There is a common excuse that ‘You cant choose what you believe’… this is self delusion.
In reality we all choose to believe what we do, it just a matter of what moves us.
Some of us are more objective than others … yet being human, psychology still plays a massive roll.
We kid ourselves if we think we are without personal prejudice.
nyctophilia… “an abnormal preference for the night over the day.”
^^^ This meme I ‘liberated’ from the excellent facebook page ‘The Illogical Atheist’ because it vindicates an argument I made in a previous post Nyctophilia: Hiding in the Dark….
Through this meme… The Horse speaketh!
The important thing to appreciate is that many people choose to be atheists because they seek to pretend there are no morals by which they are duty bound.
They block out any and all objective facts of reality or sound arguments that challenge their coveted Nihilism…. closing their eyes, and their minds to any truth which threatens to awaken them from their Meaningless, purposeless, Conscienceless dream.
They keep chanting to themselves… “There is no God”.
In the words of Perfect Circles Maynard James Keenan…
“Best to keep things in the shallow end.
Because I never quite learned how to swim.
I just didn’t want to know”
Read more about my take on Music as a religion… Jim Morrison…. Maynard James Keenan Here>>> Jimi vs Jesus
More…. Nyctophilia: Hiding in the Dark….
“Keep things in the shallow end… because I just didn’t want to know…”
Seether: Know Thyself. How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? Part 5.
11 thoughts on “Comfortably Numb : Confessions of a Nyctophilliac.”
“…many people choose to be atheists because they seek to pretend there are no morals by which they are duty bound.”
That’s a big generalisation from very little evidence. Do you want to attach a percentage to ‘many’?
I’m quite skeptical of this unquantified claim, partly because it IS unquantified, partly because licence to do what I want is not a reason I recall having seen atheists give (are they all lying?) for their atheism, partly because atheists often earnestly discuss the basis of their morality, some claiming that morality is objective, others denying this – I have no idea of the percentages.
Nor would the atheists I have read say that their lives are meaningless, purposeless, conscienceless.
I’m making these comments not to start another interminable discussion about meta-ethics, the (non)-existence of gods etc, but because you have seriously misrepresented what I guess the majority of atheists actually believe. I don’t know who the intended audience of this blog is, but this looks very much like preaching to the choir. The atheist equivalent might be someone describing Christianity as a belief system for the ethically impaired who need a father figure to tell them right from wrong, unlike noble atheists who can work out for themselves that stealing etc is wrong.
Love Vigilance!!! Thank you; well put!
The reason that stealing is wrong is that God endorses property rights and commands, “Thou shalt not steal.” How can atheists—who, by definition, do not believe in God—work that one out for themselves?!
That was a very interesting talk you linked to; thanks for that.
Unfortunately, his atheist examples are rather dated, and all of them from European societies in which Christianity was utterly dominant and atheism very much oppositional, sometimes with high social costs for unbelievers. It would be interesting to do a study of atheists and theists in contemporary society where religion is much less dominant, including Confucian societies where god beliefs are rather different and less demanding than middle-eastern monotheism.
And as the professor himself pointed out in the last minute of his talk, “…the real issue has to be to talk not about the ad hominem issues but about the evidence, the logic…”; it was the ad hominem implication of the original post and its unquantified claim of ‘many’ which I reacted to, and I notice you still haven’t quantified ‘many’.
If people want opponents to take their own arguments seriously, then they must take their opponents’ arguments seriously. Ad hominem psychologising atheists’ motivations, even if correct, no more addresses their arguments than my cheap crack about father figures addresses theistic justifications.
As I said, I don’t want to start a discussion on meta-ethics. If you are really keen, I’ll have a go, AFTER you explain how you worked out for yourself that divine endorsement is always good.
Absolutely. The genetic fallacy is one of my pet peeves.
I’ll leave that task to the original poster. (Tim) There is dissent among the choir!
I give a brief explanation here.
‘Many’ means more than a few… but not all Dave.
‘Many’ Atheist kid themselves that they are indifferently judging ‘the evidence’ when in reality they have closed their minds and are incapable of truly contemplating the possibility that the God of the Bible might be true… from the evidence… or from even being objective about the veracity of the arguments they employ to keep belief at bay.
The atheist House is built from a pile of Bad ideas… like the idea that God can be compared to Santa.
Or that “All Wars are caused by religion”… and that therefore Religion is proven to be evil and wrong.
Or that Because many religions are obviously Man-made farie tales that this some how proves that all religions are.
Or That the theory of evolution is a scientific fact…. etc etc… etc.
And underpinning all this ‘will to disbelieve’ is a secret loathing of the Idea that they may be judged for their actions…. which few have the sincerity of Huxley to admit.
Thanks for the link, Richard. I’ll have a look, but not for a while. And my apologies for carelessly not noticing you aren’t Tim.
Tim. “Many atheists kid themselves… etc.” Quite possibly true, though you are using that elastic word ‘many’ again; much the same could be said of theists too, equally dubiously.
“The atheist house is built…” Too many straw men to be taken seriously; some atheists might use some of these points, but scarcely as the basis for atheism – more like cheap point scoring. Attack your opponents’ strongest arguments instead. When you persuade what I believe to be the overwhelming majority of biologists that their evidence and interpretations are wrong, then your claim about evolution will be more credible.
How do you know that Huxley speaks for large numbers of atheists today, or even in his own time? It is a bit insulting to not take people’s stated reasons at face value but insist that they have secret, indefensible reasons which you, but not they, can see.
This is, or ought to be, a ground rule of rational debate. It’s called the principle of charity.
Straw man? Commit it then to the flames!