When I commented on this post, What Is Wrong With Atheism?, loshne responded with this link.
Apparently, loshne thinks The Spartan Atheist knows what he is talking about. So, I decided to find out why these Atheists think we are idiots when we call Atheism a religion.
Is Atheism a religion? I wrote a post, THE DOCTRINE OF ATHEISM, several years ago claiming Atheism is a religion. Of course, Google points to all kinds of articles that address the issue of whether or not Atheism is a religion. This one, Is atheism a religion?, points to the obvious. Atheism fits the definition of a religion. So, I won’t rehash those arguments. Instead, I will just explain what is wrong with The Spartan Atheist’s post.
So, let’s begin. After “establishing” that “Atheism is a religion” is a common belief amongst various religious groups (because the phrase gets 18 million hits in an Internet search), the Spartan Atheist uses two analogies:
- Affirming evolution denial as science.
- Calling “flat earthers” scientists.
Supposedly, calling Atheism a religion is equivalent to calling evolution denial a science and flat earthers scientists. How does that work? Apparently, Atheism is not a religion because it is science.
Next the Spartan Atheist attacks the motives of those who dare to call the science of Atheism a religion.
So why do religious idiots want atheism to be a religion so bad? In short, to level the playing field.
https://thespartanatheist.wordpress.com/2022/05/12/why-religious-idiots-want-atheism-to-be-a-religion/
Level the playing field? Nuts! Consider this quote.
But unfortunately for the religious person, that is exactly what they have to do. And they are forced to do this because it all comes down to HOW we know things. There are lots of ways we learn and know, including trying, reading, listening to stories, and going to school. Of all the methods we learn and know, science is THE BEST process we know of to gain knowledge. It is the best because of it’s reliability. When you are really specific, and really precise, and you test thing repeatedly, and other people also test the same things repeatedly, and you not only try to explain but make very precise predictions, and those test and predictions always come true, and every technology or activity that bases itself off that science works reliably, that means it is a reliable method.
https://thespartanatheist.wordpress.com/2022/05/12/why-religious-idiots-want-atheism-to-be-a-religion/
Science has no way of proving whether or not God exists. It is absurd to ask scientists to deal with such a problem. Because it is probably impossible, we do not know how apply the scientific method to the study of God.
Whether or not God exists is a philosophical problem, not a scientific problem, and philosophers have provided us logical proof that God exists. In fact, the Bible states the matter most plainly.
Romans 1:18-23 New American Standard Bible
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures.
It doesn’t take any special knowledge to observe the night sky or the birth of a baby. We know someone created us. When we are plagued by our consciences or feel injustice, we know our Creator has instilled a moral code within us. Still, because of our pride, we often rebell against God. Therefore, because there is no way of leveling the playing field with God, we are tempted to believe He does not exist.
Citizen Tom 
Thanks for praying with me.
I am proud to say that I was blocked by the Spartan Atheist several years ago.
I count it as a victory when the gospel overwhelms godless people to the point that they must remove me from the conversation.
@John
Congratulations!
Part of the reason for engaging in apologetics is to shut the mouths of the obstreperous with embarrassment (borrowed from John Calvin). Since the Christians of this day know so little of God, the obstreperous talk way too much.
It would seem spartanatheist believes that God acts much like a chimp, responding to our demands when we make them in a way that is measurable (upon demand).
There is actually a new concept of intelligent design called “simulation theory”.
Perhaps the atheist can debate Elon Musk about what is measurable.
It’s interesting to me how many variations atheists will go through to prove their religion.
I did pray to God a few days ago for rain or snow…some sort of precipitation because we were very dry here with more wind than I’ve seen in the years I’ve lived up in these mountains.
We got over two feet of snow yesterday.
Does that count?
Not sure how useful the simulation theory is. If our universe is a simulation then our Creator (essentially God) operates within a realm entirely outside our own. He can reach us, but we cannot reach out to Him
As near as the Theory just acknowledges the arbitraryness of Creation as we see it.
I don’t think simulation theory is useful at all…except to provide and example for this discussion. Because simulation theorists are typically atheists that noodled on Creation long enough (and with enough mathematical rigor) to determine it is impossible without a Creator. So being good atheists of course they look to simulation theory.
Great post, Tom.
You’re right. It’s not logical.
– Affirming evolution denial as science.
Challenging exitsting scientific theories is the very definition of science.
If evolution is a dogma which is not to be challenged then it’s no longer science.
– Calling “flat earthers” scientists.
There was a time in history, when the view that the earth was flat was generally accepted by the scientists of the day.
We have only come to view the earth as spheric because there were people who challenged the prevalent theory of the day.
It was not the last theory or model that did bite the dust.
Another prominent example is the phlogiston theory. There will be many more to come which will end up in the dustbin of scientific history.
Atheism clearly fits the definition from britannica online (emphasis mine).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion
“religion, HUMAN BEINGS’ RELATION TO THAT WHICH THEY REGARD AS holy, sacred, ABSOLUTE, spiritual, divine, OR WORTHY OF ESPECIAL REVERENCE. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world.”
I find it highly ironic that someone calls himself spartan atheist when the Spartans were known for their deep religiosty and strict adherence to religious ritiual.
The atheistic idea of a dichotomy between science and faith is idiotic.
Most of the greatest scientists who laid the foundation for science and who later advanced science greatly were no atheists.
Isaac Newton, a giant of science, one of the greatest, if not the greatest scientist who has ever lived is just one tiny example.
I don’t know that flat earth was ever a scientific consensus, at least not in the times one would consider as encompassing modern scientific thought, that is Aristotle to present day. Phlogiston was more of a hypothesis than a theory, and it’s a fine example of the way science works, as it led to further ideas and experimentation that eventually resulted in discovering oxygenation. What I’m trying to say is that science has been a long historical process of development that involves actual observation; that’s why there never was a flat earth consensus. Yes, I absolutely agree there has always been accepted dogma in the science world, and it is a part of rather than apart from cultural philosophy. Our cultural philosophy is (modern) materialism, and it informs our approach to both science and religion. There is a general core to humanity that withstands philosophical changes, thankfully.
Flat earth was at some point in time the prevalent model. You need only to go back far enough in time. Before modern science existed there was a pre-modern form of science. These were the wise men, the learned men and priests who had the same authority that science has today. The fact that we think they didn’t practice modern science makes their knowledge not automatically invalid. Modern science was built upon their knowledge. Egyptians had knowledge of mathematics, geometry, astronomy, medicine. The number zero was invented in india. China was technology advanced. The writer/writers of the quran implies that the earth is flat which tells us that this was the dominant view of that culture at the time it was written.
Phlogiston was definitely a theory. I understand perfectly well how science works. I was on my way to become a scientist but I chose a different path. I still love science but I also know its limitations. The Phlogiston theory was not dumped because it led to further ideas and experiments. The observation that finished this theory happened by accident. Some smart guy observed that the drilling of cannons produced heat without running out of the hypothetical element Phlogiston. It was an accidental empirical observation that showed that this theory was wrong.
You state:
“science has been a long historical process of development that involves actual observation; that’s why there never was a flat earth consensus.”
The assumption that observation precludes a flat earth consensus is false. Hypotheses and theories are explanations for empirical observations. Just because an explanation is based on observation doesn’t mean that the explanation is right. Neither does it mean that explanations based on observations cannot be wrong.
The geocentric model was the dominant model for a very long time and It was based on observation. Yet, it was wrong.
The idea that the world consists of the elements fire, air, water earth was the result of the world’s first documented chemical analysis in ancient Greece, if memory serves correctly, done by Empedocles. It is observed that stuff that burns is turned into fire, air (smoke), water (vapor) and earth (ash). Correct observation, wrong conclusion.
If you’re interested in the history of chemistry, I highly recommend “Chemical Principles” by Dickerson and Gray. This book has a wonderful chapter on the history of chemistry.
Scientific theories have to be falsifiable. By definition they cannot be dogma. Theories that are dogma are not scientific
Judging by the images and descriptions of the earth before the spherical model became widely accepted, there wasn’t much consensus at all. Discs with bulges and concaves, cylinders, just oddities trying to deal with observation of the sun, planets, and distant stars they didn’t have fine-tuned equipment to see well. That is also why the heliocentric model was rejected for so long. Even in Galileo’s time, they didn’t have the equipment to detect parallax, which was necessary for a heliocentric model. So when I use terms like “observation,” I mean observation they were capable of, and I didn’t mean that observation led to correct theories; only that it didn’t lead to wide-spread consensus on something that was so difficult to reconcile as a flat earth. A strictly flat earth didn’t fit the way people observed the sun’s movements, which was why some came up with bulges or cylinders as models
I do not think you’re correct regarding phlogiston, or at least not fully correct. There were challenges of it from the beginning due to problems like weight added rather than burned away. Further, there was no real evidence for it; it was a merely a plausible explanation, which is why I call it a hypothesis, not a theory.
@jilldomschot
The scientific method was invented by Sir Francis Bacon during the Renaissance.
@jilldomschot
Launched the previous comment too soon. Cellphone.
Bacon is credited with popularizing the scientific method in about 1620. Why do I mention this? What we call the scientific method is what make the knowledge we obtain from “science” knowledge that has been rigorously tested and verified. Prior to 1620, people relied upon authority figures for trustworthy knowledge.
Most people were illiterate prior to the printing press and didn’t have the wherewithal to argue with experts. The printing press was a historical game changer. Even if people were literate prior to Gutenberg, books were prohibitively expensive.
@jilldomschot
Agreed! The invention of the printing press launched the Protestant Reformation, and the Protestant Reformation launched a technological revolution.
Well, I would say the technological revolution started during the Renaissance and picked up, um, steam as it went along. It was the rebuilding and restructuring that eventually had to happen after the fall of the Roman Empire. I’m not saying this because I’m Catholic, which I am. I find that history is always more complex than people want it to be. For example, the biggest jumps in technology were made by the patronage of Charles II after he was restored to the throne of England and Cromwell had been ousted. Anglicanism is not exactly what I would call peak Protestant Revolution, but Cromwell was a direct result of Calvinism. Christianity, however, is a common thread in all of this. That I can agree with.
I can why a Catholic would blame Cromwell on Calvinism. However, the real problem is that people had yet to understand that we need a government to protect us from each other, not to force our beliefs on or desires on each other. That is why there were Catholic tyrants as well as Protestant tyrants.
Let me restate. Cromwell followed a branch of Christianity that sprang from the Protestant Reformation. King Charles II was, from what I can tell, a heathen (only God knows, I’m sure), who was the head of a dubious Protestant Reform church.
One more thought. The Declaration of Independence marks a milestone in human history because it plainly and simply states the purpose of government and because the founders implemented a government based upon the principles stated in the Declaration using the Constitution.
Note again that the Declaration is based upon Biblical principles.
I have to respectfully disagree.
From https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-science-space/flat-earth-0011265
“Ancient Flat Earth Beliefs
It was a common belief in ancient Greece, as well as in India, China, and in a wide range of indigenous or “pre-state” cultures. Both the poets Homer and Hesiod described a flat Earth. This was maintained by Thales, considered by many one of the first philosophers, Lucretius an avowed materialist, as well as Democritus the founder of atomic theory.
The ancient Greek conception, in turn, has some parallels with that of early Egyptian and Mesopotamian thought, with both thinking that the Earth was a large disc surrounded by a gigantic body of water. The ancient Chinese were also virtually unanimous in their view of the Earth’s flatness, although – in this system – the heavens were spherical, and the Earth was square.”
Contrary to your claim our ancestors seemed to have no problem reconciling the sun’s movement with a flat earth. Introducing a spherical sky solved the problem.
The heliocentric model was not rejected because there was a lack of precision instruments. It was rejected for other, non-scientific, reasons.
Planets like Mars, Venus and Jupiter are easily visible to the naked eye. The motions of the planets were consistent with a heliocentric model. Instead of replacing the model with a new model epicycles were added to make the old model fit the observed reality. While the model grew more and more complex inconsistencies still remained.
Phlogiston is not only commonly called a theory but it is also called a theory in the scientific literature. It is, if you will, “scientific consensus” (I hate that term).
Anyway, consensus does nothing to advance science but challenging ideas with better ideas does.
The bounderies between hypothesis and theory are somewhat elastic. At one point a hypothesis becomes a theory if observation/data confirms the hypothesis.
Georg Stahl would disagree with you that there was no real evidence. Here’s how Georg Stahl addressed the problem of added weight in 1723:
“weight, does not disprove the phlogiston theory, but, on the contrary, confirms it, because phlogiston is lighter than air, and, in combining with substances, strives to lift them, and so decrease their weight; consequently, a substance which has lost phlogiston must be heavier than before.”
That sounds pretty much like today’s desperate attempts to salvage the theory of man made gobal warming. 😉
What is your standard of real evidence? Is evolution a theory or a hypothesis?
Sometimes people say words without understanding their meaning. As Socrates observed, some of us don’t examine our lives. Instead we insist upon believing what we wish to believe.
Tom.
Logically, based on the Merriam Webster definition of the word religion is defined as: “the service and worship of God or the supernatural “
And the Merriam Webster definition of atheism is: “a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.”
However, is the Merriam Webster definition of Logic being “a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning;
So, if an atheist cannot scientifically prove there is no god, they are not logical.
And if you state atheism is a religion to be “in service and worship of God or the supernatural,” their science is logically a belief in something supernatural.
Or as King Solomon defined as vanity,
Or, if anyone worships a supernatural can be defined to be a religion, if they worship themselves, their vanity is basically a belief in themselves to be a supernational, in my opinion.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Well said.
Reblogged this on boudica.us.
Thanks for the reblog!
It seems that Thomas Huxley came up with a solution for them when he coined the term ‘Agnosticism’. I couldn’t find where he said this, but somewhere Huxley said that Atheism couldn’t be proven or disproven any more than Theism could; so that the best approach for non-believers was simply to say that they don’t know whether God exists or not. Otherwise, he warned that Atheism could become militantly religious in its own right.
Huxley was at least honest: he didn’t believe in religion himself but he didn’t have a militant hatred for it either. He turned out to be right; Atheism has since become something of a cult and fights free inquiry more than it defends it.
@The Night Wind
Everyone worships something. Most so-called Atheists worship stuff, sex, science, state, and/or self.
Both Plato and Aristotle reasoned out the existence of God. That was over 2400 years ago. Huxley’s reasoning is just confirmation bias.
Hello, Citizen Tom. Thanks for taking the time to read my article. I wonder, does your god in any way at all interact with or influence our physical world?
The simple answer? We exist.
The more complex answer. Have you ever enjoyed the beauty of Creation?
Neither of those supposed answers answered my question. Does your god interact with or influence the physical world?
How is it that you exist? Who is it that brings order to Creation? Why is it you ask questions when you refuse to know the answer?
I’m not refusing to answer, but I asked a question first. Are we going to shout past each other or have a conversation? Does your god interact with our physical world? It’s a yes or no question.
Even the Atheists among the scientists we think expert in the matter postulate that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, the universe is an effect. The order in the universe is an effect. If God is not cause of the universe and the order we observe, who is? You?
Yes, I caused the universe to begin. I’m glad we settled that. But since then, has your god in any way interacted with the physical world?
Spartan, God breaths life into the non-living biochemicals that make up every living cell in every living creature on earth. When he created the world he did it with order that can be stated in the language of mathematics. When God created man he gave him the capacity to comprehend mathematics. From our understanding of mathematics comes all our wonderful technology, wealth and the ability to have enough leisure time to educate ourselves concerning the nature of God, man and universe.
Since you have hallucinated God in your own image, God is only a silly cartoon character. Until you get rid of that silly cartoon image of God, you will never possess the capacity to understand the true answers to your questions.
SOM, I’m not talking about a long time ago, I’m talking about now. Does your god interact with our physical world, yes or no?
Your life is happening right now in each cell in your body. Mathematics is happening right now. The natural laws that govern Creation are happening now. Technology is happening right now. Your leisure time is happening right now.
What planet’s orbit are you traveling, Spartan? Take your protein pill and put your helmet on. Your brain is suffering from oxygen deprivation.
So your god wound the cosmic clock a long, long time ago then promptly died, never to interact with his creation ever again, right? Your god hasn’t touched our physical world since it all began?
When you express yourself it is your cartoon image of God speaking. Maybe that is why you always argue with yourself and lose. There is nothing I can do about that. I know how to speak to you man to man not man to cartoon.
I’m asking questions, SOM. If my idea of your god is wrong, this is literally your chance to set me straight.
You seem to think god wound the clock a long time ago and then nothing since then, is that right?
Spartan, It is your responsibility to set yourself straight. My answer to your question presented many examples. When it comes to understanding God, you seem like a drunk who would rather argue than profit from dialog.
SOM, I’m asking what you unferstand about your god. You call me braindead, but I ask a very simple question and you seem stumped. Does your god interact with our physical world today?
Asked and answered.
No, you did not answer. It is a “yes or no” question. You didn’t say either. Do i have to chase you down for an entire month again to answer a simple question? You say you are so smart but I keep stumping you with super easy questions. Does your god interact with our physical world today? Yes or no?
Spartan, You are trying to control the answers that people give you. That is freakishly abusive. Either learn some manners or get lost.
Silence, I am asking a question to investigate the nature of your god. Your avoidance of answering the question hinders investigation. And I am the rude one? Does your god affect our natural world?
I answered you and gave examples of how God intervenes in his Creation. God intervenes in the life of every Christian. That is why those people became Christians in the first place and why Christian Western Civilization became the greatest in history. Christian Western Civilization is yet another example of God intervening in the affairs of man.
You gave me examples of god creating, not later doing stuff. But now you seem to be implying, since you refuse to answer my questions directly, that your god does interact with our physical world. Right? And if so, we should be able to see that, measure it, observe it. Right?
God creating IS intervention. And I was clear about each of my examples taking place in the present every second. You don’t understand because you expect my answers to conform to your cartoon character image of God.
SOM, please explain one way your god physically intervenes. Or maybe give a specific example?
Asked and answered.
Okay, maybe you don’t understand what I’m looking for here. You are explaining this god exceptionally cartoonist. Like if I ask how a car works, you answered something like “haven’t you seen a car? They go!” And you are right, I guess, but you haven’t actually explained anything. For the car example, you could explain the controls. Or the workings of an internal combustion engine. Or transmissions. I am asking you to get into the details of how god “does technology” or whichever topic you care to explain. And really get into the details, please.
I know exactly what you are looking for here. Your intent is to ensnare me in your imbecilic understanding of God.
My intent is for you to escape your imbecility and live a little in the light of truth
Ensnare? You told me I have a cartoonish view of your god. Cartoonish means ignorant pf details, assuming a cause and effect are linked without consideration. So, teach me. Explain something of how your god physically affects our world. How can I possibly be ensnaring you unless you are just lying? If you are telling the truth, this is a pretty easy ask from someone of your self-promoted understanding of your god.
Spartan, Your comment is imbecilic gibberish and you know it. The chasm between your chosen imbecility and my chosen rationality is impossible to traverse.
SOM, try me. Be a good teacher. Let me know what you know. Explain the mechanisms by which your god affects our natural world.
You want use science to measure the work of the Holy Spirit? Seriously? How would you do that?
Citizen Tom, if your god can affect our physical universe, then we should be able to detect it. Right? So just let me know some specifics on what your god changes or moves or whatever, and we will develop a way to detect it. Okay?
Would you mind telling me how you could detect God affecting the physical universe? Note Colossians 1:17 and Hebrews 1:3. Christians believe that God is constantly sustaining His Creation.
Wheni you insist upon applying science to a problem for which it is not suited, you are just wasting your time.
Citizen Tom, if our physical universe is changed, we should be able to detect that. So if your god in any way, at all, changes or interacts with our physical universe, we should be able to detect it. So, just give me a quick 2 hour class on how your god changes the physical world, and I’ll devise a way to detect it! We will get the Nobel Prize!
All you have done is make unsupported assertions. I don’t claim to understand how God fulfills what is promised in Romans 8:28. I just know what you just said is a hoot.
Assertions? I keep asking you over and over to just let me, and frankly everyone, know how your god interacts with our physical universe. Does he put money in peoples bank accounts? Does he slow atoms spinning around a nucleus? Does he increase metabolism in specific beings? I have no idea! But you do! So tell us, please.
And you, the great scientist, will use what kind of instrument to detect the Holy Spirit working to sanctify someone who believes in Jesus?
Just exactly what kind of instrument will you use to detect how God fulfills Romans 8:28?
Frankly, SOM is right when he says your notion of God is cartoonish.
Consider what was required to create the universe — the capacity to have a perfect knowledge of that Creation. And you think you can study God like a bug under a microscope?
In your efforts to deny the existence of God, all you are doing is making yourself ridiculous.
Yes! My understanding of your god is RIDICULOUSLY cartoonish. And all I want is for you to enlighten me. I want for you to explain the actual, real, sophisticated way your god affects our physical universe. Teach me.
Goodnight.
Good night, CT! I am eagerly awaiting the things I will learn from you! Finally I get to talk with someone that knows the way god interacts with us! I am ready to learn.
Good morning, Citizen Tom! It’s a fresh new morning and a fresh new week! I can’t wait to learn from you. My understanding of your god clearly cartoonish, and I know you are here, as a soldier for Jesus, to inform me of the ways your god interacts with our physical world!
It has been a busy day. Nevertheless, if I had seen any evidence that you were interested in a serious dialogue, I would try to respond to you. I haven’t seen any such evidence.
There are over 5000 posts on this blog. Many discuss religious issues. You are perfectly welcome to read and critique them.
There are also many Christians scholars who who have written extensively over the last 2000 years, and many of their works are on the Internet. So, if you find what I have written inadequate, which it is, try an Internet search.
Good night.
Citizen Tom, are you serious? You won’t explain something to me because you don’t think I’m interested?
You stand on a soap box and DECLARE that science can in no way investigate your god, while completely ignoring the fact that you believe your god can interact with our physical world, and I called you on it, and you have no answer because you don’t think before you speak. Among 5000 posts and 2000 years of “scholars”, and you haven’t even ONCE thought that maybe if your god does stuff in the real world we can test that? You’re welcome. Good bye.
Do you have the slightest clue as to what the scientific method might be? Who knows? You most certainly don’t understand debate. You just ask questions and demand answers that fit your preexisting conclusions. Meanwhile, you don’t answer any questions, probably because you are afraid to defend your answers.
That’s why dialogue with you is not worthwhile. Debate is not the same as bullying your opponent into submission, but that’s all you apparently know how to do. Sad!
Clearly, I understand the scientific method better than you do. For one, the scientific method is not a debate method. That’s why I like it. You don’t get to make wild, unsubstantiated claims in the scientific method, but you can in a debate, especially an unmoderated debate.
So, does your god interact with and affect our physical world? It’s an obvious question, and should be an easy one to answer….
Scientists don’t debate? 🤣
No, Tom. They don’t debate. They write highly technical papers and them the other scientists read them and try to replicate the results and attempt to find errors. They don’t debate. They don’t have moderators giving them time. They don’t have a back and forth of opposing ideas. I was afraid you didn’t understand science before, now you proved it.
Apparently, Spartan is concened only with his own thoughts.
That is called solipsism. It is the plague of atheism. Imagine Spartan spending his entire life locked within the tiny confines of his own imbecilic mind. It beggars the imagination. I do not say this as an insult but as a statement of what atheism does to the human mind. What a crying shame.
SOM and I are Christians. We believe the Bible. If you are familiar with the Bible, then already know the answer to your question.
I’m more familiar than you are, I assume. So you then you do believe god interacts with our physical world, then? Right?