Defining Atheism by a Narrow Minded Catholic

Posted By | 0 comments

random_atheism_picsThe atheistic viewpoint has always struck me as a rather narrow one as heard from its more dogmatic proponents like Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and the late Cristopher Hitchens. Their arguments are against the traditional Biblical god-this personal caring being who resides above, whose mind revolves around us, answers prayer requests, keeps a tally of good and bad acts, in control of the ground game here on Earth, and promises either blissful immortality or being tortured forever by burning. A god that exhibits primitive stupid human emotions of anger, jealousy and revenge; and a blood-lust that insists a human being must be horrifically tortured to death before he will save the world.

I grew up in a Catholic culture, and in our mind’s eye, god was envisioned as a white male with a white beard and a white robe-the Michelangelo depicted god. I was not a particularly religious person by any stretch, but that image remained for a good part of my life.


A good many of us have grown up being conditioned by this one and only concept of god by our family, culture and religious education, where the programming has been so complete, for most it’s close to impossible to view this one concept of god in any other context. To suggest another concept to them of what god may or may not be, their eyes glaze over as if you were speaking in tongues. And so it seems, this one and only god concept has reached out and impacted even atheists, as that is the concept they denounce and rail against as a myth. And I agree, that is not what god is.

That very circumscribed simplistic definition of the deity of scripture seems to me squandered effort and time by these famous cerebral so-called atheists to rail against so vehemently. There is a deeper broader scope in which to enter into more meaningful dialogue, rather than focusing on expunging this single primitive concept. And that brings us to the definition of atheism.


By atheists arguing about the nonexistence of the Biblical god, they are implying by default, this is the one and only definition of god, the only way in which we can think about god. What they should be discussing is what their definition of atheism is, first and foremost-could it really be only the nonbelief of this mythical god? It’s difficult to believe that this is what their definition of atheism is, especially people of such high intelligence and profound thinkers. Yet Dawkins himself describes god as a “supernatural creator.”

My definition of an atheist is one who believes that the physical world is the only game in town-that an immaterial reality does not exist. That would be a true atheist. I posed this question to Richard Dawkins through Twitter… he never responded. It was disappointing. Of all the aggressive rhetoric he submits to Twitter on this subject, he wouldn’t comment on what I thought was a profound question: Does he believe in an immaterial reality, a nonphysical realm? Perhaps he didn’t know how to answer.

There’s more than a hint that these so-called atheists have a soft spot. In reading Chistopher Hitchins’ book, God is Not Great, I found him to be a highly moral and spiritual person, although he didn’t describe himself as such.

religion-atheismImmaterial Reality

So, is the physical world the only game in town, or is there a nonphysical immaterial reality in this stunning, stupendous and majestic universe? Well, an unlikely source-science, has proven there is. There are least three profoundly mysterious intangible forces scientists have uncovered, and they have no idea what they are. The most compelling of these is that consciousness changes the behavior of particles just by the mere act of observing them. Another-quantum entanglement-Einstein described as, “Spooky action at a distance.” See my article, Intangible Forces Far Beyond Our Understanding. It would be more than interesting to hear from of a host of atheists, their answer on whether or not they feel there is a realm in our universe other than the physical. By the definition of atheism I posed here, I suspect their numbers would decrease substantially.

What Caused Existence

What caused all of this-planets, suns, us, water, gases, tigers, avocados, bacteria, bees, belugas? Whatever did, we would call god. What god is, how do we define god?… no one knows; it is just too far beyond us. As physicist Allen Wolf stated,

“I have no idea how to define god, to see god as a person or a thing. I can’t seem to do that. It’s kind of like asking a human being to explain what god is, is similar to asking a fish to explain the water in which it swims.”

Consider we live in a universe that is about 14 billion years-old. We, man, have been here about 200.000 years. In the context of that time frame, we are an early stage embryo, and anyone who claims to have the truth about this infinitely complex place and existence is laughable on its face.

In Summary

Just because one doesn’t believe in the traditional god, does not default that person into atheism, nor does it necessarily render them an agnostic. It simply means they’re secular… not belonging to any religion. Scores of people are not religious, yet they describe themselves as spiritual, believing there is an immaterial reality; there’s far more than meets the eye.

The definition of atheism should be expanded and not automatically defined by simply rejecting a perceived religious supernatural being. The grandeur and spectacle of the universe, and its mystery, is far too awesome to be captured in any one narrow creed.

Article Source:

Submit a Comment

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