Atheists always seem shocked when someone admits to not trusting Atheists. Cupp gives some reasons that gell even from her Atheist perspective. Unlike most of the Other, Cupp cannot be designated as xenophobic or discriminatory or a hate monger for expressing actual reasons why an Atheist should not be president. Her reasons stem from her understanding that Atheists place themselves at the pinnacle of existence and have no ameliorating forces for controlling behaviors. Such hubris is unconstrained from pursuit of hegemony.
There are other reasons, too, such as the inability of Atheists to generate trustworthiness for their personal portfolios of desirable characteristics. And that deficiency is coupled with the tendency to blame their trust problem on the Other, rather than take ownership of it themselves. That alone makes Atheism suspect, because it is an irrational trait common to a whole lot of Atheists.
Hat tip to Sonic for the pointer to the video: thanks!
8 comments:
there is is no check. for the religious believer. They may have some religious or ethical convictions. But that is the same as the atheist have personal, humanistic, or ethical convictions.
The idea that there is some type of check or some one they must check into or check in with about their actions is a fairy tale.
Every young believer is taught that stealing is wrong and lieing is wrong. Not because it is wrong of its action, but because it upsets God.
And the first time that young believer does something bad, and there is no punishment from god, no conviction, or no repercussion. That check disappears. (And at times can be chalked up to God does not care about my sinful actions or he endorses them and is okay with them.)
The check only works for some who still may get feeling of guilt after doing something. But after a few years of that, that disappears too.
Countdown before the atheist swarm repeat their mantra that SE Cupp is faking it.
5-4-3-2
Theres no one to vote for. Obama is Obama so that's a no go.
Rommney is a morman so that's a absolute no go. He believes he can be a god of his own planet if he follows Joseph Smith's twisted lies. Blasphemy. If you have not read about what mormans believe you need to do so. Don't be tricked by there lies.
Read this
http://carm.org/mormon-beliefs
Rommny believes GOD used to be a man from another planet. Pure blasphemy. True Christians need to know.
”there is is no check. for the religious believer. They may have some religious or ethical convictions. But that is the same as the atheist have personal, humanistic, or ethical convictions. “
Sorry, but that doesn’t work. There is nothing about Atheism which says that any specific Atheist actually has an ethical conviction (Dahmerism). Further, many of the human derived ethics available for addition to Atheism are actually rules for society, not for the Atheist holding the conviction (Virtue Ethics, Marxism and Humanism). Some add-on ethics are actually dangerous, such as Consequentialism.
”The idea that there is some type of check or some one they must check into or check in with about their actions is a fairy tale.”
Actual morals have consequences; Atheist ethics do not. Atheists don’t seem to comprehend the difference.
”Every young believer is taught that stealing is wrong and lieing is wrong. Not because it is wrong of its action, but because it upsets God.”
This is a universal statement made prejudicially and without a shred of evidence to justify it.
”And the first time that young believer does something bad, and there is no punishment from god, no conviction, or no repercussion. That check disappears. (And at times can be chalked up to God does not care about my sinful actions or he endorses them and is okay with them.)”
You are creating a Just So Story to suit your own prejudices, and designating it as universally applicable.
”The check only works for some who still may get feeling of guilt after doing something. But after a few years of that, that disappears too.”
I hope you are not in the field of sociology, because your story is prefabricated to your prejudice rather than from any objective observation of general actuality.
The check to which Cupp refers is a worldview differential between Atheists who create a vision of themselves as the repository of knowledge and wisdom (as you have) vs those who know that they are not such repositories. Their views of their position in the universe, to knowledge, and their relation to other humans are polar opposites. It is the arrogant worldview of the self-annointed superiority of the Atheist which Cupp is referring to as dangerous. Atheists seem not to get this possibly because they really do believe in their own superiority, which is gotten merely by rejecting a concept, not by any additional, weighty understanding.
I knew Mormons believe they will eventually become gods but I never realised they believe Jehovah was a man who became a god. I learnt something (and from Storm of all people).
And Storm, yes, there are many atheists who don't believe S.E. Cupp is an atheist. Hitchens said that when the money runs out she'll be writing a book about her conversion. Bill Maher confronted her about her constant Christian apologetics. There's a website for betting on when she's finally "convert". She's like a human strawman.
You might want to check out the James Randi forum, Religion and Philosophy subforum, "Prominent atheist blogger converts to Catholicism", post 99.
It shows just how inane, stupid and morally bankrupt atheism is. The funny thing is that they have the balls to complain when they are criticized.
KK Dowling,
There's no doubt that the Atheist elites would attempt to banish an Atheist who diverges from the consensus position and declare heresy. Free Thought means that one is free to think just like the other Atheists or else be attacked with ridicule and Ad Hominem Abusives. Randi found that out the hard way a while back, as has Thunderf00t just recently.
Cupp is a media Atheist and if it is just a cover it still provides her at least a modicum of protection from other media attacks on "one of their own".
hello Stan
if there was a check for the theist. Why is it that the christian and theist population is the one filling up the prisons. Why is that I can hear about pastors in the pulpit stealing from the church, having affairs, and killing people. Yes killing people. Where was the check then?
Where was the check when Christians were raping and molesting? Where was the check when the christians killed off the indians? Where was the check when christians would kill people if they did not convert...
Like I said, some my have an internal personal convictions. But its that personal conviction not some deistic check that guards the christian or theist moral compass.
And no this is not a universal statement made prejudically. I've only been an atheist for about six weeks. And open out of the closet atheist two weeks. So I am speaking from a level of experience.
If that check was so real and so applicable, then why is that young girls who are raised in more fundamentalist households are more likely to experience teen pregnancy than one raised in a irreligious household?
Well we could say, maybe they didn't know how to use the check. OR maybe they ignore the giant check in the sky OR they won't true Checkers OR maybe they misunderstood the check or maybe they lost the check......OR maybe there was no check to begin with.
One of the most enthusiastic aspects of Christianity, is a newly saved born again believer. And that new convert is so enthusiastic about life and god. They almost have this glow about them. But after a few months, that glow is gone. And they are then just like every-other christian.
Bittersweetend says,
“Like I said, some my have an internal personal convictions. But its that personal conviction not some deistic check that guards the christian or theist moral compass.”
If your complaint is that God doesn’t actively prevent theists from foul acts, then your argument is against free will, which means that you likely did not absorb much during your non-Atheist days. If God were to actively prevent foul deeds, then there would be no need for morals, or for brains at all; humans would be automatons. Human behavior would actually be God’s behavior, not their own. As it is everyone has a choice (you have made yours) because they have free will to choose.
The difference is that Theists who experience lusts of various types have principles to refer to by which they check their behavior against the principles. Atheist ethics appear to be all subsumed under Consequentialism first and foremost, and with many of the subsequent ethics being generated for the behaviors of other people or society in general rather than referring to the character of the individual Atheist holding the “ethic”.
In fact, Atheists spend nearly all their time judging the behaviors of other people rather than to develop positive character traits for themselves, because they have no character trait guidelines. Because they can choose an ethic which fits their own behaviors, and moreover they can change ethics without notice, they presume that they are always “good without God”, since their ethic matches their behaviors. This tautological “goodness” leads to elitism and the resultant sexism, racism, and arrogance which infest the Atheist community (see yesterdays post).
And if you think that accepting the existence of a creating entity means that you automatically become a perfect being with no need of character driven, fixed principle guided, for self-restraint, then it would seem that you are not actually familiar with either Theism or Christianity. Christianity even claims to be a hard narrow path to follow, with many falling off. Nothing which you claim refutes that.
As for the prisons being filled with Theists implying that Atheists are lesser incarcerated, that is an Atheist fallacy and fantasy. The report which they use as their evidence was modified from the original report which showed the opposite, if anything.
Here is an analysis
Personal fact checking is always advisable.
Theism means that there exists a source outside of personal opinion for principle-driven ethics for behavior, whereas Atheism means that has been rejected in favor of personal opinion. That some people fail has no bearing on that.
Post a Comment