Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Principles of Atheism: The Principle of Weaponized Morality

One Atheist claim is that Atheism is nothing more than not accepting theist claims. This ignores the existence of the Atheist VOID which is created by the rejection, and the resulting consequences of that void. Atheism is actually much more than merely not accepting claims, and it is not even that. But if it were that, and only that, then still the issue of Atheist morals comes to the fore. And Atheist morals do not exist in the VOID, they have to be created somehow and by someone. So the Atheist either creates his own morals, or he accepts the morals created by some other Atheist somewhere, or he has no morals.

Within the Atheist VOID there are an infinite number of intellectual and moral directions to choose from. However, it is very common for the Atheist to choose the path of eliteness, which leads directly to AtheoLeftism and its messiahism, based on Victimology. This in turn leads to Leftist morals, which are unilaterally for the Other.

Just as I have not encountered many Atheists who are not leftist when pressed, I have not come across any Atheists who actually have no morals. Their arguments usually devolve to moral arguments because they have no logical absolutes to tether their arguments rationally. It is common for an Atheist to claim an argument is “wrong”, but rather than logically wrong, “Wrong”, meaning morally Wrong (and therefore Hateful).

But what appears moral to an Atheist is completely different from that which is commonly thought moral by both theists and pre-Modernity culture in general. The issue of valuing humans based solely on contribution comes to mind, although most totalitarian regimes do that, whether Modern, post-Modern, or pre-Modern, so Atheists have that in common with totalitarians. Atheists tend to jump at the chance to place a value on the lives of other humans… so long as they themselves are considered elite and the apogee of human value.

In the world of the VOID, there are no absolutes, no rules, and there is total freedom of thought and behavior (essentially intellectual and moral anarchy). So the necessity of having “moral principles” is purely pragmatic. In other words, the moral world of the Atheist is simply to define the practical behaviors expected of the Other, while maintaining total tolerance of all behaviors for the Atheist. The draw of creating two separate moralities is strong: one morality for the AtheoElites, and a completely separate morality which is applied to the Other.

The moral principles apply, not to Atheists, who have no rules other than behavior tautologies applying to themselves, but rather apply only to the Other. As described earlier, Atheist morality for themselves is merely tautological to their predilected behaviors, so is not really morality at all. In fact, their concept of morality is not principled behavior for themselves; it is principles of behavior demanded of the Other. (note 1) The two major Atheist principles of moral behavior for the Other are Tolerance and Fairness. These are loosely based on existing Christian moral principle of forgiveness and the value of the individual human. However, the similarity stops there.

Tolerance, in the Atheist redefinition of the term, means tolerance for all behaviors… except dissent.

Fairness, in the Atheist redefinition of the term, means equality of outcome… for the Other, not the elites.

Intolerance and unfairness, as defined by the AtheoLeftist, cannot be tolerated. Those who fail the AtheoLeft test for tolerance and fairness are deemed immoral and therefore evil, despite there being no evil under the Atheist VOID.

So opposing views are considered evil, which is codified as “hate”.

Atheists are religious in the use of their own morality. They use morality in its most onerous religious form: to bully other people. Because Atheists are immune to all morality including their own, even and especially while they place moral judgment on the other, Atheist morality is purely a weapon. What Atheists do with their weapon is not limited by rules: there are no rules for Atheists under the VOID. Any and all behaviors by Atheists are AOK, including intolerance of intolerance. And Atheist tactics are similarly unrestricted, including published death wishes for their designated enemies.

Unilateral Universal Tolerance
Under AtheoLeftist morals, the Other must be totally tolerant of the AtheoLeft, its acolytes and codependent victims. Intolerance is not tolerated in the Other. In other words, the AtheoLeft is totally intolerant of intolerance of their antics. So the concept of tolerance applies only to the Other, not to the AtheoLeft; it is purely a morality for other people, unilaterally applied by the AtheoLeft.

The AtheoLeftist intolerance for the dissent of the Other results in massive displays of self-righteous outrage by the AtheoLeft, which is judging the morality of only the Other based on the morality demanded of them by the AtheoLeft. The AtheoLeft has no morality for itself. (2) The resulting AtheoLeftist moral proclamations accompanied by hate rants, and even death threats do not violate any principles which the Atheists have for themselves, since they subscribe to the VOID and its emptiness of rules.

Atheists are religious in the use of their own morality. They use morality in its most onerous religious form: to bully other people. The AtheoLeft must be tolerated in every regard by the Other. The AtheoLeft has no morality for itself. They must be tolerated regardless of their action or thoughts. The AtheoLeft itself cannot be judged, because there is no moral basis upon which to judge them. Their morals are unilaterally for the Other… only.

Let’s repeat that:
The AtheoLeft has no morality for itself. They must be tolerated regardless of their action or thoughts. The AtheoLeft cannot be judged, because there is no moral basis upon which to judge them. Their morals are unilaterally for the Other… only.


Equalitarianism and the Fairness Principle
AtheoLeftists don’t give their stuff away in order to achieve equality and fairness; rather they wish to coerce the Other to do so. Empathy is an example of a principle that is understood only in the abstract by Atheists. What Atheists miss in their abstraction is that many people don’t want to be helped by getting free stuff because that devalues both the stuff and the person who receives it instead of earning it. But to recognize details like that would be to jeopardize their supply of Victims to rescue, and messiahs need Victims, always.

Thus, AtheoLeftism decrees that it is not fair for one of the herd to have more than another of the herd. The one with more must give up the excess; it is only fair according to the messiahs. The messiahs would be exempt of course, being elites and all (Congress is loaded with multimillionare Leftists). Hence, many of the AtheoLeft don’t even pay their taxes; taxes are for the herd, the little people. The elites cannot be expected to be equal; after all they are the elites, the messiahs, the saviors. (3) It’s all part of the VOID: there are no rules for the AtheoLeft.

So, total equality is unilateral: it’s not for the elites, who are obviously a separate and superior class. There are no rules for AtheoLeftists.


The Principle of Thought Crimes and Anti-dissent: If ridicule doesn’t work, pass laws
It’s simple: if you disagree, you are intolerant; intolerance is hate; hate is intolerable. Laws against hate/intolerance/dissent are essential. This was institutionalized in the “morality tribunals” in Canada until recently.

Atheists are religious in the use of their own morality. They use morality in its most onerous religious form: to bully other people.

Suing for Secularity
Major AtheoLeftist organizations are constantly suing small local governments and private organizations such as the Boy Scouts in order to force the removal of religiosity from the secular scene. So small cities without much in the way of resources are threatened with financial burdens of litigation, cities such as Las Cruces, New Mexico, as opposed to Las Angeles, CA. Or for that matter, Washington DC which is loaded with government buildings sporting religious symbology. The bully factor is obvious by observing the targets these Atheists choose.

Notes:
(1) Atheist organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation staunchly deny that positive character traits have value and can be beneficially taught; they are too hard for some people, and therefore are discriminatory. Thus inside the Atheist VOID, moral values are too difficult and must be ignored. This helps victims remain victims and messiahs remain messiahs.

(2) Except for those AtheoLeftists who stumble into heretical statements or actions, thereby becoming identified as Other by the elites, and thus subject to moral judgment by their betters.

(3) This might now be called the “David Gregory Principle of Elite Immunity”.

47 comments:

Steven Satak said...

Huh. PM Thatcher once said something that, if what you say is true, links Atheism pretty firmly to Leftist political thinking. To paraphrase her, "Socialism works until it runs out of other people's money to spend".

Atheists are all about helping the Other, as long as someone else pays for it. In fact, they seem to spend a lot of their time trying to establish that it's everyone else's duty to pay for the stuff they come up with. Thus the laws they pass (or attempt to pass), requiring folks to pony up so that the poorer among us have cell phones for 'free'.

And the pitch is always the same - the Other has a moral obligation to do whatever the AtheoLeft, as you call them, comes up with, because it's assumed at the outset that they occupy the moral high ground.

I find it at once amusing and insulting when a member in good standing of the Atheist stripe is found to have the same peccadilloes as the rest of us - and then excuses his/her moral lapse as some sort of sacrifice for the greater good.

They never actually say in public what is apparent to the rest of us = that the rules they establish for us are not the rules they follow. That would blow the gaff, I should imagine. What really trips me out is how much of this appeared in Orwell's 'Animal Farm'.

Human nature does not appear to have changed all that much in the past couple thousand years; the scam is different, but the game is basically the same. "How can I get the stupid to provide me a living while I scheme to rule over them all?"

Nats said...

Thus the laws they pass (or attempt to pass), requiring folks to pony up so that the poorer among us have cell phones for 'free'.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Any other examples?

Steven Satak said...

@Nats: keep reading and you discover that the money comes from folks using the telecom service. The companies charge their customers to provide this service. The government
requires the companies to do this. They have done so for a fairly long time.

I never said this program was associated with the current administration. I was using it as an example of other, similar things the government could and would do, given the chance.

You're welcome.

Tom Servo said...

"I find it at once amusing and insulting when a member in good standing of the Atheist stripe is found to have the same peccadilloes as the rest of us - and then excuses his/her moral lapse as some sort of sacrifice for the greater good."

Now this is what Nats should have asked for examples of because I can't think of any. But, hey, it could be the atheist-website bubble that I'm in. So enlighten me. I know of plenty of Christian leaders who have been caught with drugs or prostitutes or been pedophiles and have been forgiven. Show me the other side.

"I never said this program was associated with the current administration. "

No, it's even weirder. It looks like you are attributing the cell phones to atheists.

Brian said...

Hi Stan, are atheists aware that they do this?

Stan said...

Brian,
That's an interesting question.

When their irrational positions are pointed out to them, they don't seem to care because they persist in rationalizing their position. This seems to be defensive of an emotional need, a need which overwhelms any need to pursue actual logical answers.

So when it comes to morality and the tautological morality which they confer upon themselves, that seems to be a natural, almost invisible progression along which the narcissist Atheist is drawn.

Once in the Atheist VOID, the self becomes supreme, and whatever supports the supremacy of the self is naturally seen as moral, logical, and Righteous in the opinion of the Atheist, who has no morals, logic or Right/Wrong to tether his opinion to. Whatever fails to support the supremacy of the self becomes seen as an enemy of the Atheist's self-image and worldview, and is therefore immoral, illogical, and Wrong in the Atheist's untethered thought and moral process.

So it appears to me that they are aware, but in an entirely different manner from tethered thought processes.

Narcissists are not aware of any behavioral problems inherent in themselves; they view the problems as inherent in others, while they themselves have no problem. Jim Parsons plays a cartoonish narcissist as Sheldon Cooper on Big Bang Theory: elitist, Atheist, materialist, scientismist, emotionally juvenile, non-introspective, self-involved.

I'm surprised they let it on tv.

Steven Satak said...

"No, it's even weirder. It looks like you are attributing the cell phones to atheists."

Poor parsing on my part - AtheoLeft is what I meant.

And of course, lost in the counter-accusation - er, 'request for clarification/examples" is that Nat's example, far from exonerating the government from its drive to provide free cellphones at public - excuse me, 'customer' expense, actually confirms it.

Now why didn't you ask for clarification on *that*? I suspect it is because this is another chair thrown in the way; something for me to deal with, not you.

If I offer examples of atheoleft antics (which are, after all, merely human failings) equivalent to your knowledge of the failings of specifically religious leaders, you'll either ignore it and move on to something else, or simply deny it because I haven't provided an exhaustive list of sources.

You, meanwhile, are under no such burden. Kinda reminds me of the "God doesn't exist" statement made by atheists - who then claim they need find no supporting facts for it, as they are simply saying 'nuh-uh!' to the faithful.

DVD Bach said...

This whole post is one big strawman. Atheists and religious people make moral judgments in exactly the same way, based on whether or not they increase happiness or cause harm to others.

Martin said...

DVD Bach,

>Atheists and religious people make moral judgments in exactly the same way, based on whether or not they increase happiness or cause harm to others.

Well that's just flat-out nonsense. Most religious people operate with a more deontological ethical system: the goodness of an act is based on the act itself, rather than its consequences. An evil act with good consequences is still an evil act and ought not be done.

Consequentialism, of which you speak, has not really been closely associated with the "religious" side of the fence.

Stan said...

DVD Bach,
Your concept of religious morality is incorrect. Increased happiness is the mantra of the secular messiahs, those who want to control the herd in order to prevent any negative consequences for personal decisions, and to eliminate all suffering because suffering is the new evil in the secular lexicon. Humility, for example, is a Christian objective, and learning from consequences is an expectation. Neither of these is valued by Atheists, who self-declare themselves as messiahs wishing to deliver happiness and freedom from harm to the masses as implemented by the elites.

And the Atheist definition of harm is guaranteed to vary with each individual elitist Atheist. In fact, if one believes Hitchens to be representative, then all harm is attributable to non-Atheists. Penn Jillette just authored a simple article advocating the elimination of religion. Religion itself is harm according to Dawkins; teaching it is child abuse. And the death threats from the AtheoLeft belie the claim to benevolence and benign empathy which Atheists claim. The constant Atheist battle cry against the Other nullifes any claim of similarity betweeen Atheist faux morality and the morality expressed in the red print of the bible.

It is the Atheist VOIDist who has no grounded moral philosophy, no objective or common set of beneficial character traits, no set of objectively Good behaviors: Atheism doesn't accept the concept of Good or Bad. So when they claim Goodness (without God) they are dishonest. Their idea of dishonesty is quite different from traditional dishonesty (an example of redefining words and concepts to fit the current Atheist narrative).

Atheism defaults to Consequentialism, and ultimately to elitism, claiming moral and intellectual eliteness, despite having neither of those qualities. It is the Atheist who self-endows with permission to make moral life-or-death decisions for other humans based solely on their age from conception (Peter Singer and his acolytes, for one example). Abortion is sacrosanct for the AtheoLeft, not life. For Atheists, life is an accident of the universe, existing in an accidental entropic backwash, and having no existential value or purpose, and further it is parasitic to the revered and beautiful natural earth.

Atheism is a rejection, accompanied by rejectionist philosophies developed from the Atheist VOID. It purposefully goes directly counter to Judeo-Christianity, which most Atheists do not even comprehend beyond the Atheist juvenile cartoon concepts.

DVD Bach said...

"Your concept of religious morality is incorrect."
Let's see any evidence to support anything you're claiming in this paragraph.

"In fact, if one believes Hitchens to be representative..."
Hitchens isn't representative; no one speaks for all atheists.

"The constant Atheist battle cry against the Other nullifes any claim of similarity betweeen Atheist faux morality and the morality expressed in the red print of the bible."
How convenient that you forget the morality expressed in the Old Testament; I'm happy not to be associated with such horrible things as slavery (to name just one example).

"It is the Atheist VOIDist who has no grounded moral philosophy"
I've already refuted that.

"Atheism defaults to Consequentialism, and ultimately to elitism, claiming moral and intellectual eliteness,"
Ironic, given that it's Christians who want their concept of morality codified in law.

"Abortion is sacrosanct for the AtheoLeft"
By definition, atheism has no concept of sacrosanct.

"It purposefully goes directly counter to Judeo-Christianity,"
Not quite. It doesn't accept any religion because there is no reason to believe any religion.

DVD Bach said...

"the goodness of an act is based on the act itself, rather than its consequences. An evil act with good consequences is still an evil act and ought not be done."
The same is true of atheists, in general. I don't see how you're claiming that the ethical outlooks are different.

Martin said...

DVD Bach,

>The same is true of atheists, in general. I don't see how you're claiming that the ethical outlooks are different.

???

You just said, above that both atheists and religious people based their morality on consequentialism. I showed you that religious believers in general tend to be deontologists, which is the opposite of consequentialism. Now suddenly you are saying that both atheists and religious people are deontologists?

???

Stan said...

DVD said,
"Your concept of religious morality is incorrect."
Let's see any evidence to support anything you're claiming in this paragraph.


Not that I need to, since you don’t refute anything… Apparently you don’t read any of the books on consciousness and humanism. The Atheist/humanist literature arguing what constitutes “flourishing” of humanity and how elites are to deliver it is everywhere. Read Pigliucci, or PZ Meyers, or any of the Atheist sites, and if necessary, ask about their opinion of humanism. Then read the first Humanist Manifesto and the subsequent fogging manifestos. As for Christianity, the bible suffices.

"In fact, if one believes Hitchens to be representative..."
Hitchens isn't representative; no one speaks for all atheists.


Your position confirms the argument against trusting Atheists on any subject, including morality, where you chose to speak for all Atheists. It is common for Atheists such as yourself to hold contradictory positions in their worldview with no concept of logical non-coherence.

"The constant Atheist battle cry against the Other nullifes any claim of similarity betweeen Atheist faux morality and the morality expressed in the red print of the bible."

How convenient that you forget the morality expressed in the Old Testament; I'm happy not to be associated with such horrible things as slavery (to name just one example).


The Atheist concept of the Old Testament is a cartoon. The Old Testament describes a deity’s interaction with its creation, including its obstreperous people. Atheists think that whatever rules of behavior were applied by the deity to human behavior should automatically apply also to the deity. The concept is absurd, yet it is constantly wielded by Atheists ignorant of the actual premise of the OT. The OT describes the nature of a deity, which Atheists now declare to be immoral, despite having no morals themselves. This results in insufferable self-righteousness, which is – again – non-coherent and anti-rational.

Christian morality is based on the red print; your assessment belies a tendency to use incorrect data to support your position.

"It is the Atheist VOIDist who has no grounded moral philosophy"
I've already refuted that.


You just confirmed that, above: there is no single position for Atheism. You can’t presume to speak for all Atheists while denying that anyone does speak for all Atheists. Moreover, you seem not to comprehend what “grounded” means; it means a non-subjective morality.

"Atheism defaults to Consequentialism, and ultimately to elitism, claiming moral and intellectual eliteness,"
Ironic, given that it's Christians who want their concept of morality codified in law.


This is a bizarre counter claim, a truly unrelated Tu Quoque Fallacy, and ignoring the actual massive secularization which Atheists are suing right and left in order to accomplish an Atheist religious coup via bullying lawsuits. Atheists want to eliminate all morality which is not defined by their personal definitions of “harm” and Victimology in support of their codependent messiahism. It is true that if actual morality is to be preserved in our historically Christian culture, it will resemble Christian morality, not Atheist VOIDist messiahism, which is actually predatory parasitism.
(continued below)

Stan said...

(continued from above)
"Abortion is sacrosanct for the AtheoLeft"
By definition, atheism has no concept of sacrosanct.


Atheist behavior belies their words; Atheists will claim anything whatsoever in order to preserve their march toward elimination of all actual morality, including assaults on “positive character traits”, a la the FFRC. Even so, there are certain political commonalities amongst many Atheists, which are given faux moral importance, a la Saul Alinsky (faux morals to achieve consequentialist objectives).

Atheism results in a fundamentalism which has the same “sacred” characteristics as any other religious cant. The Atheist intolerance of any deviation from the VOIDist messianic narrative is a direct consequence of the sacrosanct character of that narrative. Witness the rage and homicidal fury that accompanied the recent Chik-Fil-A uprising of the AtheoLeft. Homosexuality is now the AtheoLeft’s codependent Victim, a sacred relationship if ever there was one.

Atheists cannot be trusted for the exact reasons you give: there is no actual common belief, moral or otherwise, which characterizes Atheism, short of VOIDism and self-endowed, self-aggrandizing behaviors which engender elitism and totalitarianism.

"It purposefully goes directly counter to Judeo-Christianity,"
Not quite. It doesn't accept any religion because there is no reason to believe any religion.


Atheism exactly rejects Judeo-Christianity specifically, and refuses to give disciplined deductive reasons for doing so, much less scientific proof. The rejection of Judeo-Christianity includes denigration of what it stands for in terms of moral behavior. That is because there is no commonality to actual Atheist morals except to refuse to accept Judeo-Christian morality (and rational processes).

There are plenty of reasons and reasoning involved with real theology, and no Atheist actually addresses real theology with disciplined reasoning and reasons. Your claim is empty and false: there are reasons, and you have not refuted them, and it is a virtual guarantee that you will not provide disciplined deduction or valid empirical evidence as a refutation. You merely assert denial, without evidence of any type. Your claim is a belief which you believe to have Truth value, even though it cannot be proven (internally non-coherent: anti-rational). The fundamental rejections of Atheism cannot be supported with either disciplined deductive logic, nor with empirical, replicable, experimental data. Atheism is false in its claims to knowledge, and its claims to intellectual and moral superiority.

Stan said...

DVD said,
""the goodness of an act is based on the act itself, rather than its consequences. An evil act with good consequences is still an evil act and ought not be done."
The same is true of atheists, in general. I don't see how you're claiming that the ethical outlooks are different.


Again you speak for all Atheists. And yet what you say is false. Most Atheists are either consequentialists or they are relativists or a combination of those. For those, there are no "Bad" acts because the ethic of the act is completely dependent on the outcome which is desired. There also are other "ethics" as well, which are shot at each other by Atheist philosophers.

Try google before making universal statements.

DVD Bach said...

"Not that I need to, since you don’t refute anything"
If you're not going to support your claims, there's nothing to refute.

"Your position confirms the argument against trusting Atheists on any subject, including morality, where you chose to speak for all Atheists."
Actually, I was making my observation about morality about everyone, even religious people. We all judge morality according to our own intuitions, which is why Christians accept some biblical morality and reject other.

"The OT describes the nature of a deity, which Atheists now declare to be immoral, despite having no morals themselves. "
You don't find slavery immoral?

"This is a bizarre counter claim, a truly unrelated Tu Quoque Fallacy, and ignoring the actual massive secularization which Atheists are suing right and left in order to accomplish an Atheist religious coup via bullying lawsuits."
Fair enough, but you conflate atheism with secularism. Lawsuits are clearly required to enforce secularism, given the flagrant disregard for it that is shown by religious activists in positions of power.

"Atheists will claim anything whatsoever in order to preserve their march toward elimination of all actual morality"
Nonsense. I challenge you to support this claim.

"Witness the rage and homicidal fury that accompanied the recent Chik-Fil-A uprising of the AtheoLeft. "
Who got murdered? I must have missed that.

"there is no actual common belief, moral or otherwise, which characterizes Atheism"
Yes, there is: the belief that there are no gods.

"Atheism exactly rejects Judeo-Christianity specifically, and refuses to give disciplined deductive reasons for doing so, much less scientific proof"
No, it rejects all gods, on the basis that those claiming that they exist fail to meet their burden of proof.

"Your claim is empty and false: there are reasons, and you have not refuted them"
What reasons have you provided?

"You merely assert denial, without evidence of any type"
I assert no such thing. I have concluded that there is no god, based on lack of evidence.

"Most Atheists are either consequentialists or they are relativists or a combination of those. For those, there are no "Bad" acts because the ethic of the act is completely dependent on the outcome which is desired"
This is a complete misrepresentation of consequentialism. Desired outcome has no bearing on whether an outcome is beneficial or harmful; those things are objective.

"Try google before making universal statements"
Yes, because a Google search produces nothing but reliable sources, right? That goes a long way toward explaining your rampant misunderstanding of atheism. Ironic for a blogger who claims to analyze it.

Stan said...

"Not that I need to, since you don’t refute anything"
If you're not going to support your claims, there's nothing to refute.


This is typical of Atheist refusal to provide refutation for claims which are made. The excuse is that the claims cannot be addressed without further duties assigned to the proponent. It is a dodge, a deflection, a purposeful dereliction of intellectual responsibility. Either you can refute the claims or you cannot.

"Your position confirms the argument against trusting Atheists on any subject, including morality, where you chose to speak for all Atheists."
Actually, I was making my observation about morality about everyone, even religious people. We all judge morality according to our own intuitions, which is why Christians accept some biblical morality and reject other.


Now you speak for all humans. You truly are enamored of your enhanced capacities as an Atheist. The fact is that you cannot do so, and your attempt leads to caricature concepts rather than any reality. And you did not address the issue of trusting Atheists: it cannot be done.

"The OT describes the nature of a deity, which Atheists now declare to be immoral, despite having no morals themselves. "
You don't find slavery immoral?


This is not about me, it is about Atheists. Atheists have no common moral base and the slavery induced by the huge Atheist dictatorships of Red China and the USSR attests to the lack of a common Atheist morality, especially concerning murder, genocide and slavery.

"This is a bizarre counter claim, a truly unrelated Tu Quoque Fallacy, and ignoring the actual massive secularization which Atheists are suing right and left in order to accomplish an Atheist religious coup via bullying lawsuits."
Fair enough, but you conflate atheism with secularism. Lawsuits are clearly required to enforce secularism, given the flagrant disregard for it that is shown by religious activists in positions of power.


According to the U. S. Constitution, only Congress is bound by the First Amendment, not to enforce secularism as Atheists demand, but to enforce the free exercise of religion and to refrain from passing laws establishing a state religion. No congressman has proposed such a law. Atheists wish to redefine the concept to mean Atheism in all public venues. Read the FFRC lawsuits. Secularism is now equal to Atheism in the mind of the AtheoLeft.

"Atheists will claim anything whatsoever in order to preserve their march toward elimination of all actual morality"
Nonsense. I challenge you to support this claim.


Your internally contradictory claims here are sufficient. If not, read the FFRC lawsuits.

"Witness the rage and homicidal fury that accompanied the recent Chik-Fil-A uprising of the AtheoLeft. "
Who got murdered? I must have missed that.


Of course you missed it; Jon Stewart doesn’t cover news that goes counter to his narrative. To bring you up to date, the FRC office was invaded by a homicidal Leftist, influenced by the SPLC “hate map”; the homicidal leftist shot a guard and intended more shootings, but was stopped. The death wishes spewed all over the internet by the AtheoLeft were legion. But that is considered moral by the AtheoLeft, as is any tactic which furthers or supports their narrative, which is messiah/Victim. That is Consequentialism at work.

"there is no actual common belief, moral or otherwise, which characterizes Atheism"
Yes, there is: the belief that there are no gods.


And many other beliefs; see the most recent post. But the fundamental beliefs are negative (no gods, no absolutes) which creates the cherished freedom which is the VOID, and which produces intellectual and moral anarchy.

Stan said...

"Atheism exactly rejects Judeo-Christianity specifically, and refuses to give disciplined deductive reasons for doing so, much less scientific proof"
No, it rejects all gods, on the basis that those claiming that they exist fail to meet their burden of proof.


Presumably your concept of argumentation is merely rejectionism without any concept of Burden of Rebuttal. Burden of Proof for a non-physical entity cannot rationally include material proof. (Note 1)
It is rationally incumbent upon opponents to show and prove that their own demands on the proponent are rational, and that there conclusions meet all the standards of evidence and disciplined deductive logic. So, show that.

"Your claim is empty and false: there are reasons, and you have not refuted them"
What reasons have you provided?


Read the Atheist challenge in the right-hand column. Then refute it using disciplined deductive logic and/or empirical, replicable, experimental, falsifiable data per scientific standards.

"You merely assert denial, without evidence of any type"
I assert no such thing. I have concluded that there is no god, based on lack of evidence.


You provide exactly no evidence to support that statement. Plus, you don’t indicate what your personal standards for evidence are. I suspect that you are an uncritical Philosophical Materialist, which is a non-coherent philosophy, since it cannot provide material evidence for its own premise.

"Most Atheists are either consequentialists or they are relativists or a combination of those. For those, there are no "Bad" acts because the ethic of the act is completely dependent on the outcome which is desired"
This is a complete misrepresentation of consequentialism. Desired outcome has no bearing on whether an outcome is beneficial or harmful; those things are objective.


That is absolutely false. There is nothing objective in the world of Atheist philosophy. Concepts of harm and benefit are totally subjective and depend upon the intellectual whims of the individual Atheist philosopher. Consequentialism is a form of pragmatism, both of which chooses its objectives for the purposes of the chooser (completely subjective, as are all things Atheist). Undoubtedly the chooser will label his objectives moral because that is part of the tautological morality with which Atheists endow themselves: again totally subjective. Even the concepts of benefit and harm are totally dependent upon the whim of the Atheist who is defining (or redefining) them: again totally subjective.

Stan said...


"Try google before making universal statements"
Yes, because a Google search produces nothing but reliable sources, right? That goes a long way toward explaining your rampant misunderstanding of atheism. Ironic for a blogger who claims to analyze it.


You make subjective statements as if you speak for all Atheists, and then decry that very concept. If you even tried the tiniest bit of research before you make universal statements, you would find that your universal concepts are not valid. Don’t like google? Then read Atheist books. I do. And I read Atheist blogs and websites to see what they claim. You might try that. Your opinions seem formed in the VOID and remain there.

You are possessed of several sets of two contradictory positions, which you employ at will. Internal contradiction is a characteristic of Atheism, and it is irrational. Here are your examples:

(a) You claimed that there is no commonality between Atheists (“Hitchens isn't representative; no one speaks for all atheists.“), then you speak for all Atheists, claiming commonality to be rejection of theist arguments, and this: (“Atheists and religious people make moral judgments in exactly the same way, based on whether or not they increase happiness or cause harm to others.”) and (“Actually, I was making my observation about morality about everyone, even religious people”). You have no intellectual hesitation to make universal statements regarding both ends of the contradiction: “no-one; everyone”.

(b) You claimed that (“It [Atheism] doesn't accept any religion because there is no reason to believe any religion.”), then you claim that (“No, it rejects all gods, on the basis that those claiming that they exist fail [sic] to meet their burden of proof.) So the reasons do, in fact, exist, they are rejected, and rejected summarily without attendant disciplined logical refutation or empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable data confirming their falseness. So reasons do exist and the rejection of reasons is done irrationally.

(c) You claim this refutation (“It is the Atheist VOIDist who has no grounded moral philosophy".
I've already refuted that.”), despite your prior claim not to speak for all Atheists, yet who you claim to have one commonality: rejectionism; not morality.

I recommend a detailed study of college level logic if you wish to present rational arguments which pass the tests of disciplined deduction.

Note 1: If you require materialist evidence for a non-material entity, then you are invited to refute the claims made regarding the miracles at Lourdes, France. Your refutation would necessarily include material, empirical, replicable, falsifiable, experimental data, since that is the gold standard for materialists. Your refutation would be the first in the 150 years since the phenomenon was observed. So we await it, breath ‘bated.

DVD Bach said...

"This is typical of Atheist refusal to provide refutation for claims which are made"
If you are referring to the claim that any gods exist, then what is your support for the claim? If you're not willing to provide support, there's nothing to refute.

"Now you speak for all humans"
Yes, believe I can support the proposition. Despite all morality in the Bible supposedly coming from God, we deem some moral instructions to be worth following, while we discard others. In other to do so, we must have some moral standard outside of the Bible.

"Atheists have no common moral base "
Because atheism makes no moral claims. Again, morality is a separate matter from religion, for the reason I have just provided.

"According to the U. S. Constitution, only Congress is bound by the First Amendment"
Around 200 years of case law disagrees with you.

"Your internally contradictory claims here are sufficient."
The examples that you've cited in terms of what I've said are not contradictory.

"If not, read the FFRC lawsuits."
Cite one.

"To bring you up to date, the FRC office was invaded by a homicidal Leftist, influenced by the SPLC “hate map”; the homicidal leftist shot a guard and intended more shootings, but was stopped. "
Source?

"And many other beliefs; see the most recent post."
No amount of your imposing other beliefs on atheism changes the term's definition.

"Burden of Proof for a non-physical entity cannot rationally include material proof"
Then the entity has no interaction with the material world, rendering the question of its existence moot. If it did interact, that interaction would be observable.

"Read the Atheist challenge in the right-hand column"
Provide reasons in the context of this discussion, and I will address them.

"You provide exactly no evidence to support that statement"
Because the burden of proof is still not on me.

"There is nothing objective in the world of Atheist philosophy"
Atheism is not a philosophy. You are continuing to impose things on the definition of atheism that are not part of it.

"(“No, it rejects all gods, on the basis that those claiming that they exist fail [sic] to meet their burden of proof."
Your use of [sic] is incorrect here, since the verb "fail" is correctly conjugated to the subject "those claiming.

"If you require materialist evidence for a non-material entity, then you are invited to refute the claims made regarding the miracles at Lourdes, France."
Source?

DVD Bach said...

In looking back over the conversation, I'm seeing that rather than refuting many of my claims, you're simply making me repeat them. I'm not willing to do that any further, since I think that it is dishonest of you to make me do so. I'll happily address any genuine refutations that you offer, and I will ignore the claims that you are simply repeating without support.

DVD Bach said...

With all of the conversational threads going at once, it has only just now dawned on me that your bringing up the USSR in response to my question on slavery is an example of the same Tu Quoque fallacy that you're accusing me of. I'm clearly now having issues keeping my thoughts straight on all of the topics.

Accordingly, I'd like to see if I can distill the conversation down to the main point. Please correct me if I'm wrong on it.

You seem to be claiming that because atheism makes no moral claims, atheists themselves have no morals. However, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Allow me to illustrate using an analogy:

The belief that the earth orbits the sun makes no moral claims. However, people who believe that the earth orbits the sun are perfectly capable of making moral claims. This is because the belief in question is not the source of morality.

Similarly, the belief in any god, or lack thereof, is not the source of morality. Our innate sense of morality has evolved from the need to live together in society.

My support for the idea that morality is independent of religion (to restate it) is that we just some religious teachings (such as different directives in the Bible) to be of different moral importance than others. To do so, we must have a standard outside of religion (or the Bible) by which we are measuring them.

Please let me know if there are other arguments that I've made that for which you would like further support.

DVD Bach said...

Sorry, we *judge* some religious teachings to be more than important than others. (I had said *just*; my apologies for the typo.)

Stan said...

DVD,
I responded to your earlier comment and then removed it in light of the more recent comment which I address here:

DVD said,
"You seem to be claiming that because atheism makes no moral claims, atheists themselves have no morals. However, the conclusion does not follow from the premise."

No, that's not what I've said at all. Atheists initially enter into Atheism's VOID, within which there are no moral principles and no intellectual principles at that level. So they start from an empty position.

Then the Atheist is free to develop his own morals and intellectual process. It is this anarchic freedom which inebriates the Atheist with the concept of being his own intellectual and moral master, i.e. he is now elite, both intellectually and morally. Yet what comes from that process is ungrounded opinion, rather than anything resembling fact.

Further, whatever morality the Atheist creates for himself results in self-endowed tautological moral supremacy, because the moral code is created to be compatible with the Atheist's personal predilections. Also, the moral code can be changed at will (there is nothing in the VOID to prevent it) so that the Atheist’s behavior is always compatible with his own personal moral code. Hence he is morally superior to those who are beholden to an objective moral code which holds them to a higher and consistent standard which is tailored, not to be compatible with actual human behaviors, but to produce Good behaviors. Atheism rejects concepts of Good and Bad, and has ever since Nietzsche.

Obviously there is no way to determine what moral code an Atheist has at any given moment. This renders the Atheist untrustworthy, since his behaviors cannot be predicted based on any prior knowledge of his moral code, because his current moral code is vaporous and unknowable.

Your position that morals are derived by evolution is a Materialist fantasy, without any actual possibility of empirical verification using standard empirical disciplined techniques. Rather they are imaginings by persons paid to imagine unprovable Materialist things and then write papers on what they imagine. Even many Atheist philosophers agree that this is the case.

And yes, most philosophers these days are both Atheist and Materialist, and that reflects directly into their moral codes and their intellectual processes. Any philosopher who is not currently an Atheist would be referred to as a Theologist. Any philosopher who steps outside of Philosophical Materialism loses his credibility with other philosophers, and faces exclusion from eliteness. Atheist elitist philosophers cluster in universities, where they are outside the stream of normal life.
(continued)

Stan said...

”Similarly, the belief in any god, or lack thereof, is not the source of morality. Our innate sense of morality has evolved from the need to live together in society.”

You refer to an innate sense of morality, stating it as fact. There is nothing of which I am aware which empirically supports the existence of that. Children who sense unfairness are exercising empathy, not morality. Empathy is developed, not innate, as far as I know. Empathy diminishes considerably under Atheism, as studies show. The conscience must be developed, as parents know. The conscience does not develop in children who are neglected in the first five years of life: they become sociopathic, as was learned from the Romanian baby adoptions of the 1990s. The consciences of those from abusive parentage are deficient. And the consciences of philosophical consequentialists are completely disused, if they exist at all. If there are no wrong actions, then the conscience does no work and atrophies.

Cultural evolution of objective morals is a conceptual non-starter; cultures have no common morals which develop as natural projections of “cultural evolution”. It is more common for cultures to fall into moral decay. This is seen in our own culture where the concept of life is no longer seen as important to the AtheoLeft, which designates useful life and disposable life at will.

(continued)

Stan said...

”My support for the idea that morality is independent of religion (to restate it) is that we just some religious teachings (such as different directives in the Bible) to be of different moral importance than others. To do so, we must have a standard outside of religion (or the Bible) by which we are measuring them.”

That is not the case. The Old Testament is filled with civil law for the existing Hebrew tribes, and is specific to their situation. There is a difference between literal interpretation of the bible and literate interpretation of the bible. Atheists are the most fundamentalist of literal interpreters of the bible, likely because they want the bible to appear what it is not, and to then attack that erroneous concept (cartoon). The bible is filled with history, poetry, imagery, Socratic-type dialog, and all sorts of literary tools and devices intended to present an over-all concept. Atheists do not even try to understand that. They prefer to take isolated verses and declare them immoral, even though Atheism in its VOID has no morality, and subsequent fabrications have no moral authority. So when an Atheist cries “immoral” he means that his opinion is offended, not that any objective moral principle has been violated. Because there are no objective morals in Atheism, there are only subjective moral fabrications created by Atheists.

It is not necessary to step outside the bible for moral guidance, it is only necessary to understand it.

So when an external standard is used, as you suggest, it eliminates the moral authority of the bible (which is usually the Atheist intent) and it reifies the external standard. But all external standards are generated by those who first came through the moral VOID, and then made up their own morals. The idea that those fabricated, subjective morals are superior is popular only with those who consider themselves to be above and superior to the biblical concepts. Such elitism is unsustainable, morally or intellectually.

Since you ask, support your claim that there are no existing theist claims which are coherent deductions worth considering (presuming that paraphrase to be your actual claim). This will require addressing a great many theist arguments, so start with Aquinas, then take the challenge in the right hand column of this blog, and be sure to show your work. Your work would, of course, be either a disciplined logical argument using the rules of deduction, or it would be empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable data (the gold standard for Materialist evidence).

Also, there are some necessary beliefs common to Atheist Materialists which you might address:

Just one for now: Do you believe that the mind is material and is subject to the scientific rules of Cause and Effect (necessary for science to be done), and therefore that the mind’s product (thought) is totally determined by prior states of electrons in the brain’s composition, and prior states to that state, traceable clear back to the Big Bang?

If you do, justify your reasons for believing that.
If you don’t, justify your reasons for not believing that.

This should be interesting.

DVD Bach said...

If your interpretation of biblical morality is correct, why don't all Christians share it? Wouldn't an omnipotent god be able to eliminate any disagreement?

This is the second time you're asked me to take your "challenge" without articulating any specific claim for me to refute. What is your evidence for the existence of any god? Provide it, and I'm happy to address it.

I don't understand your question about the mind, I'm afraid. I don't see the connection you're trying to draw between the mind and the Big Bang.

DVD Bach said...

As for your other posts, I'm afraid you're making way too many baseless claims for me to address them all; I'm not going to be drawn back into multiple simultaneous conversations. Instead, I'm going to do my best to keep it focused on the central issue.

So again, my question is this: If there is only one omnipotent god, who reveals himself in only one collection of writings, why are there multiple interpretations of it? Beware of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy here.

Stan said...

”If your interpretation of biblical morality is correct, why don't all Christians share it? Wouldn't an omnipotent god be able to eliminate any disagreement?”

Why should he? Because you think he should? It is very common for Atheists to dictate what a creating deity “should” do, as if they were in charge of his morality, too.

”This is the second time you're asked me to take your "challenge" without articulating any specific claim for me to refute. What is your evidence for the existence of any god? Provide it, and I'm happy to address it.”

Good grief, it is written out simply for you in the challenge. Are you actually too lazy to even click and read? Or is this your poorly formed version of a Red Herring?

”I don't understand your question about the mind, I'm afraid. I don't see the connection you're trying to draw between the mind and the Big Bang.”

Then you also don’t understand the standard Atheist arguments which are commonly made, probably indicating that you have developed all your opinions in the VOID, without any outside contact with other Atheists. The argument is the standard Atheist argument against free will. It has recently been tempered to allow free choice, but not free will – a distinction without a difference.

”As for your other posts, I'm afraid you're making way too many baseless claims for me to address them all; I'm not going to be drawn back into multiple simultaneous conversations. Instead, I'm going to do my best to keep it focused on the central issue.”

So again, my question is this: If there is only one omnipotent god, who reveals himself in only one collection of writings, why are there multiple interpretations of it? Beware of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy here. “


You are asserting your avoidance issue. You don’t like my claims? Then refute them fully and completely. Don’t run off behind your own issue which you now claim to be the dominant issue (it is not). Declaring claims to be baseless is not an argument, it is a deflection of intellectual responsibility.

Re: your issue with how the deity operates. That is faaar from the central question. The central question is posed in the challenge in the right hand column, which you either will or will not address (hint: it requires clicking on it and reading it. If you are unable to do so, then there is no purpose in continuing discussions with you).

As far as your question goes, you apparently wish to make your presumptions about what a creating entity would or should do into conditions on that entity’s existence, based on that entity not living up to your personal expectations. The fact is that if you do that, you are presuming your own existence to be on a par with or superior to that creating entity. This is your version of the common Atheist hubris whereby the Atheist can place himself above such an entity regardless of having any evidence which precludes its existence. It is a prime example of Atheist ego-centric elitism. You can play God of the Universe, but you don’t have a universe.

You do not need an answer to your question in order to prove or disprove the existence of that deity. What you need is a disciplined deductive argument of disproof, or failing that, empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable data disproving the existence. If you reject the existence, then it is your intellectual responsibility to show the rational, logical reasoning proving that non-existence conclusively. If you cannot, then your belief system is without either logical or empirical support, and is therefore blind belief. That is especially true in your case, because you have not done your homework regarding either Atheist arguments or theist arguments which are necessary for you to defeat and refute. Your belief is blind belief.



DVD Bach said...

And now the truth comes out: You're unable to answer my question, which is why you resort to your ongoing string of logical fallacies (shifting the burden of proof being the most common).

There are only two possibilities:
1) God intends there to be one objective morality. If this is the case, why do Christians all have different conceptions of morality?
2) God intends there to be more than one subjective morality. If this is true, your entire argument is invalid, because your morality suffers from the exact subjectivity of which you accuse atheists.

So which is it? I'll interpret your unwillingness to answer as inability.

By the way, this is the point at which most Christians block my comments. I've made sure to take a screenshot to expose you on my blog if you decide to do so.

Stan said...

And now the truth comes out: You're unable to answer my question, which is why you resort to your ongoing string of logical fallacies (shifting the burden of proof being the most common).

And the truth is that your pursuit of a trivial question instead of answering the actual question which defines the existence of a creating deity illuminates your refusal to take intellectual responsibility for your rejectionism, blind rejectionism, ignoring the actual issue.

There are only two possibilities:
1) God intends there to be one objective morality. If this is the case, why do Christians all have different conceptions of morality?
2) God intends there to be more than one subjective morality. If this is true, your entire argument is invalid, because your morality suffers from the exact subjectivity of which you accuse atheists.


False Dichotomy, typical Atheist tactic. (and another presumptuous universal statement indicating knowledge you cannot actually have). Other options which are ignored:

(a) The deity intends for humans to use their minds and make their own conclusions regarding their behaviors which includes rationalizing about the moral principles and then realizing the value of the moral principles as they experience failures and consequences. Atheists rationalize all premises to fit their unproven and unprovable conclusion, and the False Dichotomy above shows exactly that. Rationalization is a failure which accompanies the freedom to use one’s mind, and choose either rational processes (to which one must submit), or to choose an answer first and then spend one’s life trying to find premises to justify their answer (the Atheist path). Atheism is pure rejectionism while ignoring contrary input, as you have shown, by choosing your answer and refusing to address contrary logic or even to address famous miracles of which you have never even heard..

(b) The deity is evil and intends to delude people into evil “morals”. This is an Atheist fave.

(c) Atheists are blinded and deluded (this is biblical).

(d) No human has a clear idea of the deity’s intent (also biblical: “through a glass, darkly”; Paul).

So which is it? I'll interpret your unwillingness to answer as inability.

By the way, this is the point at which most Christians block my comments. I've made sure to take a screenshot to expose you on my blog if you decide to do so.


I can see why you get blocked: you don’t answer questions which relate to Atheist beliefs which are necessary to the creation and maintenance of Atheism, and you create fallacies which you pretend are actually important, as you play god yourself. This renders discussion with you to be an exercise in irrationality, and a waste of time.

Complete waste of time. Your refusal to click and read the challenge indicates your intellectual cowardice. Make sure that this gets on your blog. Because you are a waste of time.

Adios.

Stan said...

DVD,
Here are some interesting questions for you: Do you actually think that your blog followers have not gone over to the right hand column and read the challenge? Do you think that they do not know what issue you are avoiding? Do you think that they don't know that you have actually read it and avoid it out of intellectual cowardice?

You are outed.

DVD Bach said...

Your responses to my question about God's intentions for morality all support my #2 option, so I don't see how it's a false dichotomy.

Thank you for setting your inability to answer the question. I look forward to amusing myself with your love of logical fallacies in the future.

Stan said...

No, actually they don't. Read them carefully again. What you ignore is that the actual morality is objective, but the nature of man makes personal subjective interpretations a part of the human moral growth process as humans learn the path to actual right behaviors. You want the simplistic explanation in order to support your rationalization. That's the Atheist process. But it is false.

So now, after avoiding all the actual issues which are pertinent to whether there is an existing creating being, you appear to be heading for the door. Thus you have settled the question of your intellectual cowardice.

It would be better for you to learn the rules of logic, specifically those rules of deduction and verification, and to learn how to get out of the mode of rationalization. The intellect should not be ruled by addictions to emotional needs, especially not the deep need for anarchic freedom of thought and anarchic morality. You have what it takes, its too bad you don't use it. But it does require something which you might not be able to do: it requires submission to truth when it is rationally determined. Submission goes directly against the Atheist need for the eliteness of total anarchic freedom as it is self-endowed in the Atheist VOID.

DVD Bach said...

Yes, I'm done. Because I have all of the information that I need. Namely, I was able to confirm that you're happy to project the moral failings of your own religious worldview onto a belief that has nothing to do with morality.

I'm also convinced that you know that's what you're doing, which makes you dishonest as well.

I've read your other posts, and all I can say is that no amount of attempting to ascribe additional beliefs to atheism changes the fact that it is a single belief.

You know this, and you're lying about it. Keep it up, because I want everyone to read your blog and decide for themselves whether you really are analyzing atheism, or if you're happy just to slander it.

Way to represent your religion. Enjoy the moral high ground.

Steven Satak said...

@DVD Bach: Man, you're just a little ray of sunshine, aren't you?

"I have all the information I need"

Really? The way you've been talking, you're not only the supreme intelligence, you're the smartest guy in the room! Be honest, now - you had all the information you needed before you ever set foot in this website.

Holy Cats!

"happy to project the moral failings of your own religious worldview "

"makes you dishonest as well"

"You know this, and you're lying about it"

"you're happy just to slander it"


Well, I gotta hand it to Stan; he called this one a long time back. When the atheist runs out of denials and 'misunderstanding' and evasion, they slide right back to their second-favorite tactic... insulting the speaker.

That's four, count them, four Ad Hominem attacks in a row. Fired off as he went down in defeat, I guess, because he's still yakking like Stan never wrote a word up there. Although he did grant Stan the moral high ground, it's a hollow gesture. The guy's moral spectrum appears to be whatever he thinks will get the coon. There is no high ground in his tiny world - just the last word.

You did a good job keeping your temper with this one, Stan. I woulda written the guy off a long while back, but I suppose you need the occasional Supreme Intellect to use for an example.

I dunno, though. This guy looks and writes like every other internet Troll I have ever seen. Maybe he ain't so special after all? Hah! Someone's been pulling your leg, Stan. Maybe next time they'll send a fellow who's actually read some of the more popular atheist literature.

Steve

Stan said...

”Yes, I'm done. Because I have all of the information that I need. Namely, I was able to confirm that you're happy to project the moral failings of your own religious worldview onto a belief that has nothing to do with morality.”

First off, you have no idea what my religious worldview might be, or if I even have one. I would defend any religious worldview, including Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism against your irrationality with the same vigor with which I have defended Judeo-Christianity. You once again arrogantly pretend to have knowledge which you don’t have.

Next, what “belief that has nothing to do with morality” are you referring to? Atheism?? You have pretended that Atheism is quite moral:

” Atheists and religious people make moral judgments in exactly the same way, based on whether or not they increase happiness or cause harm to others.”

You make contradictory claims at will; this is just one more in a long chain of contradictions. Your irrationality is palpable.

”I'm also convinced that you know that's what you're doing, which makes you dishonest as well.”

Using disciplined logic is dishonest? Under Atheist rationalizations it would be seen that way, of course. You have not studied logic, obviously, nor would it benefit your cause. Your complaint is not with me, it is with Aristotle.

”I've read your other posts, and all I can say is that no amount of attempting to ascribe additional beliefs to atheism changes the fact that it is a single belief.”

The Atheist beliefs which I document exist; they are the natural consequence of adopting irrationality as a worldview. I’ve explained this, and you ignore it along with all the other issues which are actually pertinent to Atheism. You have demonstrated both your irrationality and your inclination to run away from addressing issues that are actually the basis for your own worldview, a worldview that I’d bet contains the beliefs which I’ve documented as existing in other Atheists (except that you haven’t even heard of most of them).

”You know this, and you're lying about it. Keep it up, because I want everyone to read your blog and decide for themselves whether you really are analyzing atheism, or if you're happy just to slander it.”

Please do pass the word, and warn them that logic is the basis for conversation here, not emotional attachments to irrational processes and worldviews. Persistent contradiction, Red Herrings, unsustainable conclusions made without accompanying premises much less evidence, etc. will be called what they are: irrational.

”Way to represent your religion. Enjoy the moral high ground.”

Again you have no idea if I even have a religion, much less what it is, yet without any information to support your belief, you make your conclusion, as all your conclusions, in an intellectual vacuum.

Stan said...

Steve,
I posted my last comment before I read yours... you might be right, this is starting to look like a joke rather than a serious contender to anything.

Maybe it was a set-up to demonstrate how they can know eveything without knowing anything. That's pretty common in adolescence, when a lot of Atheism gets started.

DVD Bach said...

Sounds like someone needs to look up "ad hominem." It refers to a personal attack without addressing the substance of an argument. I have addressed the argument, yet he continues to trot it out. I therefore stand by my criticism on his honesty.

Just to recap, here's the argument:
A) Atheism makes no claim about morality
therefore
B) Atheists have no morals.

B does not follow from A. It is no different from this claim:

A) The fact that the earth goes around the sun makes no claim about morality
therefore
B) People who believe that the earth goes around the sun have no morals.

It's a non sequitur. He knows this. Yet he continues to make the claim. Dishonest.

Stan said...

DVD,
Bullshit. That is not the argument. You just make up whatever you want to argue against and ignore what the real arguments say.

Atheism does make no claim regarding morals; Atheists are free to make up their own morals, which they do, and their morals have been outlined in the post.

I did not make the argument which you claim, and your use of it is dishonest.

And you are free intellectually to produce whatever Bullshit you wish to claim as true, regardless of the actual, demonstrable truth. This is a case of making up your own reality so that you feel free to sling accusations of dishonesty, dishonestly.

Your allegations are not worth addressing, because your reality is irrational. I've demonstrated this here, for the last time.

DVD Bach said...

Just like people who believe the earth goes around the sun get to choose their own morals. You know you're full of shit.

Fuck you, you lying asshole.

See, I can use profanity too.

Stan said...

DVD,
Your colors have shown. You will no longer comment here.

Steven Satak said...

@Stan: Well, you did call this one a long time back. Remember, it was you who pointed out (though there have been many others as well) that when atheoleftists exhaust the tactics of fallacy, misdirection and non-sequitur, they start in with the personal insults.

Nothing pleases me more than to see a rebel soul admit defeat. And make no mistake, he's defeated. But he did it to himself, as in the end they all do. The last straw (or is it only a final, defiant expression of the Will to Power?) is to throw cusswords.

I think you were right - he/she is an adolescent, in mind if not in chronological fact. Maybe he/she will grow to be an adult someday? But that ego is gonna make it hard.

FrankNorman said...

DVD Bach there seems to be a pretty clear demonstration of how some people see only what they have already chosen to see.

Such people are simply not being serious.

joogabah said...

Wouldn't it be more apt to pair atheism with liberalism, rather than leftism? I think of Leftism as advocacy for working people, not glorification of the self. It is Liberalism that rebells against authority. Many communists have sacrificed themselves in the belief they were creating a world without slavery (if the labor theory of value is true, and there are very good reasons to think that it is - then capitalists are parasites, if not as entrepreneurs, then eventually as rentiers and inheritors of great wealth).

Excellent post, btw.

Stan said...

The term "liberalism" has been perverted to the extent that no one can really say what it means any more. Leftism is clearly involved in the designation of the three class system, and the establishment of the savior class of elites who will save the Victimhood Class from the Evil Oppressor Class. This includes communism and fascism, which are totalitarian suppression systems based on elitist messiah-type saviors bent on the destruction of huge populations of "oppressors".

As for economic value, what the consumer will pay for an item should determine the maximum amount of cost to be invested in the manufacture, marketing and delivery of that product. When that is done, the common man (consumer) benefits by both affordability and availaability of the product. Labor value ignores the consumer, and drives pricing and avaiability with no regard for the consumer.

As they say in communist countries: under communism, you wait in lines for bread; under capitalism, the bread waits on shelves for you.