Atheism is Arbitrary, Inconsistent and Borrows from the Bible

(Atheism) is illogical because it relies on strict materialism.

(A)theism leads to the path of absurdity.

Atheism is arbitrary...

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

because it is the opinion of man sitting as the absolute authority of any subject.

It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality.

It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality.

Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible being true.

Atheism also borrow the laws of logic from the Bible.

I do want to make clear that I am not arguing for theism in general, but for Christian theism. I unashamedly argue for the God of the Bible.

Isaiah 2:22 says, 'Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?' Next to God, the ideas of man are but a breath. God's ways are much higher than man's according to Isaiah 55:9.

(Referring to the above quote) This is logical, as God is all/knowing and man isn't.

When the opinions of man sit as the absolute authority on a subject, then they are arbitrary.

Each person sits in the supposed position of authority, so no one is in authority. This is the case for atheism. There is no God or ultimate authority to appeal to in an atheistic mindset. In the absence of God, man is viewed as the final authority on all matters.

Appealing to man's opinions as the truth is a faulty appeal to authority. Thus, it is illogical.

The entire philosophy of atheism is based on man being the ultimate authority on all matters which is an arbitrary position that can never provide a source of truth.

Materialist views say that, despite appearances to the contrary, mental states are just physical states. Behaviourism, functionalism, mind-brain identity theory and the computational theory of mind are examples of how materialists attempt to explain how this can be so. The most common factor in such theories is the attempt to explicate the nature of mind and consciousness in terms of their ability to directly or indirectly modify behaviour, but there are versions of materialism that try to tie the mental to the physical without explicitly explaining the mental in terms of its behaviour-modifying role. The latter are often grouped together under the label ‘non-reductive physicalism’, though this label is itself rendered elusive because of the controversial nature of the term ‘reduction’.

Idealist views say that physical states are really mental. This is because the physical world is an empirical world and, as such, it is the intersubjective product of our collective experience.

Dualist views (the subject of this entry) say that the mental and the physical are both real and neither can be assimilated to the other. For the various forms that dualism can take and the associated problems, see below.

Moral psychology, In psychology, study of the development of the moral sense—i.e., of the capacity for forming judgments about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad. The U.S. psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg hypothesized that people’s development of moral standards passes through several levels. At the early level, that of preconventional moral reasoning, the child uses external and physical events (such as pleasure or pain) as the source for moral decisions; his standards are based strictly on what will avoid punishment or bring pleasure. At the intermediate level, that of conventional moral reasoning, the child or adolescent views moral standards as a way of maintaining the approval of authority figures, chiefly his parents, and acts in accordance with their precepts. At the third level, that of postconventional moral reasoning, the adult bases his moral standards on principles that he himself has evaluated and accepts as inherently valid, regardless of society’s opinion. Beginning in the 1970s Kohlberg’s work was criticized by psychologists and philosophers influenced by feminism. According to Carol Gilligan, Kohlberg’s stages are inherently sexist, because they equate moral maturity with an orientation toward moral problems that is socially instilled in males but not in females. Whereas the male “ethic of rights and justice” treats morality in terms of abstract principles and conceives of moral agents as essentially autonomous, acting independently of their social situations according to general rules, the female “ethic of care” treats morality in terms of concrete bonds to particular individuals based on feelings of care and responsibility and conceives of moral agents as connected and interdependent through their feelings of care and responsibility for each other.