Ideological inconsistencies: Why would an atheist want to have children? (and other examples)

Photo by Elina Sazonova from Pexels

Why would an atheist want to have children?

No, it is not ironic or provocative. (okay, maybe a bit)

It is mostly an honest question.

Why would someone who thinks that we are just ordinary lifeless matter in a cosmos without meaning want to have children?

If we are nothing more than random sets of matter which happen to exist for no reason at all, then what is the reason that we would like more of these lifeless sets of matter exist in the first place?

The answer to that simple question is anything but trivial. It touches the heart of the problem of atheist thinking: Consistency.

If you believe that you are nothing, then you cannot possibly believe in anything. If you believe that you are a lifeless set of matter, you cannot possibly argue in favor of having Logos as part of your existence.

If you believe you are already dead, there is no reason to believe in life.

That is the great issue with men today: Inconsistency.

And don’t get me wrong. This is a great problem with atheists and Christians alike! (and also Muslims of course) Living by what you believe is very hard to do so. It always had been.

An atheist believing that he has to have children is nothing more and nothing less than a Christian swearing or a Muslim missing the prayers because he does not believe in them: A paradox of today’s complex era.

We might think that such paradoxes break the world.

But yet again, we would be wrong once more.

It is these paradoxes which make the world what it is!

Don’t you feel it?

There is something deeply irrational lingering in the cosmos…

You know its name. But are just too afraid to speak it out loud.


Do you remember me?

Modern Dark Ages…


Although the term ‘Dark ages’ is connected (wrongly) with the Middle Ages [see here for more on that], the truth is that today our time is more dark.

We live in the era of world wars, of communism and the millions of its victims, of eugenics (now disguised under the veil of “genetics”), of depression and alienation, of psychological disorders, of the surrender of the the control of our life to machines (yes, people have died because they listened to their GPS), of worshiping matter, of our dehumanization in general.

In these dark ages, we still think we live in the light.
Denial, is after all the main symptom of a heavy disease.
The only way to see the light is to redefine what we have defined.

We hate believing into anything, except in the axioms of science.
We like questioning everything, except the foundations of our beliefs.
We like proof, except when it leads to God (see Gödel).
We like data, unless they are against what we believe (see evidence for God).
We hate religion, except when it is Islam or Buddhism.
We worship logic except when we disagree with it. (see here)
We fear death and yet we see life as a random accident.
We consider the belief in the creation of life from lifeless matter as scientific, even though we do not know how and why this could happen.
We believe in parallel universes, but we deny to accept the existence of spirit which shouts inside us every passing day.
We believe in the creation through randomness and yet we strive every day with science not to leave anything to chance.
We believe we are not important and yet our every single action denotes that we are so much arrogant that we think we can understand and control the world.

In our effort to fight anything religious, we lack consistency.
In a world of cowards, this is the first thing gone…
We are the children of our fathers. And we do not even see it.

This is not a philosophy post.
This is more of a wake up call.
And no one likes wake up calls.

Wake up call 1

Students demanding religious freedom for Muslims but not for Christians.

See the video here.

~ To be continued…

Prove science with… Faith?


How can one believe science has no limits?

By the interpretation of Gödel’s theorem, no section of human knowledge (e.g. arithmetic) can prove its consistency by… it self. But this implies that it may be proved by means of another section of human thought.

So maybe the consistency of Science can be proved in… an un-scientific way? 🙂

Exit mobile version