Atheists don’t get the credit that they deserve. If it weren’t for atheists, I might be more likely to rest on my complacency. Because of this group of non-believers, I am challenged and emboldened to clarify my system. Thinking themselves very clever, they say things sometimes aimed at generating thought and sometimes aimed (I’d have to guess) at making us upset.
After all, they are quick to point out, you can’t see this G-d. They make up names designed to hurt our wittle feelwings. They scoff as they refer to G-d as the “invisible man in the sky.” Having once called myself an atheist, I can attest to a certain feeling of strength the first time that you tempt the lightening bolts by declaring, “I don’t believe.” As you get more courage, you take your stance more firmly, until it becomes easy to make fun of people who believe in G-d.
Atheists claim that us believer people make up this concept to give ourselves comfort. Honestly, I can see what they mean. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a heaven – you know, an eternal place over the rainbow where suffering doesn’t exist, a place where bad people are punished and the good are rewarded. Wouldn’t it be swell to live forever in bliss? They have a good point. If it didn’t exist, I’d like to make it up. It does feel good to believe in Justice. Of course, just because I can imagine making it up doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. I can also imagine airplanes smashing into twin towers. It doesn’t mean that I made that up.
I tend to not take things personally, so although I consider my belief in G-d to be very strong, I don’t get bent out of shape from atheists. Their arguments, after all, are weak. If I left it there, I could rightly be accused of slinging mud, but I’ll explain my brazen insistence that the stance of atheism contains nothing to be feared.
I’m a pretty open minded liberal kinda guy. I usually understand where people are coming from even if I disagree with them. I can understand a person saying, “I have a hard time believing in G-d.” When atheists get silly is when they insist that there is no G-d. It is silly because how can you be certain that something (or Something) doesn’t exist? It is a ridiculous assertion that there is no G-d. To have doubts or to even hedge bets that there isn’t a G-d is something that I’d still disagree with, but it’s a more honest conclusion. But when we define G-d as invisible and beyond time and space and when so much of the world cries out design and purpose, to declare with such confidence that there is no G-d, seems to me dishonest.
If you probe, there are generally two real issues behind a supposed atheist: 1) Suffering or 2) Bad religion. (And then, shh!, there’s a big third one that they really don’t want us to talk about.)
SUFFERING
The first “reason” for non-belief is suffering. “I can’t believe in G-d because of the horrible way that my ________ suffered before he/she died.” “How could there be a G-d who allows the Holocaust? Tsunamis? Flu? The Cubs?” These are important questions, but they don’t as much question the existence of G-d as they pose a question of our understanding of suffering. This will be, with help from G-d, its own post. It is a serious question confronted by every system of faith that I am aware of, but it doesn’t turn G-d into a non-entity. It simply suggests that we’re not G-d. His ways use “calculations” that don’t fit with the first instincts of humans. The mistake that supposed atheists make is to phase the question, “How could be there be a G-d if there is such pain?” Instead, let one ask a much more fundamental and logical question. “How does such suffering fit with a righteous G-d?”
BAD RELIGION
This “reason” for atheism is also not logical. I have seen two ways that the “bad religion” reason manifests itself. The first is a rejection of a belief in G-d because some practitioners (or even leaders) misbehave. “How can I believe in G-d when the rabbi/priest/pastor behaves so badly?” This is a good reason to perhaps get away from that church or synagogue, but this person has a discovered a flaw in a person not in G-d. (There is a side point which is not at all small. Don’t accept rumors and hearsay. Before you “know” that someone did something wrong, get your facts straight.) The second manifestation of the “bad religion” excuse is when a person finds untenable problems within a religion. This is horrific logic for the following reason: there must be over a billion people practicing a wrong religion. There are over a billion Christians in the world and over a billion Muslims. Most Christians claim that some version of “the keys to the kingdom of heaven are accessed through belief in Jesus. The heavens are not accessed by people who reject this and follow the teachings of the Mohamed.” Many Muslims, also about a billion strong, believe the converse to be true. “Eternal reward is attained through following the Koran; rejection of this book will doom your chances.” They have mutually exclusive views. Either one is right or neither. They can’t both be right. If you’ve never considered this before, sit on this idea for just a moment.
The “therefore” of this is not a good cocktail party talking point. There are at least a billion people who follow a religion that is not true. As strong as this thought is, it does not boost the claim for atheism. It simply doesn’t speak to the existence of G-d. The valid question would be, “How can I know which religion, if any, is true?” It is not logical to say, “All religions are there to brainwash the masses. There must be no G-d.” Even if no religion is true, how can that possibly discount the evidence for a G-d? There are two different questions. One is the existence of G-d; the second is a path to serve and/or relate to Him.
SHH! DON’T RUIN THE PARTY
Those two “reasons” behind us, let’s look at our secret weapon – our nuclear bomb that the atheist doesn’t want us to mention. How do you discover the weak point of the “opponent?” Just listen to his main name-calling jab at you. As we mentioned the atheist believes that the believer has created G-d to make himself feel good in an otherwise harsh world. Hmm? How does this fit onto the atheist? Simple. Their accusation is that we’ve created our paradigm because of our weakness (emotional or psychological). Just turn the table and see what happens.
The atheist wants sexual freedom.
Of course there are variations and exceptions, but rest assured, this is the rule. Atheists are driven by a desire to have privacy from G-d. They accuse us of creating something for our comfort. They say that we are weak because we can’t confront reality. I won’t deny that there are religious people to whom these accusations fits, but the greatest match for these “crimes” belongs to the atheist. They have a moral weakness, and they’ve created a G-dless paradigm to give them comfort – to allow the forbidden.
They say that believers have underlying weaknesses that cause us to turn towards G-d/religion. With a couple of billion adherents in the world, this must be true a lot. However, how many atheists will admit that they have a desire to be promiscuous and/or “free” in the bedroom? I’d bet that we’d find plenty of atheists who desire to find or remain in a heterosexual monogamous relationship, but I have a sneaky feeling that they wouldn’t be the majority.
What’s my source, you ask. It doesn’t matter. If I quote a survey and the atheist doesn’t like it, then my survey is flawed. If I quote a Biblical (or Talmudic) source, it packs as much punch for an atheist as Mother Goose. If I claim my own observations, then I become the object of their derision. It just doesn’t matter. When you start with a conclusion, nothing matters if it doesn’t support you.
The next time that you confront atheism, don’t get bent out of shape. Be appreciative that atheists help you to better understand where you are. If you want to debate with them, I wish you luck, but until you can address their underlying weakness that draws them towards denial, you are not likely to succeed in your attempts. Show them calm and strength instead. In the long run, that is what will help the atheist to wake up to their broken paradigm.
Robert said
Hi, I thought I’d drop in with a few comments.
You wrote,
Well you’re quite right, except that atheists don’t typically insist there is no god. Rather, we’ll say, “I lack a belief in a god (or gods). The evidence is currently insufficient to reasonably believe such a being exists.” Is this a “silly” position too?
You wrote,
Hmm…it seems you’re lacking some understanding of this problem. First, it’s a question relevant only to certain aspects of god-belief. For example, those who posit an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing god (like Christians), the question is relevant and they themselves may ask it. For deists, who posit a “hands-off” god, the question is irrelevant. The deist’s god doesn’t much care.
Second, your “more fundamental and logical question” actually begs the question of God’s existence. You wouldn’t ask “How does such suffering fit with a righteous Allah?” without first establishing Allah’s existence. The problem of suffering demonstrates the logical impossibility of only certain gods, like the Christian god. It’s a fallacy to assume the existence of a being, then try to make reality conform to its existence. You wouldn’t accept that with Allah, Zeus, or Thor, so why should we accept that with God?
You wrote,
You’re right that these are not very good reasons to be an atheist. Fortunately, they rarely are. Most deconversion stories cite more fundamental problems, such as the discovery that certain truth claims are very likely false (e.g., the world was created in 6 days approximately 6,000 years ago). In essence, the reasons why you are not a Muslim or Mormon, are the same reasons why atheists are atheists. We just apply those reasons consistently. For an excellent example of this, read DagoodS’s deconversion story.
Now I turn to your “nuclear bomb” – that atheists have created a paradigm which allows them to engage in “forbidden” sexual freedom. I have to admit, it made me chuckle, not only because how ridiculous it is, not only because you appear to sincerely believe it, but also because you honestly think no support for it is necessary. It’s true because you say it’s true. With calm, strong arguments like that, it’s a wonder there are any atheists at all!
clarityman said
Robert,
First, thanks for commenting. As you can rapidly tell, I’m new to blogging here, and it’s nice to be read. (Though from your comments, I’m not sure I got a big fan yet.)
Let me respond.
To say, “I don’t feel there is enough evidence to believe” is not silly. One of my next posts is to be on what some of that evidence is. I’m not so naive to believe that after you (or anyone) reads my words, that will be the end, but . . . atheism just seemed like a good place to start. The silliness that I’m addressing is the haughty attitude of “There is no G-d.”
Point 2: The Deists not caring. Background: I’m a Torah observant Jew. This blog is born out of years of teaching (which I no longer do professionally) and meetings (online and in person) of people who either 1) have genuine questions about the Jews and 2) are trying to grow spiritually. I don’t expect to address Deism or Christianity except where it may either directly contradict something that I want to write about or in a question/comment forum.
So, point conceded in that I am not currently writing in a perfectly organized system (new to blogging and not perfectly organized would be my two best excuses).
Point 3: The deconversion idea is also part of what inspires me to write/teach/debate. As I hope to present, I have no problems with 6 day/6000 years. I’m living within a system for about 18 years whose foundational flaw I have yet to find. I just read most of DagoodS’s story. Mine has a final chapter, which I guess I’ll have to write and post (?), but stay tuned. I don’t want to sit here and write badly about other religions, but his story not only does not surprise or upset me. It confirms, supports, and encourages the life that I try to live and the “message” (as if it were singular) that I try to impart.
Point 4: My nuclear bomb is sourced, but it’s a Talmudic source and that has very little weight outside of the circles that I live in. I put it out there almost curious to see what types of chuckles it would receive. Without G-d (and I don’t mean that I don’t have enough evidence – I mean, “there is none”), there is a psychological victory that people try to accomplish. It’s privacy. And the greatest area where we want privacy is in the bedroom.
The other point with this bomb is a retort towards the idea that I hear a lot. “You’re afraid of hell or . . . you’re alone in the universe . . . so you’ve created G-d to ease your pain.” To that I respond, “You’re afraid of self . . . or you want to be alone in the universe, so you’ve created a world without G-d.”
Please hang in there with my posts before you pass final judgement. I hope to get a couple a week.
Thanks again for the comment
Robert said
Hello, and welcome to the world of blogging! We atheists are a prickly bunch and love to defend our views, so don’t be surprised if topics on atheism are met with the most responses.
You wrote,
I understand, but the point I tried to get across is that this view is an extreme minority among atheists. You suggested it was the dominant view.
You wrote,
I know you’re a Jew. I merely brought up the deist’s god and the Christian’s god to demonstrate how the problem of suffering applies differently depending on the god we’re talking about. The problem of suffering won’t disprove the deist’s god, but I think it does largely disprove the kind of god believed in by Christians and Jews.
You wrote,
It seems to me that the truth of a holy book will be confirmed in reality; merely because a book says it, doesn’t make it true. Is the Mormon justified in claiming that American Indians are descendants of Jews merely because the Book of Mormon says they are?
I’ll leave you with this thought. Your blog posts echo far wider than you probably appreciate. Keep that in mind as you write them.
clarityman said
Robert wrote: I understand, but the point I tried to get across is that this view is an extreme minority among atheists. You suggested it was the dominant view.
I don’t know that I meant to suggest that it was the dominant view. It is the most prevalent that I’ve encountered. Before editing this post I included a dictionary.com definition of atheist b/c of you “prickly” types. So without getting stuck in semantics, they write, “An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.” What you’re saying sounds to be closer to agnosticism to me.
Robert wrote: I know you’re a Jew. I merely brought up the deist’s god and the Christian’s god to demonstrate how the problem of suffering applies differently depending on the god we’re talking about. The problem of suffering won’t disprove the deist’s god, but I think it does largely disprove the kind of god believed in by Christians and Jews.
Unless you’re unusual, you have not likely approached a Torah observant Jew and clarified his beliefs with him/her. Most people have very cursory knowledge of Torah Judaism (including most reform and conservative Jews). Perhaps you are that rare intellectual, Renaissance man who has a breadth of knowledge on most things far and near, but if you’ve obtained your knowledge of the Jews by starting with a Google search, there is likely more to it than you know.
Although my knowledge of other religions is on par with most, I’m not interested in comparisons. Give me time to develop the thoughts that I plan on developing here. I can tell you with ease that the problem of suffering does not challenge my theology in the least.
Robert wrote: It seems to me that the truth of a holy book will be confirmed in reality; merely because a book says it, doesn’t make it true. Is the Mormon justified in claiming that American Indians are descendants of Jews merely because the Book of Mormon says they are?
Thank you for helping me make my point. When I don’t quote a source, and you find the weakness in that. I quote the source and you find the weakness in that. Most of the arguments that I will make here will appeal to human intellect and observation. My “holy books” have little weight with anyone outside of my world. I am aware of this, and plan on approaching this site with this firmly in place. I started with simple observation. I concede that I should have developed the point more clearly. The point is that the atheist claims that the religious man has an ulterior motive. He ridicules the religious man for having found a paradigm that provides comfort. He does it with a brazenness, pretending to be pure in his intellect. This is a simply not true. His intellect is not pure, for he also has an ulterior motive. He wants a world where he does not have to be held responsible. Since most atheists that I have “sparred” with are quick to claim a morality without G-d, I would submit that the area where they seek this G-dlessness is in the area where they would otherwise be alone.
Let me try to make one point clear. Tones are difficult to pick up on this funny world of the internet. I’m taking your ideas on, but I actually appreciate that you’ve taken the time to read an comment. Forgive me if I seem abrasive. I’m trying to set my own limitations here as to what I will write about and how far responses go. I could quickly get drawn into doing this full time, but I’ve got wife and kiddies to feed, a business to run, and all sorts of stuff to do. I hope you’ll stick around. The only comments that I plan on disallowing are those that are belligerent. I really appreciate that you’ve been respectful. What did you mean about how far posts echo?
Evidence for G-d « BALANCE said
[...] my post about atheists, I wrote a bit about bad religion. It is my contention that this is one of the greatest challenges [...]
Suffering « BALANCE said
[...] are atheists who use suffering as their departure from G-d. The argument goes something like this: with children [...]
What insulting name should I call atheists? « BALANCE said
[...] – all balanced in perfect harmony. What a pleasant coincidence! As I suggested in my first post on atheism, I will not take the stance that therefore any particular religion is true. That doesn’t [...]