In order to describe atheism, I want to define atheism as an atheist would define it. An atheist would define atheism as the absence (or lack) of belief in the existence of any gods; it is merely the rejection of religious beliefs. All atheists are nontheists, and most are antitheistic. An atheist believes there is no GOD either beyond or in the world. An atheist claims to know (or at least believe) that GOD does not exist.
Atheists do not have identical beliefs, any more than do all theists. However, there is a core of beliefs common to most atheists. So while not all atheists believe all of the following, all of the following are believed by some atheists. And most atheists believe most of the following. Only the cosmos exist. GOD did not create humans; humans created GOD. The universe is eternal. If it is not eternal, then it came into existence “out of nothing and by nothing.” A human being is matter in motion with no immortal soul. There is no mind apart from brain. Nor is there a soul independent of body. Unlike pantheists, who deny the reality of evil, atheists strongly affirm it. In regards to ethics, no moral absolutes exist, certainly no divinely authorized absolutes. Since values are not discovered from some revelation of GOD, they must be created. But virtually all atheists recognize that each person must determine personal values, since there is no GOD to reveal what is right and wrong. Many atheists believe that human reason and science can produce a social utopia. And recently, there has been a surge of writings by a movement called “New Atheism.” The content of their arguments does not differ significantly from “old” atheism, it is just repackaged and delivered with a louder, more shrill voice. The special emphasis is that religion is the source of many of the great evils of humankind.
Not all views expressed by atheists lack truth. Most atheists have a keen sensitivity to evil and injustice. Many atheists are humanists. With others they affirm the value of humanity and human culture. They earnestly pursue both the arts and the sciences and express deep concern in ethical issues. Most atheists believe that racism, hatred, and bigotry are wrong. Most atheists commend freedom and tolerance and have other positive moral values.
From the stance of atheism, there are only two possible paths atheists can go: nihilism or secular humanism. In order to arrive at an honest and accurate conclusion about atheism, nihilism and secular humanism must first be investigated.
My Final Thoughts:
Atheists often argue that they don’t have a claim to defend; however, the claim that they don’t have a claim is a claim that would need to be defended. Atheists claim that their stance is merely a lack or absence of belief, yet they claim to know (or believe) that GOD does not exist. Atheists cannot possess a lack of belief while possessing a belief that GOD does not exist. The atheists’ arguments do not disprove GOD; rather, if GOD is real, our lack of understanding only proves our ignorance and calls attention only to the limits of our finite minds. In fact, it is unnecessary for atheists to pose an argument against GOD unless they have a belief (GOD doesn’t exist) that needs to be defended. It is inconsistent and illogical.
The atheists’ argument that GOD does not exist is a classic example of the fallacious argument from ignorance known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. Assuming that GOD does not exist because GOD is not seen is saying that something is false because of lack of evidence that it is true. But just because we don’t know something, or can’t readily find evidence in its favor, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s false. Even if one should not believe that something is true, it simply doesn’t follow that one should believe that it is false. There is a crucial distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. A lack of positive evidence for something is not by itself a reason to disbelieve it. If the atheist is to argue that GOD does not exist, the atheist must have positive proof of that belief being right. If anything, an honest conclusion would be to claim agnosticism in that a lack of knowledge exists. The atheists’ argument that GOD does not exist might be understood as resting on a false dilemma: Either GOD exists or does not exist; I cannot deduce existence of GOD with absolute certainty; therefore, GOD does not exist. The argument that GOD does not exist is intellectually dishonest.
At the core of all atheism is self-deception and idolization of self (pride). People do not deny GOD and then begin to sin; people tend to grow attachment to favorite sins and then find reasons to justify the attachment to sins and what follows is a disbelief in GOD (who provides absolute morals). Atheists are intellectually dishonest. Not only do atheists proclaim that GOD does not exist based on their lack of experience, but they also usually seek to affirm moral laws while denying GOD. Every law presupposes a law giver. How then can they affirm or justify moral law while denying the Law Giver? Without a Law Giver, all morals would be relative; however, as discovered, Truth cannot be relative and must be absolute. How can atheists deny the Creator but celebrate the creation? Atheists essentially worship themselves. But why? It is evident that humans are finite and their efforts do not matter in the large picture of the universe. Humans boast of their accomplishments, but why? Even the Burj Khalifa in Dubai — the tallest building in existence — appears to be a dot when viewed from space above Earth. Even Earth itself appears to be a mere spec in our solar system. And if we were to zoom out even more to view the entire galaxy or the entire universe, it would appear as if we didn’t even exist. So why exalt humans when they are not so grand? If anything, the fact that we are infinitesimal should humble us, not puff us up with pride.
Conclusion:
I like that secular humanists possess hope for humanity. Unlike nihilism, secular humanists can find meaning in life by making current life better for themselves and also by focusing their works on making life better for future generations. However, that altruistic concern can still be found if the Creator exists. Therefore, there’s nothing secular humanism can offer that a believer in the Creator GOD can’t obtain. The important factor to consider for secular humanism is whether this belief is in alignment with absolute Truth or not. But without a Law Giver, all morality and truths would be relative. Since relativism, materialism, and naturalism have all been rejected, it simply follows that secular humanism must also be rejected as Truth and eliminated as a choice. Since nihilism and secular humanism have both been rejected and eliminated, it simply follows that atheism must also be rejected as Truth and eliminated as a choice. But is it reasonable to accept a GOD or many gods as Truth? If a GOD or many gods exist and created the universe and all life within, does logic and reasoning support this belief? This must be investigated: Does a Creator (GOD) exist?
2022 Update: The following reasoning is why I’m not an atheist. If I reasoned like an atheist, what I say and do is either self-defeating or self-refuting. Here’s the example:
I claim a lack of belief, yet I believe that GOD does not exist. And it is unnecessary for me to pose an argument against GOD unless I have a belief (GOD doesn’t exist) and that belief would need to be defended but I won’t defend it because it’s actually a lack of belief, which is inconsistent and illogical. Everything was created by nothing, out of nothing, and for no purpose or that the universe has always eternally existed, yet it exists without reason. Everything in nature with a design is without a Designer and order came from chaos. Materials could somehow collaborate in order to generate life, which produces emotions, thoughts, distinct personalities, and a will to act. Mere matter in the shape of a brain is capable of producing thoughts and those thoughts are somehow material rather than immaterial even though I can’t weigh my thoughts or dye them in an experiment. Nonlife produced life and minds came from a nonmind. Morality is nothing more than a matter of opinion and so Adolf Hitler must be praised for living out his moral truth. Life is a program of survival and so sacrificial love would be a malfunction, not an innate desire to fulfill a greater purpose. In fact, saving someone’s life is rendered pointless in a purposeless existence, and so what I consider meaningful love would still be without purpose because everything and everyone ultimately comes to nothing. But evolution is a programming of survival even though I can’t explain who programmed the programming. And there’s no purpose so I should never expect to experience joy or expect for things to go “right.” In a random and purposeless existence, pain and suffering should be expected due to the inevitable destruction due to chaos and disorder. Without intelligent design, all that exists is unintentional creation destined for disaster. The purpose of life underlies all approaches to solving the mystery of evil and suffering. And without creative purpose, I have no reason to complain. In fact, I have no reason to trust my own thoughts because our “minds” are an illusion created by the physical processes that are occurring in our material brains. But if this is the case, our thoughts are merely the result of a series of physical causes (and resulting effects). You might believe you are thinking freely about what I just wrote, but in reality your “thoughts” are simply the consequences of neural “dominoes” falling, one against the next. In a world of strict causal physicalism, free will (and freely reasoned thoughts) are simply an illusion. So… I can’t really trust that thought I just had or anything I just wrote.
Quest For Truth 
24 thoughts on “Atheism Analysis”