The happy unbeliever

The U.S. New & World Report periodical recently ran an article on Atheism.
Here is a letter to the editor in response to the article:

Many thanks for Jay Tolson’s thoughtful “The New Unbelievers” [November 13]. What is new about the new atheism is that science is just beginning to explore religion as a natural phenomenon of the brain, not the super-natural phenomenon of gods, spirits, and demons that most people still believe it to be. Atheism is a positive and uplifting worldview. Liberation from darkness, superstition, and irrationality of religion often brings great happiness, along with a serious commitment to do what is right for our fellow humans and for our natural world-the only world there is.
-John C. Wathey
San Diego
(emphasis mine)

Hmmm, (stroking beard), whence cometh all these words of ethics, value and morality? Atheism is positive? How positively ludicrous! To say that atheism is positive is to assume a negative. Or rather, that religion is the negative worldview. Many awful atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but with the exception of radical Islam, most religions are peaceful. When the awful stains upon these religions, especially Christianity, were committed, they were in direct opposition to the tenets of their faith. However atheism has no barometer for goodness. See Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany for the logical end of atheism.

If Atheism is positive and belief in God is negative, then who or what determines what is the definition of positive or negative? Who defines what is uplifting? How about happiness-how is that given meaning? What of right and wrong? Something or somebody has to determine what or who is the measuring stick for these value-laden words. Is it society? Shall we place society on the bema? If so, would you prefer to live among the head-hunters of South America, war-torn Darfur, The Netherlands, The States, etc. etc.? Not that many of us have a lot of choice in this matter anyway. If we did then why would we choose one society above another?

I asked a co-worker in my office the other day whether it would be right to torture a young child. His response: “I wouldn’t like that, but I can’t say that it would be much more than preference”. He then went on to bring his dog into that conversation and compare mistreatment of animals with mistreatment of children... What really blew my mind was that this person is no dummy. He is a thinker. So much for thinking. Maybe I’ll just stick with being a simpleton.
If evil exists, and it does, then good must also exist. Otherwise, what on earth is evil? If good and evil exist then there must be a moral law to determine between what is good and what is evil. Once again, is this society? Verily not. Is this the dictatorial ruler? No. Is this the beneficial and democratic ruler? Nay. Tis none other than the law of God. If there is a moral law, there must be an origination of the law, i.e. there must be a moral law-giver. God.

I am stunned when I read something that an atheist has written and it is filled with judgement based on ethics, value and morality. These folks may think they are above religion, but they are not above the laws of logic. The law of non-contradiction snags them in a web of inconsistency.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the philosophy of logic itself proves the existence of God, but that is another discussion.

May I be found as a servant of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for that brings me happiness and is positively uplifting and right.