32634 The real view.
So let us ask in one characteristic what an Atheist is, the answer has to be the proverbial Carnivore that eats salads only. In simple terms an Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, sometimes because they just don't find it logical, and sometimes because they think of God as a scary person because something happened to them that made them not believe. Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. They actual a belief in anything that they cannot see, or that them give not that what they want to have. An Atheist is created by daily life, his aspirations and his disappointments in the performance in life. They did not get the promotion they wanted, not the man or the woman they wanted, the house they wanted or the money they wanted. For that reason and that is the only reason there is no God, He did not give them what they wanted, hence he does not exist.
Now, I'm not going to get to indoctrinate you or anything else to you because you believe what you believe, I respect your religion, and I'm one of the few Theists out there who actually don’t care what other people's religions are. Atheism is the view that God does not exist. Atheism is not a new development. Psalm 14:1, written by David around 1000 B.C., mentions atheism: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” And this simple line frames the Atheist. Recent statistics show an increasing number of people claiming to be atheists, up to 10 percent of people worldwide. So why are more and more people becoming atheists? Is atheism truly the logical position atheists claim it to be? Why doesn’t God simply reveal Himself to people, proving that He exists? Surely if God would just appear, the thinking goes, everyone would believe in Him! The problem here is that you have to believe as it is not God’s desire to just convince people that He exists. It is not a Presidential election were people only vote for what they can see. Belief believes what you know that exist without wanted to see the proof first.
It is God’s desire for people to believe in Him by faith (2 Peter 3:9) and accept by faith His gift of salvation (John 3:16). God clearly demonstrated His existence many times in the Old Testament. Did the people believe that God exists? Yes. Did they turn from their evil ways and obey God? No. If a person is not willing to accept God’s existence by faith, then he/she is definitely not ready to accept God. God’s desire is for people to become believers who believe God exists. Atheism cannot be proven in any form then by declaring God does not exist. They do not proof, charlatans who cashing in on Atheism like Richard Dawkins say the those who belief in God must proof that He exist, but if they then point out the proof they declare that is not proof as it could have been done another way. When we ask them for proof that God does not exist the answer is we do not have to proof anything, the Torquemada proxy, I tell you what you belief and you shall will belief it.
When asked which way they have no answer then science will proof it, the point is however that science more and more goes to the God principle. New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century books promoting Atheism. The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books. A more civilized stand would be; we are Atheists get used to it, not we are Atheist and fight the believers as everybody has the right to think what he feels is right. However, the Atheist feels that only they are right and the other 90% f the world population has to obey their wishes, deluded is the word that comes to mind.
A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views. Again the word deluded comes to mind, reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene. In short they want that their opinion as it is nothing else then an opinion is obeyed, that they and they only are right. No proof is needed, they are always right. It is difficult to identify anything philosophically like Nietzsche or Sartre in their positions and arguments, but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work. Mainly because of suggestion, probabilities and possibilities but NO proofs what so ever. In fact they are nothing else then people disappointed in life, people who do not belief there is a god which is their good right, however they do this by vicious attacking people who do belief in God. It is their way they go wrong as by this they show they are not Atheist but anti God crusaders, and what we know from the crusaders is they lost, something they should remember.
As such their stand is that they belief that there is no supernatural or divine reality of any kind. The epistemological component is their common claim that religious belief is irrational. The moral component is the assumption that there is a universal and objective secular moral standard. This moral component sets them as I mentioned before well apart from other prominent historical atheists such as Nietzsche and Sartre and, and it plays a pivotal role in their arguments because it is used to conclude that religion is bad in various ways, although Dennett is more reserved than the other three. The writings of Dawkins are a absurdity and only written to make as much money as possible by deluding people and the argument is just a money maker so to say, so is Harris although he tries to explain what he attempt to say even if it is very confusable.
Richard Dawkins states that faith is blind trust without evidence and even against the evidence. In fact he denies that there is a Universe as that would be evidence he does not accept. He follows up in The God Delusion with the claim that faith is an evil because it does not require justification and does not tolerate argument. However, he knows that religion does require justification; he just balanced the probability that people are not completely aware. In this he does this deliberate to confuse the readers while he knows he is wrong and deliberate quickly passes over this, as it is proven today as in history that religion was the centre point of many arguments, which resulted in the split off by Luther/Zwingli and Calvin. Whereas the former categorization suggests that Dawkins thinks that faith is necessarily non-rational or even irrational, the latter description seems to imply that faith is merely contingently at odds with rationality.
However, fact is that we living in a Universe that is created one way or another, regardless of he believes it or not. He cannot proof it otherwise if he refuses this then we is still waiting for his alternative. His point is that science will proof is also incorrect, science did not proof anything in that direction, many suggestions, many probabilities and even possibilities but NO proof, as such his books can be seen in the same category as Stephen King, being a fantasy. Harris’s articulation of the nature of faith is closer to Dawkins’ earlier view. He state that religious faith is unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern. According to Harris, faith is the permission religious people give one another to believe things strongly without evidence. In this Harris knows he is wrong, evidence is such as people will accept as evidence, not what he demands as evidence that is curtailing a humans right on self determination. Harris knows he is wrong as the evidence is visible any second of the day if he wants to see it, his arrogance however have blinded him for the reality. Others say that religious faith is ultimately grounded in wishful thinking. That on itself must be a joke, I belief, which has nothing to do with wishful thinking but with visible experiences and occurrences. For his part, Dennett questions whether any of the people who claim to believe in God actually do believe God exists.
I cannot speak for other people but I do, and there can be no argument about this, I have too many examples, which proof that without God I would have been death several times over. Since atheism continues to be a highly controversial philosophical position, one would expect that the New Atheists would devote a fair amount of space to a careful (and, of course, critical) consideration of arguments for God’s existence and that they would also spend a corresponding amount of time formulating a case for the non-existence of God. However, none of them addresses either theistic or atheistic arguments largely. Dawkins does devote a chapter for each of these tasks, but he has been criticized for engaging in an overly cursory evaluation of theistic arguments and for ignoring the philosophical literature in natural theology. The point of Dawkins is that there almost certainly is no God, however he fails to enlighten the reason for that; almost.
His point is that the creation by any God capable of designing a universe must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation than the one the existence of such a God is supposed to provide. In short, because he does not understand he claims it does not exist, just as we were told when we were kids that what the farmer does not know the farmer does not eat. Dawkins also says that the hypothesis that an intelligent designer created the universe is self-defeating. What he appears to mean by this charge is that this intelligent design hypothesis claims to provide an ultimate explanation for all existing improbable complexity and yet cannot provide an explanation of its own improbable complexity. It shows that although he pretends to have some intelligence he shows that he does not have the basic understanding. Why should a entity that is so powerful that he can create an whole universe have to explain what or who is, that would be like a farmer trying to explain to his animals his own existence. Dawkins further states that the God hypothesis creates a vicious regress rather than terminating one. This was asked him several times to explain something he could not.
Harris, who thinks that atheism is obviously true, does not dedicate much space to a discussion of arguments for or against theism. He does sketch a brief version of the cosmological argument for God’s existence but asserts that the final conclusion does not follow because the argument does not rule out alternative possibilities for the universe’s existence. Harris in this is of course right were Dawkins is wrong. It cannot be ruled out that there could be an alternative for the existence of the Universe. It does not rule out the simple fact that although there could be an alternative, the ingredients for the beginning can only be created by an entity with total power to create those ingredients. God. Harris wrongly, obvious did not think that through proper, reasons to deny God’s existence by pointing to unexplained evil and “unintelligent design” in the world. Hitchens includes chapters entitled “The Metaphysical Claims of Religion are False” and “Arguments from Design.” The evil and the infringement on the original design have however nothing to do with God, he created it but left it us the people to make a mess of it.
The more journalistic view of the cases for and against God’s existence by him amounts primarily to the claim that the God hypothesis is unnecessary since science can now explain what theism was formerly thought to be required to explain, including phenomena such as the appearance of design in the universe. However that is just the point science cannot, they have enough probabilities, suggestion and possibilities, but proof NO. After considering the standard arguments for God’s existence and rehearsing standard objections to them, Dennett argues that the concept of God is insufficiently determinate for it to be possible to know what proposition is at issue in the debate over God’s existence. In short what Atheist want is to see Him before they belief and if that is not possible then they do not belief which is their own choice and rightly so, but if so why threatening religion as the enemy do they not have the right the same right as an Atheist to belief what they find is right. As an Atheist said to me “I consider myself an atheist and a humanist. I don’t like any labels although of course I agree with Atheism’s” central argument: that religion should be examined by rational argument. I think all ideas should be examined by rational argument; however, what motivates me is a desire to allow everyone to be able to live an examined life. I think a world without religion would be fine, but I don’t think it has to be eradicated to allow everyone to live an examined life or for us to celebrate intellectual courage and honesty.”
This statement, tells it all, the Atheists see themselves as intellectuals and honest and the ones who belief in God as idiots and fools. However, the ones who do belief have been proven be the intelligent ones. So far the Atheist, besides making all kind of suggestions show that intelligence is far from them as they belief that something is not thru, because they cannot see it, while they themselves fail on all fronts to proof a single point other than the usual suggestions, probabilities and possibilities. OK we can understand that they are annoyed that they did get in life what they wanted, they are disillusioned and take it out on those who have faith and know that life is what you make from it. That it is not demanding things that cannot be fulfilled and then get a tantrum and say God does not exist, that is acting like a coward. From the religion point of view we are told go out over the world and work it. Our choice, our will, and we will make our mistakes, we can ask our God for strength, but the work we have to do ourselves, in such a situation He will help us when we are in need, and as I have experienced several times in my life He does. We not always see the way it is done but then again God works mysterious just get used to it.