It’s taken many, many thousands of years, but little by little atheists are coming to agree with not only what the Bible says but also with the teachings of Jesus. Two relatively recent concessions come to mind.
irst, is the decision that being good to others might not be such a bad idea after all. There are still frequent examples of the more infamous thinking on atheist blogs. Nevertheless, some modern atheists have almost overridden the atheist thought of old that helping the poor and helpless just weakens the gene pool. Although it causes me to shake my head while contemplating how long it’s taken, it’s good to know that finally in the 21st century, atheists have figured out, “If I’m good to others, it’s almost like being good to myself. Cool!”
Second, is the realisation that atheists seem to be taking to the idea that we live in an amazingly beautiful, awe inspiring universe. Again one is reminded of a pattern of atheist thought that has plagued the irreligious humans down through the ages. This thinking goes, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, and conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and are going to nowhere” Randy Alcorn.
All atheists must of necessity still hold to this “truth.” Either hypocritically or in a delusional or dream-like state atheists in the 21st century have decided that it’s ok to be thrilled by the environment in which they live and breath and have their existence. In fact, the attitude of the more radical atheist is bordering on the spiritual when contemplating the wonders of the universe. There appears to be almost a reverence for the grandeur of, dare I say it, the Creation in which we live.
Of course, atheists must be careful here. Observing, appreciating and contemplating the sheer wonder of finding ourselves in such a perfect spot in such a hostile universe might raise disturbing questions. Questions like -
. Why is there a universe?
. Why is there mathematical predictability to this universe?
. How is it that out of all the species living on earth, only we have a mind that is able to understand the mathematical precision of the universe?
. Is it really possible to accidentally have a universe that is based on order and design, a universe that is intelligible, a universe that is so perfectly favourable to our existence? Doesn't the nature of odds and probabilities enter into the equation at all? Don’t these things demand an ultimate explanation?
Atheists can’t allow themselves to ask those kind of questions because the answer is obvious. No, it isn’t possible that this happened by accident, sans direction and purpose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Here is a defintion to assist you. Unfortunately, I had to pull it from Wikipedia. However, it is good. Here it is.
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.[1] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (i.e. "it was just a coincidence").
The fallacy is also known as: fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, generalization from the particular, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample, and secundum quid.
Are you famaliar with this?
Let us begin dissecting this overgeneralized crap into some cold hard facts.
1. You said- "First, is the decision that being good to others might not be such a bad idea after all. There are still frequent examples of the more infamous thinking on atheist blogs. Nevertheless, some modern atheists have almost overridden the atheist thought of old that helping the poor and helpless just weakens the gene pool. Although it causes me to shake my head while contemplating how long it’s taken, it’s good to know that finally in the 21st century, atheists have figured out, “If I’m good to others, it’s almost like being good to myself. Cool!”
Hmm.... Let me see, in a civilized society, the mark of people being good to others is marked by prison populations and crime rates. I think that you will find some interesting information within the follow stats collected by the US Federal Bureau of Prisons and Canadian Prison Systems.
Had you researched, atheists and agnostics are among the lowest represented in our North American prison system. Now, I am generalizing findings here, which is not intellectually responsible. I would strongly encourage you to examine this data yourself. Here is the link:
http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm (For the US)
2. "All atheists must of necessity still hold to this “truth.” Either hypocritically or in a delusional or dream-like state atheists in the 21st century have decided that it’s ok to be thrilled by the environment in which they live and breath and have their existence. In fact, the attitude of the more radical atheist is bordering on the spiritual when contemplating the wonders of the universe. There appears to be almost a reverence for the grandeur of, dare I say it, the Creation in which we live."
Where did you get this idea? Did you poll one million atheists and find this out? What exactly is the more radical atheist? How do you think that atheists display this reverence of the grandeur?
3." Atheists can’t allow themselves to ask those kind of questions because the answer is obvious. No, it isn’t possible that this happened by accident, sans direction and purpose."
Did you poll one million atheists and ask them what questions they do or do not allow themselves to ask? How would you presume to know what questions people subjectively ask themselves? Did you have an intellectual pipeline that allows you an implicit understanding of what the atheist population thinks? I dont think so.
You need to step it up.
being good to others might not be such a bad idea after all.
The implicit suggestion being made is that the Bible introduced this concept. That, my friend, is a crock of shit.
You repeated the Universe question, and so shall I repeat my reply.
Your concept of the big bang and your notion of creation ex nihilo is lacking in the up to date cosmological facts.
For your consideration: http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2009/11/universe-from-nothing.html
"being good to others might not be such a bad idea after all"
Mak its the benificial aspect..Most often it ends up being a two! way street ...Atheists have always known these benifits
"Nevertheless, some modern atheists have almost overridden the atheist thought of old that helping the poor and helpless just weakens the gene pool"
Mak i think you misunderstand matters a bit and are maybe using Hasty generalization like Tinkbell suggests.
Maybe this isnt really such a black and white issue, as you and others might think.Remember all evidence needs to be considered.The pros and cons need to be weighed honestly and properly etc
For instance take some of the first nation people of the U.S.A.Back then when some tribal elders aged or got sick and food was hard to come by and they felt it was time,and the tribe needed to be mobile to hunt and survive.Elders would sometime choose to disappear into the wilderness on their own! a type of euthanasia.
Today this sounds harsh and unthinkable.
But to them back then it was both a honor and about love and survival,yes and also helped strengthen the "gene pool" by allowing for a very much better chance of survival of the whole tribe!!.
So i agree with Tinkbell..In my opinion you are using hasty generalization by misjudging these "atheist thought of old " type people..The thought still stands as both logic and good reasoning in certain situations.
Many of these decisions are maybe not ALWAYS quite so black and white as some people might like to think they are.
Post a Comment