Atheists are hardly ever self-aware

Atheists are hardly ever self-aware. Atheists are often false intellectuals. They are given a hypothesis – an answer to some of life’s hardest questions, and they choose not to build the premises to support the argument. The atheist says, “That doesn’t exist,” while taking a simplistic definition of “that” and focusing more of their efforts on straw arguments aimed at religious people. Some of which has merit.

God takes many forms across the world. To many, god is a man in the sky that created the worlds. To more, it’s hope in an afterlife. To some, god is an ideal – it’s something to pursue, something we can become. God is a goal, and gives not only answers to “what next?” But also answers “how?” How do I live out an ideal life? To simply say these definitions of God do not exist means that there must be other answers to the questions “What next?” And “How?”

Atheists are false intellectuals because they take the words in the Bible as historical truth and argue that science will never determine the absolute truth in the reading. There is no experiment that can be conducted to prove the existence or non-existence of a god as a creator and judgmental being in the sky.

This is the route and thinking of scientists, but it does not pursue the meaning of God as an ideal. The words in the Bible can be disproven from a historical standpoint, but the meaning of God depicted in the Bible and other sources is the story of all of us.

Atheists argue against the former. They choose the historical God to argue against, without delving into the meaning of God. When God is defined as an ideal, the criteria that makes God ideal can be argued – and should be argued. So should the validity of presenting a single ideal way to live.

Christianity presents an ideal way to live. So do other religions. The characteristics vary, although slightly, from religion to religion and tradition to tradition, but they each present an ideal way to live.

Atheistic views are simplified and do not extend to the next level of analysis. What is the ideal? Does this vary from individual to individual, or group to group? Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions really say, “No, ideals (embodiment of God) do not vary from individual to individual, or group to group. There are universal ideals that anyone can follow, and be happier and freer if they choose to follow.”

Self-awareness is the level that we know ourselves. It is our ability to know we are in control of our own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. We are in control of our happiness, or our lack of happiness. It takes a self-aware person to be happy when faced with difficult external situations.

People that believe in God, by any definition, are in pursuit of happiness by following the path of their God (their ideal). The God-fearing police their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. If they believe in an afterlife and a moody man in the sky, they will police their thoughts and actions because of their fear. If they believe in God as an ideal, they will act in accordance of that ideal, knowing it is both a challenge and a reward. Reward can be the psychological reward of not being dependent on vice, or it can be the satisfaction of knowing that the day’s actions were in line with the ideal being strived for.

Atheists deny the need for this policing. They argue it is best to be “unfiltered,” when really they are promoting action without direction. By acting without direction, individuals necessarily aren’t working towards an ideal – or anything.

It is easy to argue that there are good things to work toward. For instance, if you work for a company, you work to maximize profits. If you are in a relationship, you may have a goal to be more intimate. When you define these things to work for, these can be seen as your ideal. The highest ideals ever imagined and documented have been named “God” and published in Bibles and religious texts.

There are many religious followers that do believe the stories in the texts are literal events that occurred. These people deny published science that define how the earth ages and wage wars over non-believers, instead of understanding the meaning of the passages and the God they worship. It is these extremist, non-intellectuals that atheists choose to fight their intellectual battle.

Even these religious nut-cases can exhibit self-awareness that exceeds the simple atheist. These guys still do the policing of their thoughts and behaviors. They do these as God-in-the-sky fearing people that don’t wish to defy their moody god. Still, this policing is more than the by-the-book atheist pursues.

Now, not all atheists are the false intellectuals I described. However, I defined the common arguments atheists put forward, and the problems with that. Many atheists still create a code of ethics and morality to follow. What they don’t do is equate that perfect morality with God. Perfect morality has been defined and refined and documented for thousands of years. The most complete, eloquent definition of perfect morality is called God, and it is documented in the Bible.

It really is a circular argument only the most intellectual of atheists get into. They say, “there is no god. We can be moral without god. This is how to behave morally. This moral living is ideal.” What they don’t add is that this is how god has been defined – over and over. Just more eloquently and beautifully than the atheist’s academic paper.

Much more common than this intellectual that gets into this circular debate is the teenager who heard a few buzzwords that science must be repeatable under double-blind experiment and understands that the events in the Bible are not historical. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. This is usually a rebellious phase – a way to rebel against the ideas of our parents and “old people.” Many people do not stop this rebellion and never stop to consider the moral ideals that have been presented and discussed in academia and in church.

Atheists are hardly self-aware for these two given reasons. They do not explore the possibilities of the different definitions of God, and they do not seek or provide answers for the “what next”s and the “how”s without connecting it to an ideal, which many of us call “God.” Because of the rebellion against the definition and existence in a god, there is no attempt made to police or monitor the thoughts and behavior. Because there is no attempt made to monitor thought and behavior, there is no awareness brought to that thought and behavior, at least, no consciously. Because there is no awareness brought to thought and behavior, atheists often lack self-awareness.

Leave a Reply

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