Some rather random thoughts...

I was having a good chuckle over the realization that PZ Meyers actually thought that I fear him and that’s why I did not explicitly link back to his site, when I realized something else:

Any and every Atheist is a perfect example of Atheism which has no moral code, while any and every Christian is an imperfect example of Christianity as embodied by Christ. Christians aspire to a standard that is higher than possible for humans to meet or at least maintain. Atheists aspire to be thought of as automatically “Good Without God”, even while having no Atheist moral code whatsoever, much less one in common.

Atheists not only have no songs (note 1), they have no paragons, no moral authorities, no grounded philosopher, and no grounded philosophy. And it is on this that the major players base their arrogant pose of superiority. Like Skepticism, Atheism is merely a rejection, and nothing more. It is an attack on logic and knowledge which is discomfiting, especially to the young and immature. Neither Skepticism nor Atheism has a positive contribution to make; both merely say, in effect, “I reject”. And neither produces any reason for rejection, other than “I don’t accept” what you say, or maybe “your evidence doesn’t satisfy my needs”.

When pinned down with demands for actual reasons for their belief system, it is typical for an Atheist to resort to circularity or to embedded Materialism rather than grounded logic, assuming that s/he remain engaged to that degree rather than to begin other types of attacks to avoid direct logical analysis. Some will merely sit on their rejection, with no attempt to justify it with logic or data. Others default to Scientism or anti-ecclesiasticism. Still others develop fanciful philosophies which fall immediately under the scrutiny of logical processing. But there is never any decisive material evidence nor grounded logic for supporting their beliefs. Denial is all they have.

Certainly there are influential Atheists who convince young people that science answers all questions: Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, possibly Richard Feynman, probably legions of professors who are Scientistically motivated, and philosophically challenged. Feynman, for all his massive brilliance, berated philosophy in general, which he didn’t even try to understand, and he totally misunderstood Cargo Cults. The works of Dawkins pale beside the brilliance of Feynman. Dawkins’ brief forays into philosophy have been publically panned by actual students of philosophy. Christopher Hitchens blamed all evil in the world on religion in his book subtitled, Religion Poisons Everything”, which he did by the illicit logical gerrymandering of all Atheist atrocities into the category of religion. Daniel Dennett tried to redefine agency reductively in order to fit it into the ideology of Materialism. Sam Harris thinks science can define morals. Massimo Pigliucci claimed that life has no essence unless it is DNA. Atheist absurdities might be acceptable to youngsters, but even many other Atheists balk at much of the Atheist philosophy being produced. Agreement is hard to find.

Interestingly, the Atheist community seems to attack itself with the same verve as it attacks those outsiders who do not think like them. The simple idea of being nice, being civil when discussing issues with each other, much less outsiders, has drawn vicious condemnations from both sides of the Atheist divide. The issue of feminism vs. the crudities of male Atheists on Atheist discussion boards is another fight producing venom and division. It is common to find an Atheist declaring “I’m not like those Atheists! Atheists have only one thing in common: rejection of the existence of a deity.” Not so. All Atheists have several things in common.


All Atheists have this in common: Atheism has no ethic attached to it. It has no philosophy attached to it. Atheism is license to claim freedom from all restraint, precisely because it has no morality or philosophy or logic attached to it. Hence: Free Thinking. When I asked Pigliucci how he avoided circular or infinite regressions in his “analysis of ideas”, our conversation stopped: he would not post my question. There are only three paths involved in validation of premises: (1)grounding in absolute principles; (2)infinite regression; (3)circularity. Free Thinking is not bounded by any absolute grounding. Admitting to absolutes is the beginning of the end for Atheist philosophy. So absolutes are denied, categorically, (and absolutely). Atheism absolutely requires this. So what is left is circularity and infinite regress.

^^^^vvvv^^^^

For an Atheist to claim an ethic or a morality, he cannot do so under the simple banner of Atheism. A person claiming both Atheism and an ethic is claiming two separate ideological positions. So any person desiring to be known as being “Good Without God”, for example, cannot be believed if that claim is made purely under Atheism. That claim must be made under some other banner, that of a specific ethic which clearly defines its concept of what is “Good”; plus it must state the source of its moral authority for such declarations of a moral nature.

Since the “Good Without God” claims are made by Atheist organizations which do not elaborate on what source of ethics might be involved or what “Good” might mean to every Atheist, and apparently are declaring themselves as the source of moral authority, they should not wonder that their claim is rejected as a tenet or property of Atheism. In fact, such a claim is at best an indication of intellectual immaturity at having not considered the truth value of such a claim, and at worst an indication of lying as moral tenet of Atheism. Yet they wonder why their trustworthiness is considered below that of a rapist.

(Note 1) Steve Martin wrote one for them, apparently forgetting about John Lennon’s Imagine.