Why Cat is an atheist

P.Z. Myers has a series of guest posts by folks who have decided that they are atheists.

Here's "Cat's" story, with my commentary:

Why I am an atheist – Cat

I’m an atheist because I don’t “believe in” God. Yes, it’s as simple as that.

Calling a definition a reason is indeed simple.

I don’t see any evidence that such a being exists (or plays an active role in the world, which amounts to the same thing).

Classical philosophers for several millennia have pointed out that that existence of nature itself presupposes Someone who is uncaused existence. The evidence for an Uncaused Cause is massive-- you can fill a library with the arguments in its favor. Aquinas alone devoted hundreds of pages of Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles to meticulous explication of the argument. Atheist philosophers (Flew), pagan philosophers (Aristotle), Jewish philosophers (Maimonidies), and Islamic philosophers (Avarroes) have made the same argument. But that's not simple enough for Cat.

That’s actually stating things too narrowly: the truth is, I don’t believe in gods. Or spirits, or the supernatural in any form, really.

Notice the sloppiness, characteristic of the godless "Brights". What does Cat mean by "spirits"? Things that are immaterial? Of course, all sorts of things are immaterial. Universals are immaterial-- truth, beauty, goodness, love. Reason is immaterial. The aspects of Cat's intellect that use reason are immaterial. Matter can refer only to itself-- a particular-- and inherently cannot manipulate universals, which is the domain of reason. So Cat is making the argument against immaterial reality with her  intellect, which is immaterial (spirit).  Self-refutation is characteristic of atheist metaphysics.

If something is genuinely supernatural – truly “beyond” or “outside of” the natural world – then by definition it can’t affect us. If it can affect us, it isn’t supernatural; it’s just a part of nature we don’t understand (yet).

Huh? Cat declines to inform us how she defines "nature". The classical definition is that nature is that which is a composite of potency and act and can undergo change. Supernatural is pure act.

She declares that she doesn't see any evidence for the supernatural, then defines supernatural as 'that for which there can't be evidence' (i.e. that which can't effect the natural world).

My head hurts.

So it’s fair to say that I’m an atheist precisely because I’m a materialist.

O.K. Cat, what's "material" about about your argument that atheism and materialism are true? The very act of asserting that your viewpoint is true is a repudiation of materialism, which entails the denial that immaterial entities (such as Truth) exist.

My head is throbbing now.

There’s a classic accusation leveled against people who’ve left their faith. “You were never a Christian (or whatever) to begin with!” That’s… actually kind of true, when it comes to me. I was raised Christian, but it was never a big part of my identity. It was just one more item in a long list of things that didn’t make much sense to me, but seemed to be very important to everyone else.

A lot of things don't make sense to Cat.

As I got older, and looked at it more critically, I quit identifying as Christian at all.

As you got older, you looked at things less critically. That's how you became an atheist. The usual story is that as one gets older, one begins to want things that Christianity says are bad for us. We face temptation.

Christians try to be good and pray for Christ's grace.

Atheists say 'Bye-Bye Christianity'.

The big turning point for me wasn’t realizing “I just can’t believe this” so much as realizing that the fact that I couldn’t believe it didn’t necessarily mean that something was wrong with me.

"Belief" is one thing, Cat. Logic is another. Belief is complex even for devout Christians. Even the greatest saints have struggled with faith. But the boilerplate atheist arguments-- 'there's no evidence... only material things really exist... science is the only way to truth...' -- are so transparently stupid that they deserve only derision.

That's where I come in.