A legion of faithful sheep will attest to the incongruity of this title. These many would attempt to correct me, saying, “ O, son, I think ya made a misstake and fergot to add the a- in front of that theism werd their.” Or,“We sa jus little sheeps on da pasture following our savia wit grace and love.” But, despite the subtle perception of theistic worship(in all its shades), I have not made a mistake, and I will attempt, in the sentences that follow, to bring the reader behind that thin veil of piety which shrouds these believers in sanctity, and seems to make their beliefs off-limits to the illuminating light of critical reasoning. I will also take on the task of showing that, since atheism is a merely an effect of the reasoning faculty, it is entirely just.
In order to develop an accurate concept of the opponent, I will give an accepted and relevant definition of theism. Theism is the belief that there is a god or gods which created the universe, its laws, and its life, and that these god/gods play an active part in reality; having a will which can be adhered to, being able to perform capricious miracles, and harboring a care for mankind. Theism colors its gods in the light of kings and despots; bestowing a few morsels of their infinite wealth upon those within their court who kiss their ass the most, calling this grace, and punishing those who do not bend and salute every waking second of their life to them by punishments varying in violence from death of a first born, to eradication by fire. Any lesser definition of god/gods is not theism, rather pantheism, or a deism of some sort.
A search of theology for answers pertaining to the existence of Yahweh or Zeus will only find vague trails of base logic into forests of loose concepts. Out of this forest these scavengers contend that they have found irrefutable evidence for the existence of their Yahweh.The theist apologists of yesterday and today have a devious method of ‘proving’ their Yahweh, or their Allah, through simplistic algorithms which, at best, only leaves the possibility of a pantheistic god of sorts, some impersonal entity incapable of miracles, some first cause, which could just as well have a cause itself. They jump from the assumptions arrived at through the Cosmological Argument, for instance, and say that the uncaused cause, must be Yahweh. Well, I can make an equally foolish jump and say that the uncaused cause was a flying bowl of tuna, and that we should thus worship that fish, that we should sacrifice everything to that fish, or else burn unto eternity. This jump, though, would be arrogant, it would constitute an overstep of reason, and as soon as I believe that my tuna is absolute truth to everyone equally I become an arrogant priest. What makes my tuna religion any different than Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Zoroastrianism, or Hinduism, accept the lack of millions of tuna worshiping adherents?
Any person who believes that this jump is justified, who makes this jump, whether with knowledge or due to ignorance, and who evangelizes that this nether region of logic is truth, is fitting of the label ‘Arrogant’. (Arrogance being here defined as an offensive display of superiority or self-importance; an over bearing pride.) They have to believe that the universe revolves around planet Earth, and that the world revolves around man, and they have to found their beliefs on their perceived capability to know truth without external evidence. This is Narcissism, arrogance, hubris, and, of course, as true as a pile of horse-shit is palatable, despite the masquerading and pious facade of the believer.
Conversely, atheism is a scion, not of an overarching arrogance such as birthed theism, but of pure reasoning. Reason being that faculty which, through incremental steps, scales the mountains of obscurity and declares, upon the peaks, “Men do live on the antipode, the Pope be damned.”Atheism negates man’s immortality, it does not enfranchise morality, it says the universe is cold and impersonal, and it does not attempt to describe the ineffable. An atheist simply states that, in light of the lack of evidence for, and the piles of evidence against, I cannot honestly believe in a theistic, personal god. Now one must here question with the same integrity whether this is arrogance, or something closer on the spectrum to piety.
Does the atheist overstep the capabilities of logic? Must he take the form of a lion, destroying and devouring all opposition, in order to spread his ‘truth’?Does he formulate a region of demons and unquenchable fires which is reserved for all those who believe in a theistic god? Must he commit to a holy war, where men kill and rape righteously, in order to gain a parcel of land that he deems holier than any other piece of land? The atheist, in most cases, is willing to receive criticism of his behavior and his beliefs, he believes in the accuracy of the scientific method, and concomitantly he understands that any personal conviction which doesn’t stem from empiricism is likely frivolous. Does this sound like the behavior of an arrogant person? Conversely, the theist is convinced of the truth of his perception even though such perception lacks an external origin. A believer in religious myth will say that the evidence lies within. They agree that their reasoning is subjective, but assert arrogantly that their paradigm conforms exactly to the objective universe. Does this sound like a portrayal of humility? I leave this to the reader to decide.