I turned on the farm show this morning before dawn just in time to catch the announcer reading a letter from a viewer. The viewer, an atheist, was incensed that the farm show continues to produce a segment honoring country churches. The segment honors a different church each show, and talks about the church’s age, origin, and community served. Most of these churches are a century old at a minimum, and some are several centuries in service. The atheist was offended by this, and if were not for the fact that the farm show is on a private network, and not publicly restrained, I’m sure that legal action to prevent the showing would have ensued.
One of the reasons that I began to question the validity of my own atheism is incidents like this one. If one thinks that atheism is tolerant because it insists on tolerating every previously defined perversion, then one is attending to only half of the equation. The tendency of dogmatic atheists is to strip away every vestige of society that is outside of their own cherished dogma, while simultaneously claiming "tolerance". Where have we seen this before (think hard now…)?
When confronted with the CCP style of religious tolerance that so many atheists insist upon, is it any wonder that they are not trusted by the non-atheist world? When the atheist relativists define themselves as “good” and the Judeo-Christian ethics as “bad”, is there any wonder that atheists are not trusted? When atheists use the courts to attempt to destroy theists financially, is there any wonder that atheists are not trusted? When atheists insist on defacing or removing centuries old memorials that "offend" their religious opinions, is there any wonder that atheists are not trusted?
“I am an atheist and you have mis-portrayed me! I have a superb ethic, I thought it up myself!” This statement will undoubtedly arise in the minds of a few. But it turns out to be meaningless in a relativist belief system. Why should any atheist ethic be trusted?
If you doubt the atheist attack on Christianity specifically, you have not been paying attention. Atheist attacks on every vestige of Judeo-Christianity are seen in nearly every daily news report. Atheists are reportedly less than 2 to 5% of the American population. So the activist level within the atheism community is huge.
As an atheist I finally concluded, “Why should anyone trust me? I cannot provide any concrete reason for any atheist belief or disbelief, much less atheist ethic. If I associate myself as a part of an attack group, why should I not be distrusted?”
That is not the reason I dumped atheism. But it certainly removed any motivation that might sustain my disbelief. The atheist attack on Christianity specifically is not a rational requirement of atheism as a belief system. I concluded that the atheist attack was far too similar to fascism for me to continue to associate myself with it. And when I finally analyzed atheism rationally and found that it makes no sense within the rational constraints of logic, I realized that the denial of metaphysical reality is merely a limiting construct created and used to prop up an illogical belief in a Materialist, “absolute”-free, sensory-limited reality which is free to be manipulated toward any self-centered objective without constraint or restraint by “morals”. The premises are fabricated in order to sustain the presupposed goal.
So why should I, as an atheist, trust any other atheist? There is no reason whatsoever to do so. None. And for this reason, I, as an atheist, deserved no trust either. The suspicions that atheists incur from non-atheists are generated by atheism itself; it is a natural reaction to attack. Atheists who deny that such an attack is underway are either not paying attention or are downright dishonest. Why should anyone trust an atheist anyway?
6 comments:
What a fantastic blog you have. I'll be by often to catch up on your thoughts and rants.
I posted today on Mario Beauregard's "The Spiritual Brain," which takes a nonmaterialistic view, specifically to challenge materialists vis a vis the findings of a neuroscientist. Very good reading.
My best to you and your blog. Thanks for posting.
Thanks for the kind words and the link, I'll check it out.
Stan
Why should you trust anyone? Are you assuming that Christians have a set of standard morals just because they all are supposed to adhere to the same book? If that's the case, you're completely naive. Christian sects don't even have a standard version of the bible in their churches, and the non-denominational Christians have adopted interpretations of the bible as arbitrary as any atheist's philosophy.
The problem is that people don't understand human evolution and why people will normally at least try to be ethical. We are a gregarious species who survived because of our ability to cooperate on a tribal level. As such, we'll be ethical to our family and neighbors, at least.
If being critical of other atheists is even one of the reasons you're no longer an atheist, then you're looking at the problem in reverse. The questions is: why believe? What myth do you accept as true? What about having a belief in some sort of sky daddy makes you suddenly moral?
Atheists only have one thing in common: they reject theism. That's it. IF your expectation was to have some standard set of morals, it's not surprising that you're disappointed, but the fact that you believe moral relativism doesn't extend to religion demonstrates to me that you haven't though it through at all. People of faith have been on every side of every issue in recorded history. They have supported and denounced slavery. They have accepted and rejected homosexuals. They have been for and against war. In my experience, there is nothing about simply having faith that mandates a moral standard, nor does it preclude that a believer can be trusted.
Tit for tat!
http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/06/brazil-britain-christians-censoring-images-that-hurt-the-feelings-of-believers.htm
I love churches both for the architecture and the inventive signs often seen in front such as, Come inside, we have prayer conditioning or we send knee mail.
That's fun stuff. Freedom of speech is important.
greg reich said,
"Christian sects don't even have a standard version of the bible in their churches, and the non-denominational Christians have adopted interpretations of the bible as arbitrary as any atheist's philosophy."
greg, you can find bibles with eight different translations on the same two pages that face you. Interpreting is not the same as translating, of course. However, your statement implying arbitrary ethics is just not true. But the case of arbitrary ethics in each atheist is true, and is unavoidable. An atheist's ethic is specific to just that one individual.
"If being critical of other atheists is even one of the reasons you're no longer an atheist, then you're looking at the problem in reverse. The questions is: why believe? What myth do you accept as true? What about having a belief in some sort of sky daddy makes you suddenly moral?"
Your gratuitous "sky daddy" reference leads one to believe that you have not given your own decision much thought, but choose to deal in slogans. The fact is that atheism is not a rational, logical decision except when encumbered with Philosophical Materialism, a patently false and easily refuted position. You choose to denigrate the opposition rather than to analyze your own position. That is your choice of course, but it cannot be called rational or logical.
"In my experience, there is nothing about simply having faith that mandates a moral standard, nor does it preclude that a believer can be trusted."
This is correct as stated, but the conclusion you probably prefer to be drawn is not. It is absolutely true that there have been and are believers that fail to adhere to a Christian "ethic", that which is actually taught in the bible.
Humans are imperfect; they fail. And when they accept no ethic except their own, they have a bloody history of producing havoc. The salient atheist ethic is stated clearly by Friedrich Nietzsche, in his reduction of the necessary elements of atheist ethics to "the Will To Power". This was accepted and its outcome demonstrated full well in the deadly humanist experiments of the 20th century, and is continuing in China, SE Asia, and parts of Africa.
The implication is frequently made that failed believers are equivalent to successful atheists. This is a curious argument and seems not to benefit the atheist postion.
And you are also partially correct in that having a belief doesn't mandate a moral standard. This is certainly true for atheism. For a theism such as Christianity, it is not true.
But this blog is about atheist logic. Denigrating Christianity is not a position that is useful in a worldview. Atheism, despite the denials by some, is more than just denial of a first cause, a deity. The ramifications of atheism tumble outward into all facets of life.
Here's the real difference; atheism presents an ethic that is undeniably variable and individualistic: it is relativistic. Theism, such as Judeo-Christianity, presents an ethic that is solid, easily found in handy resources; however, the believers can be relativistic, unreliable and untrustworthy.
The difference is the expectation for the individuals by others. Christians are expected to behave in a certain fashion, and are ridiculed by atheists when they fail. Atheists have no expectations for their behavior, and are therefore subject to continual mistrust because others have no idea what to expect from any given individual.
I dare say that atheists more consistently conform to their own personal ethic, because the ethic can be modified on a moment's notice to incorporate the latest whim. The atheist can't miss in such a system.
The Christian and all who observe him know when he has failed to meet Christian standards.
The difference could not be more clear.
The obvious illogic beneath the shallow surface of "atheist ethics" argument still doesn't deter atheists from continuing to use the argument anyway.
And the evolution Just So Story is not acceptable as proof of anything more than a wonderful imagination and ability to create stories to fill in holes. Stories of countervailing force can just as easily be fabricated, as can stories to justify any chosen - but unprovable - conclusion. Evolutionary ethics is a weak and desperate dodge.
jls said,
"http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/06/brazil-britain-christians-censoring-images-that-hurt-the-feelings-of-believers.htm"
Ya know, sometimes I think that atheists have been volutarily lobotomized, in the sense that they do not apprehend, much less comprehend the difference between the following:
1. Atheists are in full attack mode against the visible demonstration of crosses; against the red and white decorations and use of "Christmas" by public corporations in December. These are legal battles and financial threats, ACLU on the predatory prowl ad nauseum.
2. Christians don't like the atheist abuse of statues of Christ immersed in urine or defecation; abuse of the cross; desecration of stolen religious artifacts; use of artifacts in denigrating photos, etc ad nauseum.
In the first case, the mere existence of anyone who is Christian is offensive to the "supertolerant" atheists.
In the second case, Christians are objecting to the abuse of their artifacts BY ATHEISTS.
The Atheist thought process seems to shut down completely as soon as the atheist dogma is internalized.
Matt's comment at his blog sums it up:
"It's patently ridiculous to expect or demand that the Catholic Church, as an institution, be shown respect by anyone outside it."
And there you have it, tolerance renounced. There is nothing to respect about atheist ethics; nothing.
Post a Comment