2 Dec 2012
Dialogue with an atheist - Part 4 - by P.K.Odendaal - December 2012
Dialogue with an atheist - Part 4 - by P.K.Odendaal - December 2012
What is an atheist really
GLC: Hi Atheist, interested in another session with me, about things material and immaterial? Or shall I say physical and meta-physical? Or what about this one ... carnal and spiritual?
Atheist: You have this funny effect on me - I detest you, but still I cannot help but listening to you - the same effect as people like Dawkins and hitchens have on Christians.
GLC: I do not mean it to be a sort of punishment, but rather an excursion into realms and domains where you would feel ill at ease, but still domains which exist. I know you are a materialist, and that you only believe in physical things, but leading a life of bondage in only one domain must cramp your lifestyle immensely.
Atheist: Ok, go ahead, what do you have in store today?
GLC: Your view on life.
But let us be clear on that. If you are going to say God does not exist because there are millions of arrogant Christians, then we might as well stop our argument here. I am not into church dogma. So leave that out of that argument, as I have left meta-physical and spiritual arguments out of it so far, but I am here today on an exploratory rational intellectual debate, with no holds barred.
So tell me. Why are you an atheist.
Atheist: Simply because I have never seen God or experienced His presence, and most of all because He has never been proven to exist. Of course I have this smokescreen of Christian hatred around me to protect my conscience from their negative impact on my life, but I see it is not going to help me in our discussion today, as you have already seen through it. It is also important for me that you understand what I feel and believe, although you have already intimated that you find it vulgar in the good sense of the word like in vulgar fractions in number theory.
GLC: What a beautiful analogy. Let's look at it, before you tell me your story. In fact, we may even touch on transcendental numbers, as many of you atheists are into Transcendental Meditation. A vulgar fraction is two integers divided into each other like in one divided by two. The result is not a whole number and does not exist in the domain of integers. We may call it a meta-physical number although just the thought of that is quite horrifying, partly because the integers do not even exist and partly because it is not a material entity and very alien to you materialists. Are you allowed to count - and does such an activity of counting - a process which does not physically exist - not disqualify you as an atheist?
Atheist: No, for us it is quite natural to count and to use fractions. I think you are driving this too far.
GLC: What about transcendental numbers then?
Last time we spoke about imaginary numbers, like the square root of minus one which can easily jump into the domain of reality, just by squaring itself, but transcendental numbers cannot become rational by doing that - they stay irrational, like many atheists. Such a number would be the square root of Pi.
But that was just a short digression.
How can you be an atheist, just on the basis that He has not been proven in your materialistic world?
Atheist: As long as he has not been proven in our materialistic world we will never believe in Him.
GLC: So you want to tell me that you do not believe in free will, because it has never been proven in the physical world?
Atheist: Of course, that is why we are determinists. We believe in the unfailing process of cause and effect.
GLC: Good! Then tell me what was the first cause.
Atheist: Mmm ... mmm ... well - there was no first cause. Causes have always existed from before the beginning.
GLC: Was there a beginning then?
Atheist: Neither - I just used it as a figure of speech.
GLC: But why are you entangle yourself with all these qualifications of things. Just say there was a beginning as the bible and scientist say or say there wasn't as Aristotle said.
Atheist: I do not think there was a beginning.
GLC: And why do you think so?
Atheist: Because a beginning has not been proven beyond doubt.
GLC: And God has not been proven beyond doubt?
GLC: So what is your last effect in this cause and effect game?
Atheist: I hope nothingness. Here's my views. I yearn for the darkness. I pray for death. Real death. If I thought that in death I would meet the people I've known in life I don't know what I'd do. That would be the ultimate horror. The ultimate despair. If I had to meet my mother again and start all of that over, only this time without the prospect of death to look forward to? Well. That would be the final nightmare. Kafka on wheels (from The Sunset Limited)
GLC: But I thought your innuendo that everything existed from eternity means that everything will exist until eternity, and here you suddenly end the existence of those things applicable to yourself - that is so inconsistent!
Atheist: But it has not yet been proven that everything will not end.
GLC: We will have to step back.
Are you an atheist because you have come across some concrete rational intellectual proof that God does not exist. If so, I am burning to follow that argument. Up till today I have not heard an inkling of such an argument - so can you please enlighten me as to this very important finding of scientists, philosophers and logicians who made this hypothetical deduction on a 100% confidence interval.
And let me warn you beforehand, that just as I cannot bring unsubstantiated evidence or arguments to the table, I will not allow you to do that either.
I must also warn you to leave speculators like Dawkins, hitchens, Sagan and the like out of the argument. They are none of the above. or do you wish to place the fate of mankind on the fallacies of three misguided and arrogant God-, Christian- and Religion haters.
Atheist: How can you say that about three revered proponents of atheism?
GLC: I'm a Christian who read this book and Dawkins's The God Delusion largely out of curiosity and I thoroughly enjoyed both. My final assessment? Great writers, but thoroughly unconvincing. Upon reading these works, one can't but help to get the feeling that their atheism, and their pure hatred of God and Christians in general, informs their science much more than their science informs their atheism.* (From a review by Joe Brooks of the book 'The Portable Atheist' by c. hitchens.)
(Note by narrator: I am using the unusual syntax for c. hitchens instead of Hitchens, as the latter arrogant son of Satan uses the following syntax as a name for his book : god is not Great. The use of this syntax is the most humiliating thing a man can do to the most high God - a God who does in any case not mind to be humiliated, as he was happy to have a manger as a cot.)
Atheist: You are getting uptight here in a rational argument.
GLC: I am a passionate person, like hitchens. Why do you not answer my question. When was it proven that God does not exist - a fact you base your faith on.
Atheist: It was never proven.
GLC: Then how can you base your faith on something which does not exist - and criticise Christians for the same?
Atheist: I never said that I have concrete proof that God does not exist.
GLC: But then you are not an atheist - you are an agnostic. So please get your facts right before we start on our excursion into the realms of philosophy, physics, meta-physics, spiritualism, quantum mechanics and probability theory, extra sensory perception, spiritual experiences, manifestations in séances and after death experiences. We will leave no subject untouched.
Is that why do you not want to admit your lie of stating that there is no God, until it has been proven so or not so? I find that a system full of bigotry. I will believe there is a God until proven otherwise, but then it must not only be proven in the physical realms, but also in the meta-physical and spiritual world. Until then - sorry pal! I am not prepared to expose myself to the wrath of a God which might exist, due to my own ignorance. That is the most basic tenet of mankind.