Raving Atheist


I just love this site – – I read it daily and will blogroll it forever into infinity. I’m doing a blatant cut & paste from that site – only because I absolutely LOVE this post. from his site – I think it’s fabulous. Not that I don’t have anything better to say – – he just says it better than I ever could.

First, there is no God. In fact, all definitions of the word ‘God’ are either self-contradictory, incoherent, meaningless or refuted by empirical, scientific evidence. Although the nature of the disproof will necessarily vary with the god under review, I will usually be raving against the modern monotheistic (or triune) Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, having (in various permutations) the characteristics of being, conscious, all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-good (omnibenevolent), immaterial, transcendent. immutable, immortal, infinite, omnipresent, disembodied and eternal. Such a god is as much a contradiction in terms as a square circle, and thus logically impossible, for numerous reasons including the following: 1) omnipotence is impossible because God would, at a minimum, be unable to limit his powers, e.g., make a stone he cannot lift; if he could make such a stone, then his inability to lift it would defeat his omnipotence; 2) God’s omnipotence conflicts with his omniscience, because if God knows everything that is going to happen in advance, he cannot do anything in the present; he must simply watch the future unfold as previously foreseen, because changing anything would falsify his prior belief concerning the future; 3) God’s omnipotence precludes him from having knowledge of any sensations or emotions associated with weakness, e.g., fear, frustration, despair, sickness, etc., and thus conflicts with him omniscience; 4) God’s omniscience precludes him from having knowledge of any emotions associated with surprise or anticipation, and thus conflicts with itself; 5) God’s omniscience conflicts with his disembodiedness, since a being without a body could not know how to drive, swim, or perform any activity associated with having a body; 6) God’s omniscience conflicts with his omnibenevolence, since a morally perfect god could not have knowledge of feelings of hate, lust, or envy, or cruelty, etc. 7) God’s omniscience and omnipotence conflict with his omnibenevolence, since a god who could prevent evil would do so unless he were unable to do so or unaware of the evil. Further arguments may be found at http://atheism.about.com/mbody.htm and http://www.infidels.org.

Second, Atheism is not merely one possible theological theory among many. Rather, it is the only true, provable theory, and all other religious theories are false and delusional. The mere fact that you believe or have faith that god exists does not make it so, anymore than unicorns, ghosts, leprechauns would exist simply because you believed in them or had faith in them. Nor does the fact that you have a legal right to believe in god prove that god exists. Similarly, the fact that American law purports to be neutral as between theism and atheism does not mean that the theories are equally plausible.

Third, because there is no god, any attempt to premise moral, social or political doctrine upon a belief in god is fruitless and potentially harmful. Laws, judicial decisions or social policies , which promote, accept or accommodate religious beliefs proceed upon false premises and may have harmful and unfair effects. The law should employ the same standards of logic and evidence in evaluating claims based on religious assertions that it does in adjudicating (and frequently rejecting) claims based on every other type of ideology and belief. In fact, the law should be governed by a militantly rationalistic and atheistic presumption that discourages all forms of irrational and superstitious conduct to the extent it conflicts, as it frequently does, with the general welfare or individual rights.

Fourth, any person asserting a special individual right or attempting to dictate social policy based about a belief in god must first 1) define the god, 2) prove that the god exists and 3) demonstrate how the right or policy follows from the belief in god. Because there is no god, nobody will ever be able to do this.

The Raving Atheist

Posted in

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top