“The Absurdity of Atheism”

Found an article titled The Absurdity of Atheism by Rev. Fred Klett (former Atheist).

His outline is as follows,

  • The Irrationality of Atheism
  • No Philosophical Basis for Ethics
  • Is Collective Tradition an Ethical Base?
  • What about Human Survival?
  • Feelings, nothing more than Feelings
  • Suppressing the Truth
  • Amnesty for Atheists
  • Still not Convinced?

    Definitely worth a read.


    11 Responses to “The Absurdity of Atheism”

    1. n says:

      umm, actually it’s NOT worth a read. His argument is based on a straw man – that non-theists believe they’ve *proved* that god does not exist. Non-theists don’t make this claim. They make the claim that there’s insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a god. Quite a different thing, and perfectly rational at that. 🙂

      • icarusholmes says:

        Actually, there are some atheists who do make this claim. Victor J. Stenger recently authored a book, _ God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist_ , which claims that science has reached a point where it can prove definitively that God does not exist. It’s an interesting read, although not entirely convincing.

    2. Laz says:

      Insufficient evidence in your view perhaps. Thanks for the comment.

      • awfrick says:

        Insufficient in my view as well. I don’t copy the same certainty as my religious counterparts – I simply claim there isn’t enough evidence to validate most of the claims of the religious.

        • Laz says:

          Are you including yourself in the “religious”? Because you know, every single one of us is “religious”.

          The only ones who aren’t “religious” are the dead.

    3. Nicholas says:


      Your response to that comment is anti logical. Atheists don’t have to prove or disprove anything. They haven’t made any claims.

      The agnostic position is closer to what you describe as “atheism”. Atheism makes the claim that there is no God.

      For example:

      A person who cannot sing can still judge others fairly and accurately on their singing abilities.

      It is not necessary that they outshine the individual that they are judging. This juvenile, Indiana Jones style idea (y’know, when he replaces the idol with the sack of presumably equal weight?) is effective when you don’t think of the consequences of such a perspective.

      Theists have posited all kinds of claims about the world. Atheists simply reject those hypotheses because they are either untestable, unfounded or negligibly probable. We cannot prove that there is no god. Does that mean you’ve “won”?

      Well it’s not contest or a game so I don’t see what winning has anything to do with this. So long as we’re talking about the untestable, does not reason fall into the same category? As CS Lewis correctly pointed out, science depends on the validity of reason but how can be sure (without a leap of em, faith) that reason is valid?

      I believe in unicorns, vampires, werewolves, pixies, fairies, leprechauns and aliens. Prove they don’t exist.

      I can’t keep you from believing in fairy tales, you have been granted free agency by God. I can’t prove to you that they don’t exist, you’d have to ask the good folk who claim to have seen these fantastical creatures or been abducted by aliens. Then you can go about and determine to see if those people are credible.

      You can’t. Does that mean they do?

    4. Nicholas says:

      The agnostic/atheist divide is a common misconception. Everyone is technically agnostic because of the simple fact that god cannot be proven or disproven. We are all agnostic by default. The atheists who claim that there is “no god” are just a handful of many different types of atheists. The atheist label applies to those who reject the proposed hypotheses of a god. I said this already. The degree to which they reject these hypotheses vary. You’re using a broad brush.

      Broad brush or not, the word “atheist” simply means ‘no god’.

      I didn’t call it a game or a contest but it is a contentious issue and is not a zero-sum circumstance. Reason may require what you label “faith” but reason leaves traces in a physical and testable way. These come in the form of brain activity. Are you rejecting the hypothesis that reason is valid? Do you then reject all the benefits we’ve reaped from the reason we’ve established such as medicine and technology?

      We didn’t establish reason anymore than we established the cosmos. Yeah your summary is neat and all but major assumptions are still required (the word hypothesis bears this out). No matter what spin you apply, these assumptions are still leaps of faith. But you have a penchant to redefine words (see atheism). No I don’t reject these benefits, but I do reject this misguided notion that it was us who established reason

      You know that I don’t actually believe in those things, unless sarcasm entirely evades you. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your response?

      Judging by your response, it is evident that sarcasm evades you. Sure from your point of view my response drips with hypocrisy because you lump your Creator in with actual mythological creatures (broad brush right?). However, God does not depend on any of His creatures believing in Him, He simply is. The uncaused cause as some like to say.

    5. Nicholas says:

      Any particular reason you’re commenting within my comments? It’s rather misleading to associate your commentary with my name (bold or not).

      Because I can. Seriously though, because it is easier to respond. For anyone who is misled, it is Laz using bold letters within Nic’s comments.

      The word atheist SIMPLY means the absence of a belief in god. Google will help.

      From the Greek, a- (without), -theos (a god). Sorry I guess my previous definition “no god” was off…

      First you say that reason is flawed and subjective now you say it’s established by God and objective. If reason, as you so recently insinuated, wasn’t established by humans but rather is part of the natural order then you are undermining your argument from the previous post that reason is flawed. So what will it be, Laz?

      I never said reason was flawed and subjective, please read more carefully.

      I lump YOUR creator in with mythological creatures because nothing sets them apart. By what criteria do we consider a unicorn fanciful but a giant, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient being who’s also invisible is one hundred percent valid. Where is your godly proof? The bible? There are plenty of stories about unicorns and dragons. In fact, many of these stories are wide spread across the world in countries that didn’t have contact with one another in ancient times (very similarly to creation stories). By what criteria do you divide the two?

      As for evidence, I’m sure you are familiar with the classic arguments. I’ve yet to see anything resembling this for the existence of unicorns but I digress.

      I’ve embarked on dialogue with “atheists” here on this blog and elsewhere. Here is what I’ve learned: it is futile for the same reasons that it is futile to explain the color blue to a man born blind (after the Fall of Man, we are all born blind, so to speak). Unless the man is granted sight (and this only by a literal act of God), he won’t understand no matter how solid the description. And whatever I can come up with will pale with what great thinkers have already done, see “Miracles” by CS Lewis or “Orthodoxy” by GK Chesterton. I strongly recommend those to you.

      That is if you’re really interested. I must ask a question I’ve asked of other “atheists”, what is your motivation for correcting my comments?

    6. Nicholas says:

      I don’t comment on religious blogs that don’t comment on atheism. In other words, I only challenge claims that are posited either in defense of the existence of a god or against atheistic arguments. I don’t go to harmless inspiration blogs which are positive in nature and trash-talk theists. That would just be wrong.

      Fair enough, but why bother challenging claims, especially online? While I agree with you on “trash-talk” (whether the recipients are theists, atheists etc, though of course not OU fan), why, in your view, is it wrong?

      I agree, in a manner of speaking, though. This will get us nowhere. You can say that it will get us nowhere because I just don’t see the truth (or neglect to see it) and I can say the same of you. I’m not going to delve into whose truth is THE truth (or elaborate on the fact that atheism does not posit a truth but rather rejects a hypothesis).

      That is assuming that there is even such a thing as “truth” 😉

      I’d be glad to read those books, just as I was glad to read the bible and the Koran when I was truly an agnostic and glad to watch “Expelled” more recently. I do not assert that there is no god. Rather, I assert that as of yet I see no inkling of such a being in anything I encounter.

      I just finished Chesterton’s book a couple of weeks ago. I was perusing through it after work on the way home, and came across this:

      Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, “Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?”

      The young sceptic says, “I have a right to think for myself.” But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, “I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.”

    7. hkyson says:

      Science and Atheism

      Science is different from religion. It does not pretend that it knows everything. There are even now deep questions about the origins of the universe that we don’t have answers to now though it is possible we may be able to answer some of them in the future.

      But the inability of science to provide answers to these questions does not prove that religious faith, tradition, or an ancient holy text has the ability to answer them. Science cannot prove that God does not exist, but this in no way establishes that God exists. There are millions of things whose lack of existence cannot be established.

      The philosopher Bertrand Russel had an analogy. Imagine that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. It is impossible to prove that the teapot does not exist because it is too small to be detected by our telescopes. Nobody but a crazy person would say “Well, I’m prepared to believe in the teapot because I cannot establish that it doesn’t exist.” This means that maybe we have to be technically agnostics, but really we are all atheists about teapots with orbits around the sun.

      But now let us suppose that everybody in our society including our teachers and the sages of our tribes all had faith in a teapot that orbits the sun. Let us also suppose that stories of the teapot have come down to us for many generations as one of the traditions of our own society and there are ancient holy texts about the teapot. In this case people would say that a person who did not believe in the teapot is eccentric or mad.

      There are infinite numbers of things like celestial teapots whose lack of existence we are unable to establish. There are fairies, for example, and there are unicorns and goblins. We cannot prove that any of these creatures of the imagination do not exist in reality. But we don’t believe they exist, just as we don’t believe that the gods of the Scandinavians, for example, have any true existence.

      We are all atheists about almost all of the gods created by societies in the past. Some of us, however, take the ultimate step of believing that the god of the Jews and the Christians, like the gods of the Greeks and the Egyptians, also do not exist.

    8. ummadam says:

      The Quran has all the evidence one needs to believe in God. I posted a part of a series of this today.

    Leave a Reply

    Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: