Lack of belief?

If I lack a belief in tooth decay, there is no reason for me to brush my teeth. So when someone defines atheism as a “lack of belief” How then can a person who defines them self in this way, act upon that? Only a positive belief is supported by action.

If I don’t believe in the Gold Gate Bridge, I don’t walk across it! This just demonstrates the irrationality of Atheism. all of it’s definitions are not cogent nor do they pass the preconditions for intelligibility.spock lack belief

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Support of Transgenderism and Sex-Change Surgery Is ‘Collaborating With Madness’

By Michael W. Chapman | June 2, 2016

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, and former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital who has studied transgenderism and sex-reassignment surgery for 40 years, said the condition is a “mental illness” and to enable it is equal to “collaborating with madness.”……….

Read More at: http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-support-transgenderism-and-sex-change-surgery

To believe or not to believe

There are only three possibilities that I can see:
1. Theism (belief that God exists).
2. Atheism (belief that God does not exist)
3. Agnosticism (I don’t know)
If atheism is defined as a “lack of belief” then one can NEVER make a positive claim of assertion that God does not exist, because that is a belief. Having no affirmative belief in something is not humanly possible unless one is never exposed to the concept. Once a person is exposed to a concept or idea a belief is automatically formed.

Matthew Lieberman, a psychologist at the University of California, seemed to demonstrate how beliefs help people’s brains categorize others and view objects as good or bad (which is a belief); and this done mostly unconsciously.

When Lieberman showed a group of people photographs of expressionless black faces, he found neurological triggers in the amygdala – the brain’s panic button. It was triggered in almost two-thirds of the subjects studied. There was no difference in the response between black and white people.

Lieberman said: “Even people who believe to their core that they do not have prejudices may still have negative associations that are not conscious.” This is a belief! Though I do not subscribe to the notion that the brain causes belief but instead the belief triggers the brains response.

Dr. Michael Shermer wrote: “We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow.”

Atheism cannot be a “lack of belief”, after all they believe it don’t they? And that is self refuting.

Atheistic Irrationality

In 2007 Atheist Sam Harris said “Atheism is not a philosophy, just as non-racism is not. It is not a worldview, though it is frequently spock good and evilportrayed as one.”(1) What a violation of the basic laws of logic! It is impossible to NOT have a worldview. Anyone that says they do not have a worldview has a perspective on what a worldview is and a belief of why they don’t have a worldview; which is in essence….a worldview!

So Sam Harris states a belief about atheism while denying any belief at all, but he clearly believes it!

At the same conference that Sam Harris attended, Richard Dawkins stated “Religion is not the root of all evil, but it gets in the way of [determining] how we got here and where we find ourselves. And that is an evil in itself.”

But doesn’t Dawkins reject the existence of moral good or evil? After all he did write “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [i.e. no God], no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” (2)

These are observable basic inconsistencies in the atheistic mind. I would call it Doctrinal problem inside the church of atheism.

 

Bibliography

  1. Matt Purple, CNSNews.com Correspondent,”Religion Must Be Destroyed, Atheist Alliance Declares”, October 03, 2007
  2. Richard Dawkins, “God’s Utility Function”, Scientific American, November 1995, p.85

Redefine your World!

I often hear about people struggling to get ahead in life like it is a competition of who will climb out of the pit of life to stand victoriously on top of everyone else. These people often make the claim that they are destined for greatness or are born for a higher purpose in life.

Have we all been programmed to push our stress levels to the breaking point? To work harder and harder each day for materialistic gain that will never satisfy us. What definition of “greatness” have you been taught?

How do you define greatness?
– If you were to lose your health, or your spouse and your kids, would you be great? (I say no)
– Then aren’t you great now?

The insatiable desires of this world can trick you.

Apostolic Traditions

This is an excerpt from my upcoming book:

The Bible itself is an authoritative record of what God and his Apostles have commanded. Why should we even bother with any of the Bible if we do not except the whole of it? “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” – James 2:9-10 (KJV)

               Remember not to pass judgement on scripture for it is the Word of God and you make yourself the judge of God. The Bible is meant to transform every part of your life not just some of it. Our culture and mannerism can lead us astray many times over. We create certain habits that were from cultural influences that are contradictory to the Word of God. Things such as sex before marriage, fasting, proper human relationships and even critical thinking are influenced by the social structures around us. It is both undeniable and dangerous.

Many instances of your persecutions will be as a result of you wanting to follow exactly what Jesus and the Apostle taught. There are some of these traditions of the Apostles that are completely ignored today or explained away by culture and progressivism. For this logical argument I will use the head covering debate but you can put in any apostolic tradition you choose into the logical argument.

Logical argument  – Apostolic Traditions

  1. Apostolic traditions that are recorded in the New Testament are binding to the modern Church.
  2. Female Head covering is an apostolic tradition.
  3. Therefore Female Head covering is binding on the modern Church.

Atheism Defined part 2

“Our belief is not a belief” (Hitchens,pg 5), cries the atheist! What exactly is the atheist asserting with this? In using Christopher Hitchens’ own words here, if it is not a belief then there can be no claim at all. The speaker is not making a claim that can be true or false. In essence the statement is fallacious according to the first law of logic; the law of identity. A belief cannot be a belief and not a belief at the same time.

As Hitchens attempts to illustrate, many atheists believe that atheism is to be defined as a lack of belief in a God or gods. Please note again that a lack of belief can neither be true or false and because of that fact, a positive claim regarding the existence or non-existence cannot be made by any atheist who defines atheism in this manner.

Let me illustrate. Let’s say that someone tells you that they don’t believe in atheists. Your response would be to say “Thats absurd! There are plenty of self professing atheists in the world. Look at people like the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. What is your evidence for this belief?” All the a-atheist (a non believer in atheists) needs to say is “You are confused, my belief is a non-belief so I don’t have to give evidence.” You see because a non-belief cannot have a claim associated with it, the atheist can remain in his ivory tower of ignorance.

I say this because humans have the unique ability among creation that they can form beliefs. These beliefs are based on knowledge and experience, either first hand or vicariously. Something that has non-beliefs are non-sentient animals and children because of the fact of it’s ignorance. Animals cannot form beliefs because of the  inability to think abstractly. Children lack knowledge so ignorance becomes the foundation for their lack of belief. So any atheist that utilizes this definition of atheism, is outwardly confessing an ignorance of information.logical-fallacy-meme
When atheists argue, they are standing for a position that makes a claim and not a non-claim. Simply put if you lack a belief then you cannot make a claim. With this understanding I am surprised why so many atheists argue with theists when they cannot give any counter claim to the theist since they have no belief, under this definition.

Now if a person does truly lack a belief in God then that atheist, cannot argue against any proof for the existence of God. Because a lack of belief cannot make a positive claim that God does or does not exist. Therefore a lack of belief is by general definition is agnosticism, whereas you say that you cannot affirm or deny the existence of God because you cannot make a claim for such or are ignorant.

So the definition of Atheism that states that Atheism is a lack of belief is fallacious, unless the atheists does or says nothing. Some atheists state “An atheist is one that does not believe the claims that a god exists.” This definition affirms a conclusion and presupposes that a particular person, has studied all evidences and without logical fallacy, refuted all of them.

Atheist Journalist Greta Christina attempts to define atheism in this way: “For me, and for the overwhelming majority of atheists I know, our atheism is a provisional conclusion, based on careful reasoning and on the best available evidence we have. Our atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is unsupported by any good evidence, and that unless we see better evidence, we’re going to assume that God does not exist. If we see better evidence, we’ll change our minds.”

Before I dig into the meat of this statement, allow me to point out a few philosophical problems(and I understand very well that she is only trying to provide material for her article and not trying to make a logical argument). First “and for the overwhelming majority of atheists” is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. A majority does no make a principle true or false it is irrelevant. She makes a far conclusion that because there is no “good” evidence, she will “assume” God does not exist.

Greta is not using the argument that she lacks a belief. She is only making a general affirmation that she studied the evidences, did not like them, and so concluded that God does not exist. Well this thinking is also fallacious because even if there where no  evidence for the existence of God, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So here again her conclusion is not based on solid evidence for the non-existence of God but a conclusion she comes to without any evidence at all.

This definition of atheism also fails the test of intelligibility. Notice her use of certain words in the definition like “good”, “better” and “careful reasoning”. Under what standard does she maintain that a proof or evidence is “good” or not? Who is the arbiter of this determination and can she assure anyone that her reasoning was consistent and non-arbitrary? No she cannot; nor have the many proofs and evidences for the existence of God been refuted by anyone logically. They may be dismissed but not refuted, and that is the apriori fallacy.

Now a claim is a positive assertion that would require evidence. If one would say that this is only a belief then it qualifies as a religion.

Why don’t atheists see that they cannot believe anything to be true without God? Without God, they have already presupposed the inability of rational thought? In their Worldview, they cannot believe that human consciousness is anything more than a random chance chemical reaction. This presupposition means that they can never use reason to try to disprove God.

There are other so called definitions of atheism floating out there in cyberspace. It has evolved through the years as it’s foundations have been challenged by many christian apologists. In my opinion, this is only a sign of the intellectual dishonesty of the atheists who merely practices the fallacy of definitional retreat so that they may desperately cling to their failed worldview because to admit their sins before an Almighty God would bruise their ego.

Bibliography
Hitchens, Christopher God Is Not Great, London: Atlantic Books, 2007, pg5