Skip to main content

As a way of introduction

Atheist fanatic girl.

There is no basis in reason for atheists beliefs. Atheist critique of religion is based more in anti-religious passion than in serene reflection.

Atheism as an intimate belief in the non existence of God is respectable, but most of the atheists that express pride of calling themselves with that term don’t stay there, but proceed to a systematic effort of defamation of religion worthy of better cause.

More important than our metaphysical beliefs is to relate to each other and develop together as human beings. We can find fanaticism in all kind of religious and philosophical positions, even on the atheist side. This is what urges to fight to. I make a critique of atheism because I feel that so many energies are directed in the wrong direction. Given the irrational denunciations of atheists, it is necessary to find a balance.

Most critiques directed to atheism begin with religious and confessional positions that atheists reject immediately. My critique of atheism is not of that kind, but begins with presuppositions that can be accepted by both parts of the debate.

Comments

Troy Camplin said…
I agree. Most atheists are actually anti-theists. I've even met people who claim to be atheists, then go on to say why they're mad at God. I'd say if you're mad at God, you can't really call yourself an atheist. Atheism is a faith belief too, which is perhaps why they become fundamentalists and even fanatics as well. A truly intellectual nonbeliever would have to admit to being an agnostic -- to not knowing, and not being able to know, if God or gods exist(s).
November 29, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Santa Claus Argument

"There's no reason to believe in God" says the atheist, "there's no evidence of his existence". "But what is the evidence that God does not exist" replies the theist. "Sure you have faith that God does not exist". "I don't have to provide evidence that God does not exist more than the evidence I have to provide to show that Santa does not exist. If you are congruent and reject the existence of Santa you should also reject the existence of God. Where's the proof that Santa does not exist?” Such is a line of reasoning popular among atheists. I call it "the Santa Claus argument". It conveys the idea that God is a fiction character. But what is the basis of this idea? It seems to be based in the idea that God does not exist. But if this is the case, this argument (sic) is question begging, because this is precisely the issue at stake. Some atheists seem to imply that God does not exist because the concept of God is a hu...
23 comments
Read more

Ten reasons why God is different than Santa Claus

Santa is an intentional fiction. God is seriously believed to exist. Santa's existence is irrelevant for the universe's existence, but if God exists she is the foundation of all existence. Santa is a contingent being, he could or not exist. If God exists, she is necessary, she could not not exist. Santa's existence is falsifiable. God's existence is not. God's existence is an issue of serious reflection for unbelievers. Santa's is not. Many famous people of high intellectual caliber believe in God. There's no serious intellectual known for her belief in Santa. There are different kind of arguments that seriously pretend to support the case for God's existence. No such arguments exist for Santa. God's invisible and inmaterial. Santa is not. Belief in God is a basic tenet of many religious organizations. There is no organization known to defend belief in Santa. There is no philosophical basis for belief in Santa, but there is for God. See also: The inv...
3 comments
Read more

Abiogenesis and the atheist's faith

Taken from this forum . Everyone has some faith in an ultimate something that cannot be substantiated solely by physical evidence. Atheists have faith in naturalism alone - their faith is nakedly exposed in topics such as the origin of life or, as they term it, abiogeneis. Abiogenesis is the idea that life originated from non-living matter in the sense that it arose naturalistically. The naturalistic (and therefore “scientific”) concept is that life ("bio") must have originated ("genesis") without ("a-") any outside help. Life, ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE anywhere in the universe, ultimately either arose naturally or supernaturally. So, ultimately, there are really only two alternatives. With abiogenesis, atheists must ulimately rely upon the "unknown process" of the gaps in contrast to the theists' so called "God of the gaps" argument (a criticism of ID). The reason this explanation is not any better than their own sarcastic carature of Go...
1 comment
Read more