The Atheist Delusion

The atheist argument is a non-argument; Atheists do not define themselves by saying what they are for but only what they are against. Not easy to refute something which is wholly based on a denial of something else.

Richard Dawkins has a new series of programmes on TV in which he says nothing new or interesting, merely going over the same old ground about how God cannot possibly exist and anyone who thinks He does is deluded.

After watching one and a half programmes the best I can say is that Dawkins is completely lacking in imagination if he cannot see into the unknown. To visualise something is to create it – that is how all art begins and also how science makes new discoveries.

The programmes on TV are titled Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life. Not sure how sex fits into that particular equation but here is a man who writes books which conclude that the universe came about by chance and is entirely meaningless and yet he is looking for meaning in something which he has already decided is meaningless.

Clearly he believes that it ought to have meaning but he cannot find one. By searching for meaning he is obviously uncertain of his position in declaring that the universe has no meaning. It is only his vanity and ego which prevents him from reaching the correct answer to his questions which is “I don’t know!”

See what I mean about lacking imagination?

Dawkins studied zoology and later evolutionary biology.

In other words he is very learned in materialism, he knows all about the physical body, but does not, or appears to not, give any thought to the life of the mind.

Mankind lived for millions of years in a state of what can only be described as vacant boredom, churning out hand-axe after hand-axe, endless variations of the same unimpressive tool until homo sapiens suddenly appeared (as if by magic) 40000 years ago.

How did that happen? And Why?

These are questions Dawkins never asks, probably never even thinks about asking.

No wonder he cannot find any meaning in his life, he needs to look beyond his own specialised fields and first try to understand what Life is before trying to find the meaning of it.

“….birth and death are processes of Matter, of the body. The Life-principle is not formed in the formulation and dissolution of the body…. Life forms body, it is not formed by it.”

………..

Sri-Aurobindo

10 Responses to “The Atheist Delusion”

  1. BobG November 4, 2012 at 20:34 Permalink

    I’m an apathetic agnostic–don’t know, don’t care.

  2. A K Haart November 4, 2012 at 20:36 Permalink

    As an atheist, I’m not too keen on Dawkins. He helps create division and confusion in the crucial area of our social and moral traditions – which are Christian. To forget or dismiss or otherwise obscure how important this is, does nobody a service.

  3. JD November 4, 2012 at 21:25 Permalink

    Just by way of clarification: I wasn’t sure about this post because I prefer to avoid the ad hominen approach but if the messenger doesn’t have any message what can you do? :)

    Anyway I recently found that not only is Dawkins unable to think logically (as i have pointed out before) but he seems to be nasty as well if this is verifiable-
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/07/dawkins_watson1.gif

    And it is verifiable – I found that email quoted in full here-
    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.single.html

  4. James Higham November 4, 2012 at 21:47 Permalink

    In my case, JD, preaching to the choir but it’s nice to see that others have come to this conclusion too.

  5. Penseivat November 4, 2012 at 23:09 Permalink

    In my mind, an athiest is someone who does not believe in a ‘divine being’ who decided to create what we have around us. As an athiest, I believe that we are an accident of nature, created from one of the billions of possibilities of evolution in the thousands of billions of possible planetary bases and that religion is an artifical concept created by man, initially to explain the unexplainable – why does the sun rise every morning, why do rivers flow, why is it hot one time and cold and wet another, etc? Eventually devious men created formed religions to usurp and control others while gaining riches (who can name a poor religon) and power for themselves (you only have to look at the Catholic Pope, the Moonies, the Scientologists and many more). Dawkins fault is that he has looked too deeply into his own views and come up with conflicting statements. We have sex for the continuance of the species – plants do it, animals, insects, birds and fish do it. We do it for the same reason. The sun rises because our planet is in an orbit around a star which gives that result. The seas ebb and flow becuase of the gravity caused by our moon, not because some divine being decreed it. If there was a God, he (or she) would have done a much better job on this planet than has happened – unless it was done by an apprentice God when the main God wasn’t looking, and with 300 billion plus worlds to have a shufty at, it is no wonder we have been overlooked. That is, of course, if there was a god – which there isn’t!

  6. richard November 5, 2012 at 01:13 Permalink

    I’m an atheist too (there ain’t no Poseidon nor any of the rest) but like Mr Haart I find Mr Dawkins somewhat strident and abrasive. This is not to say he is wrong, however. I have no doubt that the Nazarene’s teachings have ennobled mankind, but – and it is a big but – Christians have an inbuilt ethical standard which, by omitting the bad bits in the Bible (for instance killing your daughter if she is not a virgin when she gets married) is innate in any case. As I have said before, a good man will find much to be impressed with in the Bible, or indeed the Koran (charity to strangers etc), but a bad man will use scripture to be an even bigger bastard.
    As for mankind being relatively unchanged for millenia with the same old technology, then suddenly cities spring up with libraries, plumbing and civil servants – that is a different question entirely. Perhaps Prof. LLoyd Pye has a reasonable argument with his exraterrestrial intervention theory.
    James, I am asking a favour as a secular student of the Bible – please give an opinion on Genesis chapters one and two. Chapter one, God makes man in His own image. Chapter two begins “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished”
    God takes a rest, but then sees that there is no-one to till the fields. He forms man out of the dust of the ground, and man became a living soul.
    My question is this: why are there, on earth, two types of man: one type in God’s image made in the six days of creation and one type (presumably us) made of clay after the creation? I’m not posing this question to catch you out, but in view of the theory that a very few bloodlines have ruled the majority since the year dot, maybe “they” see themselves as type the first, and us as dusty servants.

  7. Amfortas November 5, 2012 at 03:35 Permalink

    The ‘Fathers’ of the Church, Aquinas and Augustine amongst them, say that ‘God is… the Uncaused Cause’ of everything.

    So far as we can know, we find causes for almost everything we see. We look for them. We look for God and have done since time immemorial. We look for the ‘Uncaused Cause’ of all things.

    The Atheists seem to reject the notion of an old man on a cloud. That is a reasonable rejection as far as I can tell. But they also seem to reject an ‘Uncaused Cause’ underlying all things and resort to ‘accident’ or ‘random’. Why? God knows. It seems they grasp at the least likely in order to discount the most likely. The start is the start. The Beginning, the beginning.

    Vale the Agnostic who retains an open mind. They at least have a chance of finding God. I say that as a Catholic.

  8. Penseivat November 5, 2012 at 21:21 Permalink

    Amfortas,
    The quatrains of Nostradamus have been pored over for many a year and ‘historians and scholars’ have fitted in known facts with a number of the quatrains (one refers to ‘Hister’ and this has been taken to mean ‘Hitler’. But does it?). Religious scholars look at certain aspects of this world and claim that it can only be because of the divine presence of an omnipotent being. But is it? A sunrise or sunset is a visual aesthetic pleasure, but only because we have been guided into believing it looks nice. However, there is no evidence that it has been ‘drawn’ or made to happen by a higher being. A red sunset looks nice but it only happens because of all the pollution in the air being caught by the light of the setting sun. In the Christian faith, Jesus died for our sins – past, present and future. So this means, in effect, that someone can be the biggest sh*t this planet has ever known but because the (alleged) son of God died for all sins, that person will definitely go to heaven. So what’s the point? Why be law abiding, look after your granny, and pet little dogs when you are going to sit next to some mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, Hitler – or Hister -, or even Jimmy Savile, in the hereafter paradise? I have a lot of respect for those who retain a particular faith, as long as they do not use force or threats to have others follow it, such as the latest batch of Muslim fundaMENTALISTS, but you, and they, should also respect those who, for whatever reason, believe religion is a man-made load of tosh.

  9. James Higham November 5, 2012 at 21:54 Permalink

    religion is a man-made load of tosh

    I agree, which is why Christianity, on the other hand, makes such sense. In fact, it’s spokesperson was dead against “religionism”.

  10. Penseivat November 7, 2012 at 13:38 Permalink

    The Christian churches don’t seem to have done too badly by ignoring the views of it’s spokesperson.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string jgUcJu to the field below: