The Atheist Ethicist Explains Bigotry

The Atheist Ethicist explains why it is bigotry not to trust Atheists with government or much of anything, really.

” When a person's religion touches on policy, then we have every right to judge that person's religious beliefs. If he thinks his God wants him to adopt a path that will kill millions of innocent people, that is good reason to vote against him.

The candidate has two options. "Either you agree to leave your religion at the door when you enter public office, or we have every right to judge your religion and to judge you a poor candidate on the basis of those beliefs." If a candidate holds that he does not believe in the separation of church and state, then we have a duty to judge his fitness for office by judging his religion.”

If a person claims Atheism, we have a duty to discover his self-derived moral system, and judge his fitness for office based on his relativism and lack of absolutes, both of which are mainstays of Atheist ethics. If a person holds that moral absolute considerations are not to be found in government, and must be purged however necessary, then we have a duty to judge his fitness for office by judging his religious hatred.

”Yet, this explains why the rejection of a candidate grounded on atheism is bigotry. Atheism, strictly defined, has no policy implications. Atheism says that it is certainly or almost certainly the case that no God exists. You cannot infer any policy objectives from this fact. You cannot even infer the conclusion that religion is a bad thing. Whereas only beliefs that have policy implications are relevant to a candidate's fitness for public office, and atheism has no policy implications, atheism is not relevant to fitness for public office.”

This is completely false. It can be inferred that an Atheist will not use logic which is grounded in absolutes, and inferred that the Atheist will use ethical considerations which are situational and relativistic, not being grounded in absolutes either. It can be inferred that the Atheist, especially the Atheist ethicist, will have conferred upon himself moral authority to make ethical decisions for the ethically benighted masses that need his guidance and regulation. It can be inferred that moral and intellectual relativism as well as moral proclamations will be part and parcel of Atheist policy objectives.

”My argument is not that criticism of atheists by its very nature is out of bounds - the way that some argue we must ignore a person's religion. My claim is that false and unfounded malicious claims about atheism represent bigotry that has no place in legitimate public discussion. They fall in the same moral category as claims that Jews are a part of a greedy cabal out to control the economy and blacks are unfit for any duty other than basic manual labor.”

In which the Atheist Ethicist places all criticism of Atheism into the same category as racism, thereby conferring upon them the automatic condemnation of the politically correct, regardless of any merit contained in the argument. The only criterion is the declaration that a claim is false, unfounded and malicious. He previously tried to establish that any claims about Atheism other than the rejection of God are false; so any other claims about Atheism are thus bigoted. But there are consequences which we are perfectly entitled to examine, and the consequences of the void of Atheism are severe.

”In the case of atheist candidates, we live in a society filled with unfounded hatred and bigotry that prevents people from voting for atheist candidates even when they are the better candidate. That bigotry is so intense and profound that the honest atheist knows never to even try to run for public office, and (with very rare exceptions) only the dishonest atheist has any hope of serving in public office. Of this latter group, we probably have several, and they may otherwise do an acceptable job, but replacing them with an atheist who is not so comfortable with public deception would likely be a plus, all else being equal.”

We must immediately ask here, “what exactly is an honest Atheist”? Based on what set of criteria? The concept of honesty is not derivable from the concept of Atheism. Would the “honest” Atheist start out by declaring his lack of morals due to Atheism? Or would he declare his Consequentialism, or his Virtue Ethics, or his obeisance to Humanism, all three Manifestos? Or maybe he would declare that morals are defined by scientific findings, or possibly were determined by Natural Selection, red in tooth and claw on the one hand, or mentally evolved to total selfless cooperation on the other? Or possibly he would admit that his morals are relativistic, and subject to change without notice? Exactly what would an “honest” Atheist claim?

This is supposed by the Atheist Ethicist to produce a feeling in the voter that his welfare as a human is being represented somehow. But relativism means relative to the relativist; any decision would necessarily be made for the benefit of the relativist. We already have a government full of those.

”We create a culture that brands all atheists as immoral, and that then grants the honor of public service only to those who fit the stereotype, while barring all who value truth and honesty.”

Once again, neither of the concepts, truth nor honesty, are derivable from the concept of Atheism. What is derivable from Atheism is the rejection of the only authoritative moral source, and substituting himself into that role. Moreover, the propensity of Atheists to reject absolutes allows us to infer that neither truth nor honesty is possible under such a rationale.

”We see this in surveys that show that atheists are considered as untrustworthy as rapists, that they are the group people claim are least likely to share their values as Americans, and are the people they would least like their child to marry. Atheists are feared for having no moral foundation and, thus, are thought of as being as willing and eager to do whatever benefits themselves regardless of who is harmed because they acknowledge no divine authority that tells them not to or threatens to punish them if they do.

Atheists seem not able to see themselves as anything other than the mythological creatures they create in their own imaginations: rational, good without morals, superior thereby. Why can they not see that by not having moral standards it is perfectly necessary that they do not share the values of the majority of Americans who do have moral standards? What seems so obvious is perfectly opaque to Atheists.

The Atheist Ethicist is wasting his time crying bigotry for not considering Atheists to be “good”. Rather he should tell us exactly what “good” means to an Atheist. What does it mean to every Atheist? Do they have anything in common, morally? Why do they need Atheist Ethicists? He should tell us exactly why anyone, any Atheist even, is justified in trusting another Atheist, in view of the admitted moral void attached to Atheism.

With no moral basis, why trust them?

It seems that Atheists are quite comfortable with their individual, personal “ethics”, all of which are different, yet all of which are “good” by their own definition. They are so comfortable being “good” under these tautological circumstances that they are completely unable to identify with anyone who uses a different authority to establish a stable concept of morality. Such stability in morality is actually feared by Atheists, who get their dander up at the thought of moral absolutes. They would fail under absolutes, and they know it. They could never declare themselves good, all good, billboard good, under absolutes. Those who subscribe to stable concepts of morality are to be feared.

After all, not all lifestyles would be considered moral under absolutes. Under relativism it is possible to accept whatever is convenient at the moment: homosexuality, then pedophilia; abortion, then infanticide. No problem. It’s all good, just ask the ethicist.

Well, of course it’s not ALL good. It is bigotry to question the values of an Atheist. Again, just ask the Atheist Ethicist.

The Atheist Ethicist goes even further: it is bigotry writ into the currency, into the pledge, into the minds of children the moment they enter school the first day. Bigotry institutionalized and focused on the poor Atheist. Apparently the cure would be to institutionalize Atheism instead, to teach relativism and moral voids and fear of absolutes and intellectual grounding. One nation, without God, in the absence of absolutes...? In Atheism We Trust...? No absolutes need apply...? Relativism institutionalized and religion legislated against due to its bigotry? All contrary arguments outlawed due to bigotry? (After all, bigotry is already a hate crime). Consequences can be ornery things. And denying them just makes the suspicion even worse.

None of this seems to be apparent to the Atheists who see no problems with their own versions of "goodness" conflicting with reality, much less other versions of goodness.