Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State

Aug

2011

On Morals: Why Atheism Trumps Christianity

Author: admin / admin's blog

Log in or register to post comments

Any religion that requires the acceptance of its ideas on faith alone is admitting that its doctrines cannot stand on their own merits nor withstand any critical examination. They require that their adherents accept as truth their authority, and Christianity is a perfect illustration of this point. The belief in a god is irrational, as are those who accepts the belief in a god. Once this leap of faith is made, it only takes short steps to abandon the standards of rationality and lose the ability to distinguish truth from falsehoods. When one examines the doctrines of Christianity, it is revealed not to be the bastion of wonderful moral standards. To the opposite, Christian morals are contrary to our well being and to our society.

The belief that there was a divine man who died for the sins of the world is a grievous and immoral notion. It amounts to human sacrifice. If this were even suggested in real life, such as someone offering to become victim of capital punishment for another’s crime, there would be cries from from every corner of society denouncing this action. Given that, then by what possible stretch of the imagination does an immoral idea such as this suddenly become moral when it is the murder of the fictitious Jesus is a substitution for the “crime” of another person or persons? Obviously, the answer is to instill guilty feelings. There can be no other logical purpose. When you look at the base doctrines of evangelism, it is very apparent that fear and guilt are the basic emotions that are used by Christianity to convert its targets. Those who eventually walk away from their faith were probably converted through fear alone, as a fearful person may eventually rebel. However, those who become life long adherents were more than likely converted through both fear and guilt, because a person with deep feelings of guilt is not likely to rebel. The alleged “sacrifice” of Christ has served the church very well over the millennia.

The basic problem with Christian morality comes down to it being little more than a primitive system of reward and punishment. Be good, don’t ask questions and stay in line and you will be rewarded. Be skeptical, ask questions and use your mind in a reasonable and rational manner and you are consigned to eternal punishment in the most horrible place, forever. Although some churches have modified this and a few have even eliminated, this system has remained fundamental to Christianity throughout the history of the church. The whole idea of heaven and hell is a perfect illustration of just how the the core of Christianity is against reason, rationality and even life, itself. The faith elevates ignorance and non-productivity and suppresses creative and innovative thought. One competent scientist is worth more than a thousand evangelists.

Christianity teaches its followers to meek and mild, to accept their lot in life. This might seem like humility at its best, but consider the fate of a country that adopts this attitude and how easy it would be for any despot to seize and keep power. Does this not assure the perpetration of evil and is this doctrine not carte blanche for every injustice imaginable? It is no accident that the bible lacks any story, tale or parable about the oppressed rising up against their oppressors. Hitler and many other dictators over the centuries all looked to the bible for justification of their actions. And they have found it there.

There are many other problems with the alleged “divine ethics” of the Christian faith. Slavery, which was widespread in biblical times and continues to be in many countries, is not only not admonished in the bible, but instructions on how to treat slaves is part of holy scripture. As a general rule, women are treated as second class citizens because Christianity is a male-dominated social hierarchy. The Apostle Paul even tells women to never speak in church, along with a plethora of other misogynist requirements.

Christianity not only brings on feelings of guilt, but its promotion of death over life is morbid. The fact that a cross, a symbol of suffering, torture and death is the icon of the faith illustrates that Christianity is a philosophy of death and has turned real human values into non-values. Suffering has become noble and death has become eternal life. Pictures and illustrations of blood gushing wounds on the fictitious Jesus abound almost everywhere and blood rituals such as communion are core practices in almost every church in the world. The bloody image of a man on a cross desensitizes the faithful and causes them to believe that suffering and misery are expected and death is the only escape. Christianity teaches that all people are evil and destined to a life of pain and suffering and hope only lies in the salvation of Christ and his assurance of a heavenly reward after we die and those who do not believe will be eternally punished. I find it hard to contemplate a more evil system.

The faith purports itself to be non-judgmental, as the notion of “judge not lest ye be judged” is often cited by Christians. Literally, this means that only the Christian god can judge anyone’s actions to be immoral. This is one of the most damaging doctrines of the faith because it assures that the weak will be perpetually doomed to suffering under the strong. However, much like the ecological issue, the Bible makes up for this by assuring the weak that they will eventually inherit this new earth. It is the pinnacle of ignorance not to judge people like Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler, but to just turn the other cheek, believing that in the next life everything will be sorted out.

Of course, Christianity, by design, demands ignorance. Both naiveté and willful ignorance is at the core of a faith that is contrary to the development of knowledge through reason and rationality. It clearly teaches people people not to trust in reason, and to only accept – without question – the dogmas of the church. Faith is elevated above reason in every church to one degree or another and there have been countless lives wasted in the world’s convents and monasteries. These lives are spent in poverty, reading the bible and praying for whatever. However, this subservience to Christ only amounts to an staggeringly immense loss of much human potential. The fact that billions of people are convinced that all the answers they need lie in the bible and thus they have no incentive at all to look beyond it. The religious withdraw from the world while the reasoned seek to improve it. This withdrawal from the world, coupled by the teaching that the earth was created solely for the benefit of the believer has contributed to widespread ecological disaster. This belief makes it easy to justify the destruction and wanton depletion of our natural resources because, after all, Jesus is coming soon and will give us a new earth.

If the history of religion has shown us anything, it is the fact that it is inherently evil in its insistence that rational thought is to avoided at all costs. It keeps its believers in line through fear, and is the chief source of a vast majority of crime, either directly, indirectly or psychologically. The fact that atheists and agnostics are a small minority of the prison population shows that Christianity is not only nonessential to morality, but in many cases, the antithesis. Evil has a completely different meaning to an atheist than it does to a Christian. From a Christian point of view, evil is not following orders, thinking independently and questioning doctrines, dogmas and myth.

For those of us who are unbelievers, evil can best be described as the abandonment of our minds to the minds of others. To us, it is a travesty to blindly accept any doctrine on faith. We believe that the ability and willingness to stand alone, when necessary, and tell the majority that they are wrong is the pinnacle of virtue, and thus, atheism is the only honest, rational, and moral position to hold.

- Al Stefanelli, Georgia State Director - American Atheists, Inc.

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 08/30/2011 - 10:33

Dear Al,

You can't read any real Christian Apologetics and see an advocating of faith without reason. Galileo and Copernicus, because of Faith in God helped create or substantiate the Scientific Method because they believed that the Universe God created had rules governing it, theories and phenomenon were testable, and so things could be tested and proven because of the surety of those rules, no longer basing thought on the superstition of mythology. They (and I, not to be compared with those great minds) moved away from religious superstition which is faith without reason, which we are never called to (you care to quote a scripture substantiating your assertion?), and looked at God in the Bible with open eyes. (For your information, my Dad was T.C. Fry, a claimed atheist, and friend of Madelyn Murray O’Hare who stayed or visited with us during her lawsuit in the 60’s).

Christianity, like any other body of thought, can be practiced selflessly or selfishly (Jesus, whom I follow, although He taught selflessness, tells us we are naturally bent to love ourselves “No one ever hated his own flesh. . . so love others like you love yourself”). We don't have to be taught to be selfish, we are that already. Christianity can falsely be used as an excuse for almost anything irrational or many a foolish act, and sometimes evil treatment of others, but Atheism has also been used brutally, like with Mao Tse Tung and Stalin, but even on a grander scale. How much more were Atheistic regimes marked by people being like cattle, treated like cattle and governed with contempt? So would you then argue everything Lenin and Stalin did was a result of the tenets of Atheism? Were they using intelligence or brutality when they removed the farmers from the farms and installed their “Friends” and political allies to keep them, and thus overly reduce the efficiency of the farms, resulting in the “smart”, “intelligent” and “wise” reduction in produce coming from them? That makes sense!?!

You use very weak argument, saying atheists make up a very small part of the imprisoned population, so therefore: . . . whatever! What percentage of the population is atheist? What percentage of the prison population is atheist? Is there a real correlation? Is that science or conjecture? (Of course to be honest, with a short amount of time to write an argument, I’ve used the same sort of thing to substantiate my own argument, whatever pops into the mind, makes sense to me and sounds good, right?) But you need to have better argument. Your argument sounds like one of my college papers, where the best part of my arguments to me were my own thoughts and words, not the real truth in them. Jesus was not fictitious, read the Jewish, Non-Christian Josephus’ Antiquities writings. Also, read Lee Strobel’s books, The Case For Christ and The Case For Faith. He was an atheist who came to faith through search and reason, but really took a closer look at what he wrote-off before.

You said, “It is no accident that the bible lacks any story, tale or parable about the oppressed rising up against their oppressors.”, yet Daniel stood up to an oppressor in Nebuchadnezzar, as did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, even to their imminent death and were instead victorious. Your generalizations show you ignore what really is, so you can substantiate your argument without true scholarship.

"On Faith Alone" is a misnomer. Faith is always based on evidence. Evidence is two-fold, empirical and testimonial, and all evidence must be weighed. Once one "knows the Lord", then we know that when we put our faith in Him instead of our own perception, then we will understand on the other end, but that doesn’t mean we don’t try to understand in the middle. It’s a matter of relationship and trust, not blind subservience. We don't abandon reason, reason is a great tool, but we also understand the weakness of our position and don't jump to conclusions about what is, because of how we see it, before we find the evidence for it. “Lean not on your own understanding” does not mean don’t understand, as a matter of fact, have you forgotten how much the Bible teaches about getting knowledge and wisdom? Your article is ignorant of the Bible, and more knowledgeable of your perception of it. Is that Truth? Isn’t that the judgment that the Bible teaches not to use, self-serving judgment, instead of righteous judgment? The One who says, "Judge not so that you won't be judged" also said, "Judge with righteous judgement." To the one who knows Him, it means don't be self-serving in how you look at others, always looking to condemn others by your own standard, but judge with righteous judgment. Take yourself out of the picture and know what's right. Now if you don't get that, it's because you are making yourself out to be a judge of everyone's motives and condemning based not in truth, but in your own understanding, a very subjective thing. We as humans often do things to justify ourselves knowingly or unknowingly. Our comfort with our own paradigm means for us that everything has to fit in our minds (be subject to our perception, specifically or generally) whether we have a grasp on it or not, there has to be some perceived uniformity. All objective truth is subject when it comes to you perceiving or knowing it (though truth is not subject to you) in that you can't interact with it knowingly without some subjectivity. If the wind moves and it is gentle, yet you are covered head to toe with thick clothing, depending on what you are doing, you might not perceive it. The Truth is that when one hears the gospel as in "Today, when you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts. . ." There is a testimony that is beyond our natural perception, except that it is like the fact that we do not see air, but see its effects, we can't see or hear God's Spirit, naturally, but we can see His effects if we are paying attention. That is all subjective, somewhat, but I do not tell you to just take my word. You have to have your own encounter with God, and since you think Him a fable, you won't look or perceive. But, to perceive takes the simplicity of a child, or it isn't available for all. All you have to do is be honest and sincere. I didn’t believe until God made Himself known to me. I wasn’t seeking Him, but I did want to know. (and the Bible does say God will reveal Himself to those who were not looking) Believe me, I know all the atheistic arguments, growing up around my Dad, but once you have met God and know Him, you would have to lie to say you didn’t.

For you and me, the problem is not the Truth, but our perception of it. If we understand the weakness of our position, then we can see a little more honestly and clearly. We have to understand that our perception is relative to Truth, not the other way around. Truth is never relative. You and I have something at stake in the matter, making us unqualified to judge Truth. We must recuse ourselves from standing as authorities. Truth itself is the authority, and we can do our best to study, perceive as clearly as possible, and align our arguments as cogently, and logically as possible, but to not understand our own weakness and subjectivity and vulnerability in the process is to be ignorant of the Truth.

If you don’t see the Design of God in Nature and in DNA, and you white wash your intelligence by using “Billions and Billions of years” to ignore it, then you are not using true reason, but ignorance. Don’t you ask, “How?” How did things change, how did the nature encountered that required adaptation and change, communicate to the living thing what to do to change? Of course if didn’t, so did the living thing’s DNA just change by chance without knowing what it was changing and just got lucky -- gradually over Billions and Billions of years? Does the pressure to change by the Natural Whatever the living thing encounters work over on DNA and make it change in a corresponding gradual way? How would it know how to change? Did it have the “Billions of Years” to make the change before its survival was ultimately threatened by nature?

Now we see that adaptation is built into the code of DNA, but we see that not by studying the code, but its results. However, we don’t see that intelligence telling us how a light sensitive nerve in a sponge would “evolve” into a spherical eye that has rods and cones and a self-focusing lens all the while it uses the laws of light and lenses to invert the image and tell the brain to re-invert it? Look deeper, or, do we just accept it on faith and not question it? Are you basically saying that “Evolution” is a fact, an obvious given, that the fact that we are here is enough? Sounds like religion to me, Al.

When is an “Accident” intelligent? When you add “Billions and Billions of years” to it. When is Chance Destiny? When you add “Billions and Billions of years” to it. When are the intelligent stupid, when they equate natural selection, and micro-evolution (which are both really DNA-built adaptation) with Origins and macro-evolution. You’ve missed the presuppositions you take into account. You have presuppositions (as we all naturally do), but you don’t acknowledge that without them your arguments don’t stand, and that you need them to survive in your paradigm philosophically. Your presuppositions are your beliefs you take without question. Look deeper.

Take Care, Wendell

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 08/30/2011 - 14:56

Wendell Fry,

It pains me to once again see the "Stalin/tenets of Atheism" argument used by someone not intentionally trying to sound like a blithering idiot. To say that Atheism has tenets would make a religion, or at least a system of some sort. It isn't. There are no tenets of Atheism. To quote a very talented YouTube cartoonist, "If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color." Christianity is a religion and does have tenets, many of which encourage slavery, mass murder, misogyny, etc. Also, many brutal dictators have used the tenets of some religion to defend their savagery. Now you may attribute this as a misinterpretation of these tenets, but interpretations have no guidelines; they are unique to the interpreter. The fact that religious tenets can at all be interpreted as a justification for evil indicates a major problem.

"Faith is always based on evidence." WTF! No it isn't! The very definition of the word faith is believing a claim to be true without evidence supporting the claim. Faith, by definition, is NEVER supported by evidence. If one were to study a claim backed by observable evidence, he would come to the same conclusion as the initial claimant, based on that evidence. That does not occur with faith. One can say "I have faith it will not rain" and end up with a stupid look on their face when it does. "One can say, I have evidence that it will not rain because of my knowledge of meteorology" and be correct. Faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.

And what proof is there of God's design in nature in DNA? If God designed DNA, then why did he design it with massive tracts of blank coding information. Massive portions of human DNA have absolutely no coding on them whatsoever. What is the purpose of those blank tracts? The emphasis on "billions and billions of years" highlights the extremely lengthy trial and error process behind natural selection and evolution. This process is underlined by the fact that 98-99% of the living species that have ever inhabited this planet are now extinct.

With hope that you'll learn from this:
Al (not the author... just another guy named Al)

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 09/07/2011 - 03:19

Do you honestly 'believe' that leaving a 'christian' argument on an atheist site is going to change anything?

Why did you even waste your time posting here?

You have as much of a chance in convincing us that god exist as we do in convincing you that (it) doesn't

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 09/07/2011 - 15:08

@whoknew42: I appreciate the Wfry's post, although I disagree with most of it. This type of dialog should be encouraged -- it was honest and reasoned although misguided. If we atheists are right, why would we discourage this type of thoughtful response? And, while, he was not able to change my mind on atheism, he was able to adjust my thinking and arguments to be better prepared the next time. Win!

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 09/08/2011 - 17:44

So you aren't agreeing with your fellow atheist philosphers (and wannabee Philosophers, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens) then? This is quite odd.

Clearly "meaning" was linked to "purpose" so I did not intend it to mean "meaning" as in "cognitively meaningful". That was your misunderstanding. If I had intended that then I could not have suggested that these atheists were communicating anything meaningful [and clearly I did]. So I think that's an obvious and desperate misrepresentation of what was intended. I also linked "meaning" to purpose and morals as there is overlap in the issues.

Frankly I do not care one iota if an atheist wishes to say that they must rebal against nihilism with personal "rebellion" or "will" or "act" or "subjective meaning". They still live in a meaningless universe ultimately, as they themselves admit, and THIS is what they cannot live with. Atheists cannot live with JUST a completely subjective account of meaning, purpose and morals since their lives contradict what their lying lips tell us.

"As an atheist, I have an extremely high value to life since it’s all I get — no do overs"

1. Can you at least give an argument for that there is no life after death? Are you the slightest bit upset that:

A) All good deeds go unrewarded?

B) All evil acts go unpunished?

2. If the Universe has not purpose then everything inside it has no purpose, so you can lie to yourself all you want, but the Universe doesn't care if you live or die. You live a meaningless, purposeless, valueless life. It is what it is. So Do you agree at least that Universe has "no" objective purpose?

3. Yes now we (Christians) have "different" values. Nice observation. But you are unable to say you have "better" values. You have no foundation to base your values on, or a measuring stick to see if you are living up to par.

4. If the problem of death and suffering poses a problem for Christianity, then Here's one for the atheist who is consistent with his presuppositions - try telling a parent who had their child just die that their death was meaningless and that Death happens, it is what it is, we as humans "Lie" to ourselves and pretend we have meaning, but the only thing that is at the end of the tunnel is worm food.

I would prefer to defend the existence of a good God in that scenario than defend the view that there is no significance or meaning in it. The only reason [consistent] atheists get away with this argument to meaninglessness is that they simply don't live it out. Sartre couldn't, Dawkins cannot, Camus refused to etc. etc.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 09/08/2011 - 18:29

"You are making an “ignorance is bliss” argument, then?"

No, not even close. Do you understand what Nihilism means? If not I suggest you look into it.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 09/09/2011 - 07:16

Thanks for the considered response. I think you misunderstood the point I was making -- very likely my fault for not taking enough time to connect the dots. I do know what Nihilism means -- but appreciate your concern and direction.

Rather than the boring round and round debate on word usage and meanings, I will simply respond to your direct questions. Maybe you deserve better -- if so, my apologies.

1) I cannot prove there is no life after death, so you got me there. Can you prove there are no Unicorns? I think the evidence for each is similar.
1a) Your premise that "All good deed go unrewarded" is severely flawed? If that is your experience, it saddens me and I sincerely wish you a more positive rest of your life. Better yet, though are those good deeds that go unrewarded -- it appears that this is where your and my morality diverges. I am happy that I don't have to be promised a reward to do a good deed (and for completeness, I do believe many theists believe that too).
1b) Really, the same answer as 1a. What would compel you to believe that "all evil acts go unpunished"? The evidence against that statement is so overwhelming as to make me believe that perhaps this is not really what you meant to say.

2. You propose a straw man argument that I am lying to myself in believing that the Universe cares if I live or die. I am not lying to myself at all because I don't believe the Universe cares -- more importantly I don't believe the the Universe has the capacity to care. My family cares and those I touch care -- and I leave a legacy for them long after I am dead.

3. I would never say that I have better values that "Christians". That would be silly, just as it is silly for you to say you have better values than me. I don't know "Christians" (who is that by the way?) and you don't know me. I do have a set of values that I operate against and judge myself against those. Just as you do -- you just chose to get your values from your religion. My only qualitative argument was that it seems to me a purer morality to choose to do good without any promise of reward.

4. Death does not have any meaning, but life can be meaningful to those around you and those you affect. I do not need my life to have meaning to some anamorphic "Universe". I am content and happy loving my family and friends and the impact I have on their future after I am dead. Your point about the parent and the dead child simply restarts my original point in my original post. The truth is true regardless of whether it is painful or happy. The fact that a mother may be comforted believing that the child will have an after-life has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of that matter. He either will or he won't. It's as if you are saying "it is true because it makes me happy to believe its true" -- getting us back to "ignorance is bliss."

Finally, and in the same vein, what you "prefer to defend" has no bearing on what is true and what is not. Instead, it shows that you started with the conclusion (based on your preference) and are defending it regardless of evidence.

I, on the other hand, am eager to see any objective evidence that shows I am wrong so I can learn.

I appreciate the discussion and your thoughtfulness. I wish you a happy life.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 09/09/2011 - 12:52

"I cannot prove there is no life after death, so you got me there. Can you prove there are no Unicorns? I think the evidence for each is similar."

Ok so you concede, and your statement "can you prove there are no Unicorns" is meaningless, however This false analogy is a common fallacy amongst atheists that I see all the time.

All analogies must be analogous, and this is not analogous.

The first cause *cannot* be physical

As a rule, an anology needs to be analogous to have any potency.
Unicorn = physical being living in our world
Unicorn = a creature
Unicorn = contingent being
Unicorn = was born
Unicorn = mentally limitted
Unicorn = has some power
God shares NONE of these characteristics. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find ANY AT ALL!!! So when there is nothing analagous how can it be an analogy?

If the Unicorn does NOT have the characteristics of God, then if it does it exist, it would be CONTINGENT on God.

"If that is your experience, it saddens me and I sincerely wish you a more positive rest of your life"

1a) So you are saying truth = experience, this is an argument from personal preference, and holds no value. As I stated before if the Universe is purposeless then everything contingent on it is purposeless.

1b) Well, what makes something "evil" under atheism? An opinion? By me running through a red light could be evil some people, because I'm not following the laws of society, that is just silly.

Rebuttal to 1:

Philosophically consistent atheists are nihilists. The point I would make is not that they are depressing comments that these atheists make, but that they are consistent pieces of thinking based on atheistic premises - so congratulations to these thinkers first off for being honest at least in the verbal sense. However the fact that none of them can manage to live this philosophy they espouse. Not because it was "depressing" but because it is just completely self-evident that life is full of meaning and purpose and right and wrong and that is the philosophical and existential problem for philosophically adept atheism.

"You propose a straw man argument My family cares and those I touch care — and I leave a legacy for them long after I am dead."

???? I don't know if you understand what a straw man argument is, but it seems as though you are trying to say that because your family cares, that means your life is important. Well your family and everything in the Universe would be living in this purposeless Universe so again, we are back to square one. This is an argument from emotion. If Humans are Lying to themselves and pretending that a Purposeless Universe brings purpose, then this ends up being delusions of grandeur. That assumption clashes with another of your assumptions.

So now I take you are saying there is no such thing as objective value. So, no your death is not bad as such - your death is something you may not like or possibly inconvenient but it's not "bad" since that implies some objective wrongness in some way so you had best not talk of your death in such a fashion.

You haven't rebutted anything that shows me the Universe has an objective meaning, all you have supplied me with is your "opinion" which is showing that the Universe has Subjective meaning. This doesn't do anything to my argument.

3. You first say "I don’t know “Christians” (who is that by the way?) and you don’t know me." Then you say "Just as you do — you just chose to get your values from your religion."

How do you know I chose my values from my religion? Do you think every Christian on the planet follows what's in the NT? This is a case of special pleading.

How do "rights" or "values" emerge from valueless matter? Matter has properties (Shape, mass, color, texture, and so on), but moral value isn't one of them.

If God doesn't exist, human dignity, worth, and moral duty must have emerged from valueless processes. In fact, and in contrast, from valuelessness, valuelessness comes.

A Solely materialistic universe might produce in us feelings and beliefs of obligation - like the protection of our children or the survival of our species - but that's a different matter from actually having such obligations we OUGHT to carry out.

God's existence offers a ready explanation for the existence of value in the world. If goodness somehow existed as part of the furniture of the universe (Reflecting Plato's theory of forms), then it would be an astonishing cosmic coincidence that creatures would evolve over billions of years and somehow be duty-bound to moral values just waiting "out there"...as though these values were somehow anticipating the emergence of humans!
God's existence connects preexisting goodness ( in God's character) with these valuable creatures (in God's image).

4) "It’s as if you are saying “it is true because it makes me happy to believe its true” — getting us back to “ignorance is bliss.”

* NOW THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A STRAW MAN* I never implied that. because something makes us feel happy it makes it true nor have I even came close to stating something of the sort. First off if I wanted to be happy, I would have never chose Christianity, I'd rather drink a bottle of Jack and go hang out with some girls from the clubs. It seems you are trying to put words in my mouth, and this is a pretty dishonest way of debating, but I guess I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now and just say you misunderstood my argument. What I was implying is this as I will say it again.

If there truly were no objective meaning or purpose or morality beyond the subjective act then one cannot condemn a war as being objectively unjust. One also cannot take up a left-wing political position as a morally superior vision of creating some better social state for all. This showed that he could not have consistency in his view which is the point Hitchens means in his quote. One can think life has no objective meaning but one has to live as if there were.

Key Point "live as if there were" so why is it I never see atheists doing this?

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 09/09/2011 - 12:58

One more thing

Question 1a) and 1b) were speaking about Life "after" Death. NOT what happens in the PRESENT life...

Hence, think of consequences and rewards after one dies.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 09/09/2011 - 14:13

Cornelius... The commonality is not in the object (unicorns, god) but in the form of the question (trying to prove a negative). You seemed smart enough to get that point, my apologies for the overestimating.

You seem to want to debate words... I have no problem with certain ways of thinking about nihilism at all. Forgive me if I somehow implied otherwise.

And now that you're being clear on your 1a/1b questions, I can answer very simply: I don't care if people are rewarded / punished after they are dead. Not in the least. There is plenty of more tangible/immediate rewards/punishment if that's what drives your morality.

In some ways, religion serves a purpose for people (like you) that can seemingly only make moral decisions if you're promised a reward in some afterlife. If that's what it takes for you to act morally, then so be it. But, don't think for a minute that your morality is any less or more subjective than mine.

Now that I have reviewed other comment threads of yours, I can just hear the other member laughing at me for being suckered in by your comments. I thought we'd have an honest exchange of ideas... my bad. Instead, you go on diatribes about the difference between God and Unicorns -- either you intentionally chose to ignore that the purpose of the analogy or you are too stupid to understand it. I really do suppose the former, but either makes continuing a discussion with you pointless.

I do, however, continue to wish you a happy life. Even if you believe in an afterlife, I sincerely hope you don't short change your actual life.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 09/07/2011 - 19:46

This basically sums everything up on why Atheism and morals, don't live up to anything but depressing mindsets and lies that life actually has a purpose from a purposeless universe.

This is not a psychological attack on atheism / non-theism by the way. Whether a propositional truth claim makes you feel good or bad is no indication as to whether it is true or not. I am certainly NOT claiming all atheists are depressed. That would be ridiculous.

However, there is a good philosophical attack to be made on atheism that if it is consistent with its presuppositions that it logically leads to nihilism. Since this nihilism is completely contrary to the human experience [even of the supposed nihilists themselves] and contrary to facts about living then this is a good philosophical way of critiquing and criticising atheism. You could say these atheists are being honest about where atheism leads

Alot of atheist heroes stated here, ENJOY!!!

Here are some Non-Theist who saw the absurd implications of non-theism
"Man is a useless passion. It is meaningless that we live and meaningless that we die

- Colin Wilson

"Morality is herd instinct in the invidual"

"I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism."

- Fredrick Nietzche

"[Our] exhortations to moral virtue are not propositions at all, but ejaculations or commands which are designed to provoke the reader to action of a certain sort"

- A.J Ayer

"There is but only one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."
"Hence the intelligence...tells me in its way that this world is absurd. Its contrary, blind reason, may well claim that all is clear...But despite so many pretentious centuries and over the heads of so many eloquent and persuasive men, I know that is false"

- Albert Camus

"The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion."

Paul Kurtz

"We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I pointed out for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me...pure practical reason, even with good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

- Kai Nielson

"Being is without reason, without cause, and without necessity"

- Jean-Paul Sarte

"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; ...that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the aspirations, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the temple of Man's acheivement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- All these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built."
"Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless"

- Bertrand Russell

"If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is a bad thing to die"

- Thomas Nagel

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference

- Richard Dawkins

"People ache to believe that we human beings are vastly different from all other species - and they are right! We are different. We are the only species that has an extra medium of design preservation and design communication..."

- Daniel Dennet
"It could be that existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as this were so"

- Christopher Hitchens

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 09/08/2011 - 06:43

You are making an "ignorance is bliss" argument, then? If the truth is depressing -- which I don't believe for a minute -- better to not pursue the truth and allow ignorance to wash over me like a narcotic?

For what little it's worth, my belief is that life is wonderful as a standalone experience. As an atheist, I have an extremely high value to life since it's all I get -- no do overs. And, when I do good and exhibit charity, I don't have any expectations of being rewarded in some after-life, which seems like a much purer morality to me.

My life is intensely meaningful to me.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 09/10/2011 - 05:32

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 09/10/2011 - 05:35

One more thing, If you keep banning me, and not letting my posts go through I WILL make it known. I've already informed a few groups, and showed them this conversation. I don't see how I broke any of the rules at all.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 09/10/2011 - 06:06

If Cornelius was blocked for this, then I highly question the confidence of the American Atheists in regards to their arguments.

It looks as though Shaun wasn't even understanding half the arguments due to a lack of philosophical backround.

The main argument presented by the Theist was to show that values and atheism are an oxymoron.

Cornelius was correct in his arguments, and I never saw any rebuttals to that statement. Banning him for winning an argument isn't the best way to respond.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 09/10/2011 - 07:36

Couple things...

If you make a comment here and don't see it posted right away, you have not been blocked. All comments are moderated and sometimes I don't get to a computer right away. Sometimes it might be the next day because I have a life outside of the Internet that includes spending time with my wife and children/grandchildren. Be patient.

If you are a combative Christian fundamentalist and post on our Facebook page using the typical arguments that are so frequently employed by your ilk, yes, you will find yourself banned from the site. We don't suffer fools very well, and claiming that this constitutes an automatic "win" for you is even more foolish.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 09/10/2011 - 20:24

@Al Stefanelli

First point, usually when I post something it appears right away, earlier today I could NOT even log in.

You say "If you are a combative Christian fundamentalist and post on our Facebook page using the typical arguments that are so frequently employed by your ilk"

Now wait a minute, so all Christians who want an intelligent discussion are "combative fundamentalists"? What is your view on what a fundamentalist is? And where exactly was I disrespful and combative?

I've read over the rules and now after seeing what I saw here I have another question:

Is it ok if an atheist calls a Christian stupid, just because the atheist misrepresents an argument? Or is it only bad when a Christian calls an atheist names? Because that's what I'm seeing right now.

As far as "typical arguments go" I don't know what "typical arguments you are refering to, but the Classic arguments for evidence of God are always treated with respect by your own top atheist philosophers, such as Stephen Law, Walter Sinnot-Armstrong, and Quentin Smith. The arguments used from Brian Leftow, John Hare, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Richard Swinburne, Paul Copan, Keith Webb and Alvin Plantinga (3 Oxford dons, 1 Yale and 1 Notre Dame) have received respected responses from critics of theism.

Just last April, Sam Harris stated that he was happy to debating Dr. William Craig (Christian Philosopher), as the One Christian Apologist that puts the fear of God into his fellow atheists. Coming from Sam Harris that means something.

So if you are going to dismiss these arguments as ilk, then I'm afraid you either you don't understand them completely, put your own spin on them to match your preference, ignore them, afraid of engaging in them, because it is critical to your stance, aren't knowledgable in Epistemology, Metaphysics, Moral philosophy, or Logic (and I'm not saying that to be rude or assuming that YOU are any of these). If you are looking for an argument that leads to God saying "Hi" to your face proving his existence for you then that is just special pleading.

Why is it that we never see any of our points which have been published in peer reviewed philosophy journals ever get a decent rebuttal in these blogs? Are you aware that there are many Philosophical papers on theism that have been published via Peer-review process? The arguments I present are sound with logic, if one doesn't understand them it's not my problem, all I can do is help them understand. Is it known to everyone here that the existence of God is a philosophical argument that has been going on for over thousands of years? I don't look at this at this with a combative atmosphere, I look at it as intelligent discussion, critical thinking and a way both sides can get a feel for each other.

If one sees a flaw in my argument then point it out, that's what argumentation is for, I'm not here to start fights, I am here for intelligent discussion, if I get treated unfairly I WILL as I stated let everyone know about it.

The American Atheists seem very confident in their arguments, so I want to see how battle-tested they are, I assume I will be challenged and have a good discussion.

The suggestion there is a God is a theory, BUT it is a philosophical theory not a scientific one. This is a point which I find many modern atheists misunderstand. They seem to think that the suggestion God exists must make it a scientific truth quest. This is a huge mistake to think this way. Modern-day science is the quest to understand the physical universe. This means the question of the existence of God is clearly outside the remit of what it studies.

Lastly, Who is moderating what argument is good and what is bad, and what is their criteria? Do they have a biased stance?

I believe I'm being fair, and I will keep it that way. I'm not your enemy, nor do I ever intend to be. Now let's try this again.

It would be highly appreciated if at least you give me a warning this time.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 09/10/2011 - 21:30

Dear Al,

First of all, I am not a combative Christian fundamentalist and will not use mainstream "Christian arguments" to win you over to see "the light" of Christianity. Nor will I denigrate atheism. I am discussing your article.

Your article is entitled "On Morals: Why Atheism Trumps Christianity" but you have not convinced me of the truthfulness of this statement. Honestly, I came in expecting a thoughtful, enlightening argument and left highly disappointed. While your arguments rightly criticize some aspects of Christianity, what you called willful ignorance could also be placed on you in the way that you misconstrued information and used subjective statements for your own agenda.

In your closing arguments, what you argue against largely applies to very outspoken Christians who cannot reconcile faith and science, especially science from the mouths of very outspoken scientists. The earth may very well be billions and billions of years old, but that does not trump the theist view that it could have been created, nor does it undermine the possibility of life or punishment after death.

Also, not all unbelievers think that "evil can best be described as the abandonment of our minds to the minds of others" and not all believers "blindly accept any doctrine on faith." That is a generalization that any rhetoric teacher would berrate you about. As an atheist, you should strive to be more educated than the average college student, being in the minority (although not entirely because the video on the opening page of americanatheists shows that atheists are at least 15% of America and outweigh other minority religions in America) fighting the majority (namely, protestant Christians). You also do not concede to the fact the some people of faith have embraced religion despite being moral, honest, and rational individuals. C.S. Lewis, writer of Mere Christianity, was himself an atheist before embracing Christianity. His strength as a writer and individual lies in the fact that he struggled with his own doubt, and possibly continued to struggle with, to arrive at what he in the end believed to be the most rational decision.

Another thing, your argument focuses on the strong overcoming the weak- essentially, Christians as bullies. There is some truth in that sentiment. Especially in America, some Christians are very vocal about their views, even if misled, because they have the freedom to be vocal, esp. against other vocal individuals. Christianity as practiced in countries like Indonesia or China has a very different face that you might better sympathize with. If fear was the only reason to follow Christianity, why do many risk their lives to practice their faith in hostile countries? Are they all clinically insane? It is more likely they practice that faith because they believe it is the inescapable truth.

Next, people can use Christianity, dogma and religion in general to justify many things. But the way you express it in your article, atheism also has its dogma, namely, reason. I state this, even though you did not expressly say it, because in your article, you did not adequately define atheism but largely focused on American Christianity. Thus, you did not fully support your header "Why Atheism trumps Christianity".

And finally, the core of Christianity is a relationship with God through belief in Jesus as expressed in the Bible. Anything less is false teaching, or worse, legalistic and the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. That is Christianity and for anyone of that faith, it is a hard faith to follow with or without your arguments, even though in America it is watered down. Atheism is arguably far easier in that it does not require a "leap of faith" from its adherents. But of course, I also do not want to generalize. It is up to the individual to be thoughtful, authentic, and truthful.

Regardless of the fact that I do not agree with you, I hope that your main purpose was to express yourself honestly and authentically, as well as informatively. That I will respect.

Ernestly,
Reader

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 09/10/2011 - 21:45

One other thing, I really meant for my letter to be a lot shorter but I failed to preview. My fault, I probably could have made just as good a point with fewer words.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 09/11/2011 - 17:17

Guess what, "timeless apologist": you and 'cornelius2' are the same person. Sock-puppeting (& applauding your own wit while pretending to be someone else!) has earned you the singular honor of getting your dishonest ass banned.
Oh, & you were the other clown named 'atheistsarecowards!' in the spam queue.
Goodbye, puppet.

stephenix1015 / Tue, 11/06/2012 - 17:11

The right to criticize

The right to criticize religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion.-Markus Lattner