purpose of those who use their haphazardly constructed configuration of purposeless matter and energy, i.e. their brain, their rationality? If our existence is about self-preservation, then that doesn’t really involve truth. If we happen to bump into truth, then would we even know it? If it benefits me to accept a lie, then what’s the problem with it?
Even self-preservation is a joke, because there is one common thing that happens to any life in the universe: death! You do your best to survive, try to account for every factor, and then an “act of God” (what a silly phrase – and at the same time, what an apt statement) messes everything up and everything gets wiped out?
I mean we have atheists (remember I’m including most agnostics in that) who harp on about the importance of truth, but don’t they see their own ignorance on the matter? Don’t they know that what is perceived by us humans is only a fraction of the whole story? First the facts have to hit one of our senses, which doesn’t always happen. Then they have to go through our brain’s filters and perceptions which produces ideas in our heads that are many times not exactly as they really are. There is a well known phrase “believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.” There is a very good reason for that. And yet atheists talk to us about finding truth. If truth it out there, how are we expected to accept it when there is no purpose in our nature for doing so? All we are is purposeless matter and energy created along an aimless process of evolution which only has species propagating more of its kind before going extinct. What does truth have anything to do with that?
What is more plausible in such a worldview is that what our genes allow us to perceive is to aid in our sustained existence. Truth, whatever it is, may come and go. Most of the time we end up being convinced by something else anyway, and that’s if we can be bothered to study the subject.
When militant fascism and fanaticism has it “right”
One of the things our atheist friend said was that we should take note of all the wars done in the name of religion, while of course ignoring the wars done by atheists. Even if he takes those into account, he will say that war is wrong and that religion has its hand full of innocent blood. “Just think of all those murders!” he exclaims.
But wait there! Hold the phone! Did he say war is wrong? I think he did! But what makes war wrong? What makes murder evil? What makes anything that religion or anyone has done good or bad? What standard is this atheist using to dictate to others what is right and wrong? What is right and wrong in an atheistic world? Or more properly, what place does concepts of right and wrong have in an atheistic world?
So again, what standard is the atheist using to tell us what is right and wrong? Now remember, all we are is matter and energy. There’s no point in calling for some “soul,” some inner absoluteness here, because it doesn’t exist. We are just a mystery of matter and energy yet to be discovered (unless the definition of soul is just that combination). We know that matter is not moral. We know that energy isn’t moral. Morality is not an intrinsic property of either. In terms of matter and energy, there is no morality. A rock falls from the sky and hits the floor. That is just as moral as a rock falling down and hitting someone fatally on the head. And that is just as moral as some haphazardly built biological machine, like any human being, causing the rock, directly or indirectly, to fall fatally onto someone’s head. A husband and wife having sexual intercourse is just a moral as two homosexuals doing something similar, which is just as moral as one person doing something similar to himself, which is just as moral as one person forcing themself onto another. In terms of matter and energy, there really is no moral difference, because there is no real objective morality.
Think of it this way. There are two people on a desert island, we’ll call them Tom and Jerry. Tom says “it is law that no one should eat an orange”. There is no compelling reason in the world why Jerry should pay any attention to Tom. Of course he can choose to, but there is no reason why he must. All Tom is just a bunch of matter and energy. Jerry is a separate bunch of matter and energy. There is no reason why Tom giving any law or commandment should impact Jerry. They are not the same person. They have individual wills and desires. So if Jerry felt like having an orange, even if it was a poisonous one, there is no reason why he should not take up that fruit and eat it. Tom’s saying something doesn’t make it so. There is nothing in terms of matter and energy that cause Tom’s command to impose itself on Jerry whatsoever.
Step 2! Still on the same desert island. Tom commands that it is wrong to kill another human being (must be self-preservation!!!). In much the same way, in terms of matter and energy there is no reason, there is no external morality that should impose itself on Jerry to stop him from killing Tom. And there would be nothing morally wrong with it.
Step 3! Now a bunch of people are stuck on that desert island. We’ll say 20 people. Now 11 of them say that it’s wrong for anyone to kill anyone else. The same principle applies. Nothing really to make a difference to the other person. If you are starting to see a pattern and direction here, I hope what I say next strengthens it more!
Step 4! Now those 20 people agree 19 to 1 that it’s wrong for one person to kill another. All we have now is an agreement between the 19 versus the 1. They may beg him or implore him; they may plead to his sense of “rationality” and humanity; they may threaten him or whatever. But the only sense of right and wrong here is “democracy”, or, in other words, tyranny of the majority. Is what is right the same as what the majority is saying? What if the majority was saying that it’s ok to kill one another? And even if the majority agree, can that agreement impose itself on the one?
[Small aside: of course, true democracy doesn’t exist in many countries like “Great” Britain or the United States, but just pretend I didn’t say that. There’s little which is that great about true democracy anyway! Nothing too great about the forms of government in much of western culture either!]
Last step! What about a country full of people who like this “tyranny by majority” notion, this “democracy.” They make their rules and tell the minority what agrees with their laws and what doesn’t and the consequence for those who step out of line. But where is right and wrong? What is it? Where is it? If one person goes and kills another, then in terms of matter and energy, nothing morally wrong has occurred. Maybe out of self-preservation, you can cover up the killing so that the majority never know who did it for sure. Then, guess what! Legally, the killer is innocent. Morally, based on what is real, i.e., matter and energy, the killer just is and there isn’t much more that can be said than that. Laws are just social contracts made by humans, and as someone said “rules are meant to be broken!”
So back to this atheist whose trying to tell us that wars are evil and wrong! What is wrong? Is it wrong because wrong is that which goes against this atheist’s feelings or his upbringing? Or his country’s laws/social agreements? Or is it his mental imbalance? In the atheist worldview, there is no real wrong, no absolute wrong and also no real right or absolute right. And the atheist has no inherent right or ability to impose his view on anyone else. In his worldview, there is nothing wrong about a country of fanatics or fascists. There is nothing wrong with such a country massacring another country or taking its oil or his resources or raping the land or women of another country. Of course, there’s nothing right about it either. It just happens, or not. In fact, in such a worldview, you may as well just try to conquer everything and everyone by any means necessary because in the end it makes no difference. We’re just blips of matter that appear and disappear.
So just to sum up, in the atheistic worldview there is no real objective moral difference between an unrepentant serial murderer and a saint, a rapist and a monogamous spouse who only has sex with his wife when she consents, the killing of “innocent” children and an exterminator killing pests like rodents or insects. It’s all subjective, all amoral matter and amoral energy for which there is no law of nature that forces this non-existent called “morality” upon another person.
So what right does an atheist have to condemn anyone?
Small aside: rights
As just a small note, what’s up with this “rights” business anyway, in an atheistic world? I mean, although I’m from England (United Kingdom), I know some lines from the American Constitution, some of which says the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …
In an atheistic world, that statement makes no sense. Firstly, there is no such creator. And therefore secondly, humans are not endowed with any rights by anything. Does the dirt have rights? Did you know that just because something exists, that doesn’t mean it has the right to exist, no more than if I steal your car and then say that since it is with me, it has a right to be mine? And we aren’t much different to the dirt.
No, rights are what are imposed upon you by whomever is oppressing or dominating you at the time. Rights are just as created by man as its laws and it can be given and repealed just as easily. And in a world that is just matter and energy and different configurations of it, what makes any man’s declaration about rights authoritative anyway? Who are you to dictate to me what rights I have? You’re just a blob of purposeless yet moving body parts.
Did you know that atheists actually have no real history either?
WHAT??? Now you’re really doo-lally, David! You’ve lost the plot! You’re crazy! Of course we have a history. Just look at our books on cosmology, chemistry, and biology and you’ll see our history right there! What a stupid thing to say!
Wait there! Wait there! Before you stone me, let me just ask, who recorded history in an intelligible way before humans came on the scene? As far as I know, fishes and rocks ain’t that good at writing. And they ain’t too good at making video cameras. No, before humans came along, there was no intelligible record of history.
But what about the whole story, the mythology, that we have to hear over and over and over again from nursery, through school, through the media, all over the place? What about the story of cosmological and biological evolution? [Actually, it wouldn’t really matter what story atheists come up with about their history before humanity started writing intelligible history!]
Did you know that science is a tool created by humans and which is based on human experience? Did you know that the vast majority of the history the secular evangelical team tell you is outside of human experience? Did you know that once the human created tool called science leaves human experience, its authority and truth level goes down and down and down and down? Now, right now, I’m having to ignore what I’ve been writing previously about the fact that all we are is matter and energy, a purposeless conglomeration of atoms, part of the path of a aimless process, with minds/brains that were formed from unintelligence, clumsiness, and selfishness in the need for self-preservation. I’ve got to ignore the fact that even in light of that basic tenant of atheism, we have no reason to trust those minds to perceive the truth in the universe. If I ignore all that, then I’m still left in the dark about our “history” and how the atheist managed to get the true truth about where we came from. I also have to ignore the fact that science cannot tell us truth, only what is probable, what is perceived to be in accordance with the incomplete set of data we have before us and can understand.
So where did our history come from? Where did these stories come from of magical rocks and dead substances that managed to squeeze out a living cell, which decided to divide into multi-celled organisms, which decided to do what we’ve never observed in human experience, i.e. change from one kind of creature to another, and thus creating all the diversity of life we see today over billions of years? Where did the story come from of some sort of nothing expanding into the universe as we know it, with suns and galaxies and laws of nature (or descriptions of reliable interactions between matter and energy), possibly from some previous universe, or from nothing over billions of years? Where did all of these stories come from if we have no intelligible record of this?
Well, some of our kind of purposeless blobs of material decided to make an authoritative game. They dictated what we were allowed to assume about the universe, and then, using our perception of the world around us as evidence, make a history that seemed to fit what we know from human experience. Of course, it didn’t matter that most of that history was outside of human experience. And since we are kind of imaginative creature who like to make novel and new ideas, we decided to do backwards math. Of course it doesn’t matter that it is a weak and inaccurate form of thinking, but it’s all for the sake of having fun at this authoritative game.
What do I mean by backwards math? Well, let me tell you want forward maths is and that will help explain backwards math.
Forward math is where we have what comes before, i.e. the antecedent (what is before) and go on to the consequent (what comes after). So for example, an antecedent is “2+2=.” And the consequent is “4”. It is the sort of thinking where you start from what is know and go forwards based on that knowledge.
Now those who gave us our grand history are not like police detectives and criminal forensics who use what is in human experience to judge humans within that experience. No, nothing like that. The atheists who gave us our grand history had nothing! They had no before. They just had the now, the present. It is like someone who just had the consequent “4” and was asked the question, what is the sum? What is the antecedent? I just want you to imagine how many possible combinations of numbers can get you the number “4” if we use both addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and if we included decimals. There are just too many to count. But then imagine that other people who had no clue about the precedent (what came before) came along and said “you are only allowed this range of number and the use of multiplication.” Since those people are in the same boat as everyone else, they don’t really have much right or authority to dictate what is or is not allowed.
I’m not making this into a debate about creation or evolution. The fundamental fact is that atheism and atheists do not have an history outside of what is recorded by us humans. All they can do is look at rocks and the remains of the dead and make unwarranted guesses about what happened outside of our experience. What’s worse is that they then parade it to a famine-of-wisdom world as truth and fact, yet what is it essentially based on? A no-history! “We didn’t have a history so we constructed one! And it’s plausible too!” Supposedly. If you don’t look at it too closely. Or from too far a distance to see the whole thing. Or many places in between.
The worldview of the void
So what do we have with this void worldview, this atheism? No real basis for history! No real basis for truth! No real basis for morality! No real basis for individual or collective meaning and purpose!
Look, I’m sure some atheist (yep, I’m still putting most of the agnostics with that) again with adamantly claim,
We can make morality with our rationality! We can find meaning in our children, goals, love, ethics, political allegiance, etc, etc! We can find truth through pure human reason and investigation! We don’t need a god. There is no need for god!
But look at the root of the premise of atheism, these statements sound hollow and empty “like chaff which the wind blows away.” When they speak of their morality, you have to remember that mass atheism is quite new and has been around for a number of centuries compared to the much longer years of history that the theistic worldview has. It’s easy to see that rather than innovating new moralities, atheism just steals from the moralities already created within mainly the Torah based religions and then claims them for itself when its own worldview cannot provide any basis for them. And it can be seen that those moralities that it adopts can be dropped just as easily. I mean, just look at how many people have been classed as non-human in that worldview and thus can be chopped down and killed, for example, the Jews in Nazi Germany, and those who die in so many other atheistic regimes, and more evident for us, the unborn children that are killed in the desire of the secular governments and those that empower them to promote “choice.”
And in that theft, atheism takes as much meaning as it wants, but which its worldview cannot account for and thus is ultimately meaningless. To value love when it is just a chemical imbalance. To value a child that is just a selfish means to continue surviving at least on genetic level. It’s all just meaningless matter and nonsensical drivel when you measure it according to their worldview and what it really means.
And what’s even more stupid is that they mistakenly think they are unbiased because they supposedly have no religion and thus have a right to condemn anyone for doing something that just goes against what is ultimately subjective according to their worldview. They pin the guilt on “religion” which is just as immature as filing criminal charges against guns for killing people and ignore the people who did the murders or filing complaints against alcohol and not the people who abuse it or who exploit others using it.
OK, just end it!
We have to thank God that atheists generally do not live wholly consistent with their worldview or else this world would be a much worse place, even if it seems as if it is already going that way. If an atheist really saw and acted on the meaningless he believes in … It’s a horrible shame that Israel is sipping from the drink of Western secularity.
I could spend days pouring out my thoughts and emotions about atheism but it would take too long and I’ve already written a lot already which I’m sure will be trashed by many (if anyone reads it).
But let’s cut to the chase: if I had a choice between someone remaining a decent christian and someone becoming a decent atheist, I’d most likely choose the christian. Of course, I’d just be glad that they were both decent which is really what I want in the world. But, at least on the level of worldviews, a christian becoming an atheist is far from an improvement. And to at least claim have a basis for what you stand for is much better than pretending to have a basis.
As far as I’m concerned, atheism is a literally a waste of space, built on nothing, built on a negative, a “not.” What makes it worse it that such a void is defended to vehemently and propagated so effectively!
At least with God, there is a basis, a reason, a purpose, a history and a real basis for morality. The atheist may argue of supposed contradictions, what he sees as immoralities, about this and about that. But looking at the basis of his worldview, he doesn’t really have much of a leg to stand on …. at least not without stealing the legs/basis of others.
What do I mean by stealing a basis? In order for the atheist to really come up to a Torah theist, he must first claim that there is a truth in his worldview that can impose itself on someone else, stating that to go against his arguments the theist must be wrong in some way, that there is an absoluteness to his view that makes it true. So he’s stealing from the Torah belief system that states there is an absolute basis for right and wrong, truth, etc. Why? Because, his worldview is simply a “not”