The Real Atheists Club

I don't think atheists are bad people.  Not at all.  This video is, I guess, making a point about what wonderful people atheists can be.  They're "not so bad", it says -- they can be smart and generous and good spouses and all that. 

Well, let's see:  Duh.

(If you watch it, do look past the way it bungles the meaning of the word, "fool", which is kinda...foolish.  We were all young, once.)

Of course, I've never thought atheists were bad people.  I don't think atheists are necessarily hedonists, or can't have great marriages, or don't make good parents.  I don't think that at all. 

I just don't think atheists exist.

People who say there is no God?  They exist.  And some of them are some of the coolest people you'll ever meet.  And moral, too.  They think killing an innocent person for no reason is wrong, period.  They think lying to friends just for personal gain is wrong, period.  They can be very other-centered, compassionate, charitable, and merciful.  You might even say some atheists are some of the most upstanding people you'll meet.

Shoot, it's almost like -- no, it's exactly like -- at some level, they believe in God.

Frequently, I'll mention on-air (as a challenge, really, to Christians) Dallas Willard's wisdom:  What you believe isn't what you say you believe, what you really believe is what you do.

And sometimes, what you do gives you away, right?

I agree with J. Budziszewski of UTexas (who's really agreeing with C.S. Lewis, for starters) that there are some things we just can't not know.  Take any freshman ethics course, and you'll be struck by the god-free attempts to find some basis for our in-common sense of what's right.  They're "elegant contrivances", to be sure:  systems developed to somehow, some way, explain this nagging sense that we all have, universally, for justification.  It's inescapable, though, that none of these contrivances make any sense, or have any ultimate grounding, if we're here by happenstance.  None.  (Trust me, I've searched, asked, debated people who make their living arguing for their atheism.  There's no binding response coming, becaause it doesn't exist.)

Am I saying atheists are lying about their atheism?   Not really.  Denial is a pretty well-established concept in psychology.   I practice it in subtle ways, daily.  (Another post.)

Just check the polls on morality.  Pollsters will ask something like, "Do you agree that ultimately, what's 'right' or 'wrong' is up to the individual, that there's no absolute truth that transcends us?"  And they'll find a large percentage will say "Yes, I agree with that."  People will say that, but no one actually believes it.  Thankfully, we know this from their behavior, and the way they'll properly consider wrong -- just plain wrong -- the actions of racists, or sexual predators. 

They say something, they think they believe it! -- but they don't believe it.  They're not lying to the pollster.  It happens.  Denial is complex.

Irony:  The video's parade of "goodness" from atheists doesn't make the case for atheism, it makes the case for Goodness.  If we're cosmic accidents, it simply makes no sense to make this appeal if we don't know what "good" means. 

I already know the counter-arguments.  "But we're only saying that society has determined these things are 'good', and we can do those things, too, and..."  Yes, of course.  But I'm actually giving you more credit than, "You just go with the societal flow, here..."  I'm saying these are real, and deep, convictions, deeper than some contract with society we never signed, deeper than some utilitarian point-system someone came up with that binds no one, deeper than a majority vote. 

These are things we can't not know.  We've never stopped knowing them, we just lost our confidence that we can know them.

We all know.  Every society in the history of man has acknowledged some transcendence.  Sigmud Freud, who said belief in God was wish-fulfillment, nevertheless spent his life reacting, personally and professionally, to this God Who Did Not Exist.  Uber-Krusty Richard Dawkins (handled nicely here) tries, vainly, to contrive meaning in a universe without God, even as he mocks believers for refusing to face the cold wind of truth.

Atheists don't exist.  All of us are quite obviously desperate for a very deep justification.  Desperate, and our consciences will stop at nothing to get it.   That need for justification shouldn't be there.  So why does Dawkins have it? 

The cold wind of truth is this:  Contrive away, but it's just your lonely contrivance.  Without transcendence, meaning is up for grabs, which is another way of saying, there isn't any.  There is matter and physical law, and that's it, no more.  There's no binding reason to object to cruelty to humans or animals.  We can contrive neat little stories, but ultimately, there's no point to hope, or love.

And really no one, including, very obviously, Richard Dawkins, believes that.

Because what you really believe is what you do, right?

Comments

[Monica Battaile]

Here's a quote attached to an online definition of atheist:

"The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell." [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

Yet, these highly intelligent "atheists" think it is entirely possible that our ENTIRE civilization came from lightning hitting some sort of ooze lying around on the ground. Um...yeah. That's not absurd at all. God....ooze...hmmm...

Tough decision.

Does this mean that if we don't believe in the atheists that they'll disappear? :)

And here's a little something from a cranky pregnant lady for your "Dept of Things You Saw Coming"...

It was kind of weird sitting and watching a slideshow of "People You Probably Won't See In Heaven". Was it wrong to smirk just a little when that thought popped into my head? If only I could ask Dr. Freud...

[Donna]

Hey Brant,

Wow, that was quite an arguement! My brother 'says' he's an atheist. After talking with him enough, I've never really thought about the fact that maybe he didn't really mean/believe what he was saying. I kept thinking, while I was reading this post, of all the things I've heard him say, his 'beliefs'(kinda ironic), so-to-speak, and figured I would write about anything you missed... but I really can't think of anything anymore to refute what you said! Which is strangely comforting, b/c the last year I've been thinking about his atheism a lot, since he's getting married this fall and will probably be starting a family. I think I've always believed that people have a 'God-shaped' hole inside them, that they try to fill with other things, somehow never knowing all they need is Him. You've really prompted me to discuss this with him more, and now I feel like I have a new mission... maybe not to PROVE what *I* think, but to DISprove what he *SAYS* he thinks.
So, Brant..... on this subject I say, 'Correct as usual, King Friday'. (sorry, just a lil Mr. Roberts flashback for ya!)

[Brant]

People, including me, are usually naturally defensive when their beliefs are attacked.

I've talked with numerous atheists who live their lives as if there WERE ultimate meaning, and that sacrifice for others meant something, and love meant something, beyond what we pretend it to mean before the sun goes out.

In this case, I think it's productively fun to say, "You know -- you don't actually believe what you're saying, and I can tell, because you are such a good (father, for instance.)"

Ultimately, if there's nothing but matter, nothing, including the survival of the species, matters.

I don't think you have to "prove" anything, or disprove anything. Persuasion happens when we actually believe what we're saying, and, like I wrote, what you really believe is what you do.

[Wolfie]

I agree with your statement on how the video misinterpreted the definition of the word "fool".

You have a good point in your morality paragraph.