An Atheist Betrays Her Moral Anarchy

An Atheist Wants To Teach Us:

Atheism is lack of belief, not morality
The concepts of good and evil can be defined outside of religious frameworks
By Lauren Young

We join this article in progress:

"My views on morality versus immorality were rooted in my natural ability to empathize and rationalize.

Rationalize? Interesting. Tell us more.

"My ability to understand the horror of sexism, racism and homophobia isn’t based off of my fear of going to hell, but by basic rational thought, supported by empirical evidence in biology, psychology and sociology.

The horrors of the presumptive oppression of the defined Victimhood groups. Her comprehension is based on rational assessment of empirical evidence, she claims. But there is nothing empirical about sociology, a discipline which has foregone the title of “science”. Psychology is not based on cause and effect, either, and is not empirical. That leaves biology, so maybe she will proved the biological sources for defining the biological horrors of sexism, racism and homophobia. However, after reading through the remainder of her writing here, she does not do so. What she has done is to try to imbue herself with respectability for her position by making an empty claim of rationality, and scientific backing. A blatant Appeal to Authority Fallacy, purposefully perpetrated.

"Atheists can determine right and wrong based on the consequences of their actions.

Consequentialism, inadequately defined, nonetheless it is the concept.

"By observing the positive or negative effects of their actions, atheists can hold themselves accountable for what they do and how they should treat others under the law.

This is so loosely defined as to allow the “right and wrong” and the “positive or negative” to be completely determined by the acting Atheist, including how it affects her own outcome.

"Elementary ideas, such as cause and effect, personal responsibility and the golden rule help constitute an atheist’s set of morals.

Really? These are encoded into what document which is accepted as the official Atheist Set of Morals? There is no set of such rules, and each of the stated “elementary ideas” is hardly agreed to or incorporated by Atheists as standard Atheist operating procedure. Atheist philosophers who deal in ethics talk in much different terms, generally about what is good for society as a whole, at the expense of the individual members of society. This is part of the massive Leftist shift that occurs when Atheists decide that they are the moral arbiters for everyone else. It results in the victimhood groups which she enumerates above. The existence of these prefabricated Victimhood categories allows the AtheoLeftist to become their savior, or messiah.

"As a result of evolution, humans are naturally social animals.

Now we’re talking. Evolution is "science", right? This is stated as an immutable fact. Let’s see some empirical cause and effect experimental data which proves that to be the case; otherwise it is not a valid concept. But no, it is just asserted as an all new ontological First Principle. We must accept it at face value. Sorry but it is not self-evident, nor is it empirical; it is a biased inference.

"This helps to explain why we sacrifice ourselves to fit in, to survive within the group and to develop intense relationships with others.

Nope. The evolutionary hypothesis must be objectively demonstrable before you can use it to explain anything, particularly human behaviors. And those behaviors are not universal, and are not the certain effect of any cause. This chain of thought is failing at each step.

"Because of our psychobiological desire for relationships, we act in our own self-interest by furthering the interests of others.

That is psychobiological-babble. In fact, it is evo-devo-babble which she co-opted. This is certainly not a universal trait or feature. It is an artifact of evolutionists' imagination which is being fired up for use in generating false premises for her ultimate conclusion – indeed rationalizing her conclusion, as she first stated. This chain of premises, being non-universal and fallacious, cannot support any conclusion which one might want to be valid or true. She she is in deep water here.

Yet she marches on:

"The human will to cherry-pick what makes a righteous Christian and what constitutes an unethical Muslim justifies the reality that morality can’t be left to a strict religious construct.

"Justifies the reality"? Aside from an absurd lexical construct, her conclusion strays into absurdity all on its own. First, she makes no effort to define what, precisely, is being cherry picked, or who, exactly, is cherry-picking what out of what. The accusation stands as merely bizarre, without actual content. Further, if she is saying that humans are fickle, then that demolishes her entire previous argument about humans being deterministically altruistic due to evolution.

"Morality is not dependent on one’s belief in a god, and the ability to take objectively good actions in society does not rely on humans developing a relationship with God before developing one with others.

These two preceding statements entirely contradict one another; first humans have a “will to cherry pick” whatever morality they want. Second, developing relationships with others apparently will automatically, deterministically produce morality, which is actually just evolved empathy, not any prescriptions for acting. Tell that to the constabulary in Rotherham and Manchester, Britain. Tell that to the elderly who develop relationships with someone only to be stolen blind by that person. Developing a relationship with someone who has no consistent, non-volatile moral system is destined for disaster. Empathy doesn't go far, all on its own.

Further it is easily shown, empirically, that Atheists have very little actual empathy if empathy is measured by contributions to charitable causes. As messiahs of their created Victim Classes, they depend on the funds taken from the designated Oppressor class as taxation to do the funding that they personally will not do; AtheoLeftists are notorious for not paying their own taxes. Empathy, as an Atheist claim, is very, very empty. In fact, it is their creation of the Victimhood Classes which are necessary for the support of their claim to empathy: by having "victims" (usually themselves) to weep over, they convince themselves of their empathy. What they have done is to paint their narcissistic egotism with a patina of slobber which they call "empathy".

"Horrific religious cleansing massacres such as the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust and the Bosnian Genocide plague the holy righteousness that is associated with religious virtue.

Yep. Here it is, the obligatory evil of religion. For which the obligatory rejoinder is that Atheists killed nearly 250,000,000 people in just the past ten decades. Sources for this recent history abound; either she is truly ignorant, or she is willingly deceptive in her claim. She intends to support her own self-righteous Messiahism by insinuating that religious killing exists as a religious virtue and that Atheist mass killing does not. Further, there is nothing in Christianity which justifies the false claim of “religious virtue” in any religious killing. That is a blatant lie by implication.

"To solely rely on religion for your moral code only provides you with a pedestal to place yourself above others.

And there is the lie of lies, a slander rather than a fact. The principles of Christianity absolutely do not do this. Any Christian who does this is acting outside of the red print in the bible. Atheists, on the other hand, this Atheist included, do exactly that, with statements exactly like this one. She is self-righteously condemning a religion which is instructed not to judge others. Her personal anointed self-righteousness elevates her to presumptive moral eliteness and moral authority to preach her morality of evolved empathy to others, based on, well, on the false statements she chooses to make.

But all of that obstructs the actual claim she makes, which is that having fixed, known expectations for guiding one's behaviors is not part of religious moral code. That is absurd. But for her it is a necessity if she is to believe her other absurdities.

And next she chooses to educate us on what morality is and is not:

"Morality can’t be defined strictly by its ethereal context.

Is this part of her science or her rationalization? She is dictating a fact, but based on what? Let’s see her empirical evidence, or at least a disciplined deductive argument. That doesn’t happen and will not.

Should morality instead be defined by childish pseudo-philosophy? Do what feels right at the time? Or just do what you feel like, because there is no right or wrong? If she assumes first that she is more, better, superior to all other possible moral authorities, only then can such statements be made with a straight face.

"It is defined by how you treat others on earth, not how you think they should be treated in the afterlife.

And this final statement betrays a massive ignorance of the actual moral principles which she rails against, but does not comprehend. Morality is not about behavior in the afterlife, in any religion; that’s only in her mind as she struggles to concoct a case for supporting her own elitist concepts. She has created a false notion to attack, a classical straw man fallacy. It's another false premise for the chain of support of her rationalized conclusion.

But all Atheist concepts necessarily fabricate and attack such false notions in order to draw their conclusions. It allows them to develop false reasoning for justifying making up their own rules. They refuse standards and absolutes of course, and they live by their own personal codes of the moment. In other words, they are anarchists, both intellectually and morally.

The title of this article is false on both counts. She demonstrates that she has no "lack of belief" regarding a deity or religious principles (which she doesn’t even know or comprehend). And she demonstrates fully that she is not possessed of any fixed moral principles other than that she claims empathy in a world full of non-empathetic religious people. She cannot justify a claim of being moral, and certainly not actually empathetic with the Other (only Victimhood Categories); she demonstrates fully that she is a deluded moral anarchist. But she did justify her claim of being based in rationalization.