Posted on 05/20/2008 7:34:35 AM PDT by topcat54
“The ‘atheist nation’ of China mourns for their dead and undertakes a huge humanitarian effort which proves their system of shame and honor is vastly superior to the Christian system of dogmatic and silly superstitions. Christians absolutely hate it when other people show more concern for their fellow humans than the Christians do. Christians only pretend to love their fellow humans and do so only because they think they have to, not because they actually want to. Once again atheism trumps Christianity as a much more viable and sane worldview. This is why Christianity is a dead religion that is disappearing faster than the snow in Greenland. Nothing could make an atheist happier than the demise of Christianity.”
The above paragraph was sent to me from an irrational, logically confused, virulent anti-Christian atheist who presents himself as a superior intellect on every topic under the sun. In the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of emails he has sent to me, I find that his worldview perverts every word he reads, twisting and contorting the facts to fit his manufactured state of unreality. Consider why atheists should mourn for their dead or undertake any form of humanitarian effort. Animals don’t mourn for their dead, care for their sick and injured, build hospitals, establish relief agencies, or even attempt to recover the bodies of the dead after a catastrophe. Some species actually feed on the dead. It seems to me that any atheist who offers any kind of aid or shows compassion is the one being superstitious and simply following religious rituals that he does not believe in.
The Chinese have been raised as atheists. Why are they bothering with any form of “humanitarian effort”? Several generations of atheist indoctrination should have removed such thinking from their thought processes as being illogical. Why not just bulldoze the dead under the rubble. A true atheist should look upon such an event as a test of genetic resolve and rational judgment. The best DNA specimens survived to pass on their superior genetic makeup to future generations, and yet the Chinese mourn their dead. In the world of atheism, none of this makes any sense.
Why do humans manifest “shame” and “honor”? Such character traits are not the result of evolution. Humans are carbon units with electricity animating meat and bones. Shame and honor are qualities that manifest themselves in every human being, Chinese human beings included, because we are all created in the image of God. An atheist cannot account for shame, honor, or humanitarianism within the reductionist worldview of materialism. Evolution is the survival of the fittest. Atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins believes that “human super niceness is a perversion of Darwinism because, in a wild population, it would be removed by natural selection. . . . From a rational choice point of view, or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain dumb.”1 There you have it. The high priest of Evolution has spoken. Of course, like my atheist emailer, Dawkins can’t life with the consequences of his morally sterile worldview, so he must postulate “super niceness” so our world won’t self-destruct under the weight of cold evolutionary logic. While calling altruism “dumb,” Dawkins maintains it “should be encouraged.” How does anyone know what’s nice and what’s not? Maybe the modern-day eugenics movement was being “nice” in attempting to breed out the genetically inferior, and Hitler was being “nice” when the National Socialist government passed the “Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring.” In less than two years after its implementation, more than “150,000 German citizens were forced to undergo the procedure, preparing the way for the genocide to come.”2 Cyclones, hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes do it the hard way. Science does it more efficiently. “Better living through atheism.”
The genetic movement in the United States is described by Harry Bruinius in his book Better for all the World as “America’s quest for racial purity.” Senator Aubrey Strode, author of the Virginia sterilization law and the attorney who argued Buck v. Bell (1927) before the Supreme Court studied “the laws of science to help shape the laws of his state. . . . Darwin’s theory of evolution had begun to change how many viewed the nature of mankind.”3 Eugenics had become “scientific” and therefore justifiable. Bruinius shows the logically scientific impact that Darwin had on the American eugenic movement that was adopted by Hitler and the National Socialists:
In a natural state, the law of the “survival of the fittest” would act as a “purifying process,” allowing each species to evolve to higher states of being. But charity and altruism upset this natural purifying process, and ensured the survival of the weak.4
Where is the atheist equivalent of the Salvation Army? I don’t see “Atheist Army” centers around the country. Where’s the atheist religion in action? Why should atheists even bother? There was no tragedy attached to Katrina, China, or Myanmar given the operating assumptions of atheism. Atheists believe that “all we are is dust in the wind.” Meat, bones, and tissue ceased to function as the flood waters squeezed the air out of the lungs of mammals in New Orleans and Myanmar that had not evolved the ability to breathe under water. Then there’s the damage to property. Possessions, as John Lennon told us in his ode to atheism, are a hindrance. It was a good thing for houses and businesses to be washed away and destroyed in an earthquake. Why does any of this matter to those who hold a materialistic worldview who can’t account for purpose, design, love, compassion, morality, or the insatiable need to own things?
Atheists have borrowed the moral worldview of Christianity and claim that it can be sustained by the underlying assumptions of a godless existence. Atheism is an anti-worldview that, ironically, needs Christianity to exist. My atheist emailer wrote, “Nothing could make an atheist happier than the demise of Christianity.” You know, in this single instance, he’s right. Atheists in the atheistic Soviet Union, and atheists in Communist China, and atheists in Cambodia couldn’t be happier with the demise of Christianity. But I wonder what the tens of millions of people who suffered and died under these regimes would say. How happy do you think they were?
2. Harry Bruinius, Better for all the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America’s Quest for Racial Purity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 17.
3. Bruinius, Better for all the World, 34.
4. Bruinius, Better for all the World, 36.
Atheism is self-contradictory.
Good article.
What makes an atheist happy?
eat, drink, and be merry for tommorow they die
An atheist cannot be both happy and consistent.
If life ultimately has no meaning, why should anyone live as if it does?
So, now that you've narrowed it down to.... well, all of them...
I have debated alot of atheists and this is a common view. And it always makes me wonder. If you believe those that who worship any God as silly superstitious people - then who cares? If I knew people who worshiped a chair - I would think them silly and wasting their time, but I would waste my time hating them or pushing for their demise.
And why do atheists have so much bile for Jesus. By their standards, all religious people are silly - mulsim, hindu, american indian, etc. And I NEVER see them direct the same amount of hate towards all those other religions...
Indeed. I can think of no other group on earth that gets so angry about something they state does not exist.
“The above paragraph was sent to me from an irrational, logically confused, virulent anti-Christian atheist who presents himself as a superior intellect on every topic under the sun.”
You know, virtually every atheist I encounter has this incredibly smug ‘know it all’ attitude that all but demands you worship them as god. I guess that kind of attitude is endemic to the herd....
It’s the same concept that makes the Arabs/Palis so angry about Israel.
They have a glittering jewel of success in their midst that makes their culture look really bad by comparison.
Therefore, instead of going with the successful culture, they attempt to destroy it so that they aren’t compared to it.
And their argument style consists of what I call
“proof by arrogant condescension”
I don't know. Maybe ... Satan?
IMHO, atheists cannot be happy... as they are ALWAYS angry (at who?) and happiness and anger are exclusive of each other...
When one rebels against G-d, all that is left is ego... and ego has an insatiable appetite... must ALWAYS be fed, and is a fearsome merciless master! This is why most atheists deceive themselves into “presenting… as a superior intellect on every topic under the sun” because that is ALL they have! They are so pathetic!
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once… “He who dies with the most toys wins” (wins what?) It should read “He who dies with the most toys… is still dead!”
I posted this in the DU thread about astrology but thought it was relevant here:
I’ve always found it ironic how liberals hate religious people and mock their beliefs (except Muslims of course, this is where their bravery ends).
BUT -——
There is NO crackpot, lunatic theory that they WON’T emrace. e.g.
John Edward and other charlatans talking to the dead.
Astrology
Palm Readers, Tarot Cards, Psychics
Bush the dummy masterminding the 9/11 attacks and keeping the whole conspiracy a secret. Simpleton religious dolt or evil mastermind? Apparently both!!
“Alternative” medicines
Reincarnation, miraculously they were all either Caeser or Cleopatra, no one can recall their life as a serf, leading into....
Hypnotic Regression, recovered memories, rife with non-lubricated anal probes.
I could go on forever, but you get the idea.
LOL...thanks, but I come across plenty of nonsense in the routine course of my days; I needn't actively seek it out. Besides, I don't believe in the existence of athiests. Certainly there are people that rage against GOD, but closing one's eyes and turning one's back are in fact, a form of acknowledgement, albeit a rude and immature one.
Or reason or free will. In their world everything reduces to determinism, behaviorism,emotionalism, and Freudianism.Therefore how can one person be right and another be wrong about what they think. They have no choice.
The author inserted almost enough padding between his mutually exclusive lines of argument to disguise the fact that he is a nitwit.
I remember a 60 Minutes segment on Madlynne Murray O’Hair. They tried to make Atheism sound benign, but right there on a table was a pile of bumper stickers that said “Jesus is Lard”. Yeah, benign.
(The "intelligent design" hoax is not merely anti-science; it is anti-civilization. --John Derbyshire)
Atheists and neo-Darwinist don't produce civilizations ... not even in a test tube.
Nothing makes an atheist happy. They all act like they have a corncob stuck where the sun doesn’t shine.
My picture of this guy is an old dude wringing his hands and muttering to himself trying to convince himself.
I wouldn’t even bother with this fellow. I have atheist acquaintances with whom I argue and discuss from time to time and they are calmer about it all than your correspondent. They certainly seem more secure in their belief or lack thereof.
I disagree. Running around acting superior makes them extremely happy.
Objectively baseless human reasoning may be able to justify “human super niceness” (HSN), but it can just as easily justify the atrocities of men like Pot, Mao, Stalin, etc. (Anything similar does under the name “Christian” has been a result of men exalting another person and or revelation above the Bible, rather than man obeying it as the primitive church did.
Lacking any objective, transcendent, proven moral authority, an atheist can easily do whatever seems pragmatically reasonable in his sight. And while this may be better than following Bin Laden, and while atheists can be nice people, they can offer no real assurance as to why widespread atheism would be “nice.” If we read some of the diatribes against Christians in their forums, many would favor outlawing the teaching of religion to children. That is just the beginning.
I'm not sure either one of these assertions is entirely true.
China’s great leap forward in the early 1960’s starved 30 million people to death.
That doesn’t include those killed for being rich or class enemies...some estimates are as high as 100 million dead.
And China is now ten percent Christian and 30 percent other religions...and many of the others follow Confucius, a non theistic moral code.
So what’s his point.
Because the Word of God is not without effect. For those in fellowship with Him, God the Holy Spirit uses the heard Word for the sanctification of spirit and soul. For those who reject Him, it hardens their heart. Even more proof our God is a Living God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.