An argument why atheism is wrong and theism is the only rational choice

Here is the most common definition of atheism taken from a popular atheist's website:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

www.atheists.org...

I have heard many atheists make the argument against theists claim that being an atheist will make you less moral. I will make two arguments in this post. The first, atheists are less moral because they choose not to believe human beings are sacred. Sacred meaning worthy of the highest possible respect. And second, as a belief system, based on the evidence, theism is a more rational belief system.

There is no question that someone can be an atheist and be moral. However, there are many atheists who are total immoral jerks. I don't have any real evidence to support which group is more or less immoral. I would imagine the group that is obsessed with morality might be the ones who are most immoral because they are counting so hard. Regardless of which group is more or less immoral, I will discuss what it means to be a theist and why being an theist is morally superior compared to the way certain atheists think.

In terms of atheism being defined as a lack of belief in God or gods is an interesting question. Atheists do not get to define what the word God means. Many people believe in a pantheistic type God which atheists just dismiss out of hand. God is just a word. What the word God represents for theists has many definitions. But just as theists don't get to decide what atheism means, atheists don't get to decide what the word God means. For people who believe in God it is almost universally understood ALL of existence is evidence for God. From the time theists are little kids they often associate the experience of natures awesome beauty as being attributed to God. I've seen posters of pretty pictures of nature with the sub-title "Go God!" I think when theists make the subjective judgment "God is the rain" or God is beauty found in nature it is just as equal of a statement as saying "there is no objective evidence for the existence of God." There is objective evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is, "there is no objective evidence for the existence of God I am willing to accept as being true." All "good" science is determined by subjective judgments. Who is to say one opinion is better than anyone else's.

Take nihilism for example. Some people take the sum total of all their experiences and come to a nihilistic conclusion. Other people, who may have had a much more difficult life with much more suffering, may take the position that everything in reality is sacred, God is great, God is good, and they personally live or have lived a blessed life as a direct result of God's favor. Is it "right", is it "wrong", it really makes no difference on the grand cosmic time scale of the Universe. Life may be meaningless, but it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. Since it really doesn't matter how or what you choose life to mean, you might as well choose sacred and blessed over nihilistic and meaningless. At least choosing life is sacred and blessed you commit to treating people as sacred. With the nihilistic and meaningless choice, you might see people as automatons mindlessly carrying out the laws of physics like a dumb old computer or calculator. When you are viewed as just a machine then the way people treat machines is the level of morality a human being can expect. What difference does it make how devious the WMDs the government creates when people are worth no more than factory equipment or any other machine. When human beings are considered machines they have moral equivalency to insects.

If you really want to compare theism to atheism there's probably more evidence supporting theism anyway from scientific point of view. Just google "end of materialism". There are many people who have argued quantum mechanics debunks the clockwork Universe of hard determinism. Most people who think the Universe is a giant computer ignore the results discovered by experiments in quantum mechanics.

God speaks to us through experimental error. God is the force in the Universe that keeps our full understanding of nature's behaviors just one step beyond our full comprehension. The speed of the Universe at the smallest possible scale we are capable of measuring moves faster than anything we can measure. It may always be the case that no matter what scale we focus on reality is happening faster than we can ever measure. We may know when radioactive decay might occur with probabilities but we cannot predict the precise exact moment the decay will occur. How could we possibly comprehend how nature is going to behave or to predict the future if we can't accurately predict behavior of a single atom? To fully understand what is happening or predict the future we would have to fully understand the interactions of trillions of atoms interacting with each other with no way to control or limit the scope of the interactions. So we can never have a complete understanding. The Universe is composed of an infinite number of waves of energy all connected and interacting with each other. Rogue waves converge and energies from the quantum level bubble up to the macro level as shown in recent QM experiments. So if we can't gather enough information and there are too many measurements to take into account then having a comprehensive clockwork Universe understanding of reality is impossible to achieve.

Reality is happening faster than we can ever measure it. What better word to use to represent the unpredictable nature of our life experiences than God? God is what we experience. For a theist, since it is really strange to deny the existence of reality, and it is really strange not to believe in the existence of reality, for a theist, the natural conclusion is God exists because reality exists. And there is good scientific evidence supporting the theist way of thinking. There is lots of scientific evidence supporting the idea that materialism is just a made up, imaginary, or delusional belief. Therefore, Theism is a more rational belief system.

As a rule of thumb, there is a higher percentage of Athiest jerks within their numbers these days than there are Christian jerks. Most of the athiests I personally know got a chip on their shoulder and their head on backwards. They misuse the research of science more than any group I know.

originally posted by: rickymouse
As a rule of thumb, there is a higher percentage of Athiest jerks within their numbers these days than there are Christian jerks. Most of the athiests I personally know got a chip on their shoulder and their head on backwards. They misuse the research of science more than any group I know.

I tend to agree with what you are saying. The people who claim dogma is what causes most of our problems on the World stage seem to be the very ones who have the most dogmatic beliefs about reality.

a reply to: rickymouse

I would disagree, I find there to be a higher percentage of Christian fundamentalist than atheists fundamentalists though atheist fundies are as bad as their Christian counter parts

Percentages is the key definition

Most atheists seem to be live and let live but there are a few who want to destroy

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: rickymouse
As a rule of thumb, there is a higher percentage of Athiest jerks within their numbers these days than there are Christian jerks. Most of the athiests I personally know got a chip on their shoulder and their head on backwards. They misuse the research of science more than any group I know.

I tend to agree with what you are saying. The people who claim dogma is what causes most of our problems on the World stage seem to be the very ones who have the most dogmatic beliefs about reality.

I personally know about ten athiests. About five of them seem alright, but the other five seem to misuse science a lot, and two of those five prey on Christian compassion, suckering the Christians to gain wealth. I do not like people who use a person's niceness to screw them over. The one told me that Christians feel good when they help someone out, it doesn't matter if you trick them out of their charity. We try to avoid this guy as much as possible, he is a deceiver, he has no morals, he is out for himself and even screwed over his stepkids.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: rickymouse

I would disagree, I find there to be a higher percentage of Christian fundamentalist than atheists fundamentalists though atheist fundies are as bad as their Christian counter parts

Percentages is the key definition

Most atheists seem to be live and let live but there are a few who want to destroy

I know thousands of Christians and only a few that bad. I know of ten athiests I know are athiests and two of them are really bad people. Now, an athiest is not the same as a person who just doesn't give a hoot about religion, a lot of people that go to bars are sort of agnostic, they go to church with relatives on Christmas or easter and that is only to appease their relatives. An athiest is a person who states directly there is no god. No supreme being of any kind.

Any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be indistinguishable from magic. Much in the way a laser pointer, or even a simple light bulb would get you burned as a witch not that long ago.

The antitheists of this world laugh at the primitive notion of explaining away the unknown with some great all knowing powerful being.

We evolved from hairy little tree beasts and used our superior reasoning abilities to advance just one or two steps above them to become the dominant species on this pathetic little rock flying through the seemingly infinite unknown. Once the situation is no longer favorable for us we'll likely perish as the dinosaurs before us have.

If we band together and cut loose the dead weight of belief, we might spread our species to another adjoining rock someday, but I fear the situation is fairly hopeless in that regard.

Meanwhile we can just go about our daily business of marching forward with no real purpose or direction. The logically bankrupt can believe in their gods, the philosophically void can keep on being agnostic, and the rest of us can just keep being upset at how stupid our species is as a whole.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The best way to define atheists is that they are the people who don’t believe you when you tell them about your god.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Here is the most common definition of atheism taken from a popular atheist's website:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

I've always found the modernized (or changed, the re-)definition for "atheism" to merely a "lack of belief in gods" to be rather inadequate for defining atheism. The 'lack of belief'-phrase also counts for most agnostics, so you can't use it to define atheism. Merriam-Webster uses the following definition that also includes that phrase but at least it doesn't outright deny that atheism is a disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods:

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Even the google dictionary includes the word "disbelief":

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Regarding the other notion of "atheism" supposedly not being "a denial of gods":

The 20th-Century Denial of God

“People are resigned to the absence of God and are organizing their lives independently, for good or for ill, and without any reference to God.”​—One Hundred Years of Debate Over God—​The Sources of Modern Atheism.

...atheism. Though it provoked much debate during the 19th century, the denial of God’s existence is neither shocking nor disturbing today. ...

Not that most people deny God outright; on the contrary, poll results from 11 countries throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia reveal that, on the average, little more than 2 percent claim to be atheists. Nevertheless, an atheistic spirit is prevalent​—even among many who believe that God exists. How can this be?

Denying God’s Authority

“Sometimes atheism refers simply to the practical rejection or ignoring of God,” notes The Encyclopedia Americana. For this reason, The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the following second definition of “atheist”: “A person who denies God morally; a godless person.”​—Italics ours.

Yes, atheism may entail a denial either of God’s existence or of his authority or of both. The Bible alludes to this atheistic spirit at Titus 1:16: “They profess to acknowledge God, but deny him by their actions.”​—The New English Bible; compare Psalm 14:1 [which starts with: The foolish one says in his heart: “There is no Jehovah.”].

Such rejection of God’s authority can be traced back to the first human pair. Eve acknowledged God’s existence; yet, she wanted “to be like God, knowing good and bad.” The implication was that she could ‘be her own boss’ and create her own moral code. Adam later joined Eve in this denial of God’s authority.​—Genesis 3:5, 6.

Is this attitude prevalent today? Yes. A subtle atheism is manifested in a quest for independence. “People today are tired of living under the eye of God,” observes the book One Hundred Years of Debate Over God​—The Sources of Modern Atheism. “They . . . prefer to live in freedom.” The Bible’s moral code is renounced as impractical, unrealistic. The thinking of many is much like that of the Egyptian Pharaoh who defiantly declared: “Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice . . . ? I do not know Jehovah at all.” He rejected Jehovah’s authority.​—Exodus 5:2.

Christendom’s Denial of God

The most shocking denial of God’s authority comes from Christendom’s clergy, who have substituted man-made traditions for pure Bible truths. (Compare Matthew 15:9.) Additionally, they have backed the bloodiest wars of the 20th century, thus rejecting the Biblical command to display genuine love.​—John 13:35.
...

Nimrod was the founder of cities and of political systems of rule, contrary to the will of Jehovah God. All false religion stemmed from Babylon after the flood of the days of Noah. Genesis 10:8, 9 says that “he [Nimrod] displayed himself a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah.” The term “hunting,” according to the ancient Babylonian and Assyrian custom, was applied not only to hunting for wild animals but also to military campaigns against human creatures as the prey. So Nimrod made himself a shedder of human blood in warfare. Like Nimrod, Christendom has not confined herself to religion purely; she has mixed herself in worldly politics, setting up, wherever possible, a union of Church and State, with the Church trying to tell the State what to do. She has claimed that her political emperors and kings have ruled “By the grace of God.” Even her bishops, archbishops and popes have been honored with material thrones and are still said to “reign” over their bishoprics and papal sees.

The politicians of this world are given prominent positions and considerations in the church systems. What a contrast this to the example of Jesus Christ, who refused to be made a king on earth by men! To the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, he said: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.” (John 18:36) To the contrary of this, Christendom insists that it is the duty of her church members to engage in politics. At times and in some places, she endeavors to dictate to them as to the political candidates for whom they shall cast their election ballots. Members of her clergy have even acted as political rulers, as president, or prime minister, and so on.

And what about wanton bloodshed as committed by “Nimrod a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah”? Nimrod was merely a small prototype for Christendom. She too has engaged as a “hunter” in military campaigns with carnal weapons. The most sanguinary wars of all human history have been waged by the members of Christendom, between themselves and with the so-called infidels and pagans. All this is not Christlike. It is Babylonish and smacks of Nimrod.

The loss of human lives in these wars has caused untold weeping. Memorial days are held annually when the ones bereaved by war go to the graveyards to decorate the burial plots of their slain warriors. The deaths of the mighty war generals and other high-ranking warlords are mourned by the patriotic, nationalistic members of Christendom, these being eulogized in the churches in which the funeral services are held. All this in full agreement with the notorious fact that churches have been used as recruiting stations and propaganda centers in times of war.

The clergymen of Christendom have not halted the application of modern-day science to the invention and use of the most fiendish weapons of war, culminating in the developing of biological and radiological and atomic-nuclear weapons. Violence that has filled the earth has not been limited to the two world wars that were fought mainly by Christendom. The time period since 1914 C.E. has been officially termed an “Age of Violence.”

P

Some gods are jerks. Some gods are love. Old testament God was bi polar and insecure. Maybe God is an atheist. Maybe He stopped believing in himself. God, I hope not.

a reply to: pheonix358

The problem with people like Bill Maher, however, is that they prescribe to the new religious order of the day which is their political ideology and a worshiping of the state. And when you combine those two things and don't have a proper separation of church and state, which is impossible when the state is the church, then that is precisely when you get all of those atrocities he was listing off. That is literally where we are headed toward now and his ilk are leading us there. Although they don't care because this time it will be those they view as undesirable that will be oppressed and/or cleansed from society.

I have been agnostic since about second grade, but any fool can still see the importance moderate religion plays in society. When the state becomes the church the atrocities are far, far greater. See Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc., etc.

originally posted by: pheonix358

P

Why should an atheist take offense at one collection of chemistry doing any of these things against another collection of chemistry?

Surely morality is inherent in religion but absent from physics, mathematics and biology.

Religion stands condemned by its own moral code, that is true. But the offenses that atheists specifically accuse religion of, are only the tiniest fraction of the total of those offenses carried out by humans, both religious and irreligious.

Absence of religion is not panacea against war, genocide, hatred and all forms of crime. There is historical precedent that points to irreligious societies as being less moral than religious ones.

Considering that irreligious people only count for a small portion of humanity (less than 10 percent), those wars & etc without a religious component carry a disproportionate death toll to the religious ones (about 12% of historical wars have had a religious component).

Consider that the 2nd World War was the most destructive war of all time and was not a religious war.

Then take a second to consider all the other thousands of wars that were not religious and their consequence, instead of just parroting someone else's words, without actually giving consideration to the facts.

Good people are good people, religious or atheist. Bad people are bad bad people, religious or atheist. Bad people use their beliefs, or lack thereof, to justify their actions. Good people need no justification.

I don't believe in any gods due to not seeing any evidence to support their existence, if evidence was provided then I would happily accept that I was wrong. Regardless I still obey the law and try to be a decent person, belief or not in gods makes no difference to my moral compass.

I've seen a couple of people on this thread state that some atheists they know tend to ''misuse science'', could someone clarify what they mean by that?

originally posted by: longy9999
I don't believe in any gods due to not seeing any evidence to support their existence, if evidence was provided then I would happily accept that I was wrong. Regardless I still obey the law and try to be a decent person, belief or not in gods makes no difference to my moral compass.

I've seen a couple of people on this thread state that some atheists they know tend to ''misuse science'', could someone clarify what they mean by that?

Agree with your sentiment! I personally know at least 20+ A's and 20+ C's and do you know the A's are much more balanced and moral people, more dependable, kinder and generous as a whole! Also can be relied on in a crisis!

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I have heard many atheists make the argument against theists claim that being an atheist will make you less moral. I will make two arguments in this post. The first, atheists are less moral because they choose not to believe human beings are sacred. Sacred meaning worthy of the highest possible respect.

Sacred is, by the definition you seem to be using, an accolade that can only really be given by a religious person so of course you can't expect an atheist to hold life as sacred. That doesn't mean I don't honor the value of life, in fact some would argue an atheist appreciates it more as they choose to make the most out of what they believe to be their only fleeting glimmer of existence with no second chances.

And second, as a belief system, based on the evidence, theism is a more rational belief system.

There is no evidence for God. That's why it is called faith. Faith is belief without evidence. If you have evidence, you don't have or need faith.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

As Starhooker said, good people are good people, belief in any gods shouldn't make any difference to that. I personally couldn't say how many people I know from each side as it's something that never really comes up, if you're a decent person and I like you then I couldn't care less what you happen to believe in.

I do have one good friend who is religious through and through and I can't say as I buy into any of the stuff he believes in but he's a decent and kind guy and thats what matters most to me

I do like the idea of us having "God given rights". The thought of our rights being given to us by man, means those rights can be taken away by man. I like the fact no man has that power. A higher power is the only thing that, again, in theory, makes our rights an unchangeable constant. Only God can take them. Even if there is no God, I'll keep up the charade just for that reason alone.

originally posted by: longy9999
I don't believe in any gods due to not seeing any evidence to support their existence, if evidence was provided then I would happily accept that I was wrong. Regardless I still obey the law and try to be a decent person, belief or not in gods makes no difference to my moral compass.

I've seen a couple of people on this thread state that some atheists they know tend to ''misuse science'', could someone clarify what they mean by that?

Well, one thing many atheists do is to suggest that there is a scientific basis for their opinion.

But science is evidence based, yet atheists are happy to suggest, as you did, that there is an absence of evidence for a deity. This means that, from their perspective, there is nothing in science that supports the idea that there isn't a deity because there is no evidence.

As a person of faith myself, I don't believe that there is no evidence for God. I find evidence almost everywhere. Most of it is objectively scientific and rational.