Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.
In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.
In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Despite being on this thread for awhile, you’ll notice that I’ve done absolutely nothing to evangelize my ideology, only defend its misrepresentation or point out the aggression of several people on those who’s only offence was to disbelieve Christianity.
I don’t think my ideology is for everyone. Although it’s very rewarding, it’s also very challenging and potentially alienating. I’d rather people inclined toward Christianity find happiness there than to take responsibility for guiding them after shaking their faith.
If someone’s not young, very independent and analytical, I wouldn’t want to even expose them to it. If on the other hand you really are interested, here are a couple of links to something very close to my ideology and to some Biblical contradictions with what we know that you asked for. Again, I can’t speak for everything on those sites. I’m not endorsing them and certainly not evangelizing, just responding sincerely to your request.
I find that such bizarrely aggressive and unsupported insults tend to say more about the accuser than the accused.
If you don't think you're ideology is for everyone you should change your ideology. :-)
Have you ever read an entire Gospel?
People vary in their aptitudes, ambition and disposition, and I believe Christianity is a good choice for many, if not most in the US. Equally, I wouldn’t recommend and middle aged socially dependent person convert to away from Islam in an Islamic society. But if you enjoy sharing responsibility for their journey, I wish you the best.
Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian, but I also found that atheists from Asia in general to be peaceful people. The only Asians that are violent are the Moslems!
That's if you assume that Sri Lanka (or Ceylon as it was formerly known) isn't part of Asia.
Yeah, if the common wisdom was that the rock slowed as it fell off the cliff. What I'm trying to illustrate is, the Golden Rule is not very surprising. By the time most people have grown up into mature adults, some form of the Golden Rule is understood to be obviously true. So when an adult starts preaching the Golden Rule and then says, "oh, by the way, I'm God," the fact that he's preaching the Golden Rule is hardly evidence of his superhuman intellect & wisdom.
Let's see... what would it take to convince me, an atheist, to try to kill thousands of people?How many atheists these days have you heard of flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people, or strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing themselves and as many other people as they can to smitherines.
Because the atheist, if taking his belief to any kind of logical end, rarely gains the conviction to do such things.
I'd need to be convinced that this act would make the world a better place for the people I value & cherish, and that their gain would be worth the loss of my life.
But let's take the suicide nature out of the scenario. There's still another essential aspect which we (in these discussions) tend to ignore: Moral humans think in terms of principles. Questions of morality by definition are questions of principle. You can't have a moral code to begin with if it doesn't lay down a principled rule of behavior.
By "principled", I mean that the rule has to apply to everyone in a similar context, not just yourself and in this particular context. Your actions declare moral precedents for the rest of the world to follow.
Now: What kind of principle would I be laying down if I blew up thousands of innocents? I'd be declaring that it's acceptable for people in general to go and kill thousands of innocents. What kind of a world would that be? Would I want me or my beloved fellow humans to have to live in such a world?
For me the answer is NO. I cannot imagine that it could be healthy or common for anyone else to actually want to live in this kind of world. So I am totally secure in my conviction that such terrorism is objectively morally wrong - and I will do what I have to do to fight those few sickos who seek that kind of world, or those mental midgets who are incapable of thinking in principles to begin with.
OTOH, if I was a soldier and I found myself in the situation of targeting thousands of enemy soldiers, and I'm participating in a just war, then I'd be honored to pull the trigger.
The real world presents us with actual scenarios that are much more complicated than these, of course, but yes indeedy this atheist does have the moral convictions necessary to do what's right if it comes to it, thank you very much.
I completely disagree. All ideologies include beliefs in things and therefore directly lack of beliefs in certain other things that are their opposite. Atheism is a belief in the nonexistence of a God, and that belief has certain generic implications for every other aspect of how the atheist views the world.
No atheist ever embraced socialism, communist, fascism, or or any other oppresive, statist, or collectivist ideology because he was an atheist.
I disagree. Realizing the amoral implications of his beliefs, many an atheist has had no good reason not to pursue his gut feeling, whether it be creating a heaven on earth or not. I'll agree that to do these things means that the atheist has applied his belief iconsistently; but that will happen any time the atheist applies his belief to the political, whether it's Rand, Marx or anyone else. The atheist is not obliged by any preexisting value to respect anyone else or anything for any reason. The best Rand could do was to promote the pursuit of continued existence; but existence is not an end unto itself, and pursuing its continuation for yourself is no more objectively virtuous than pursuing suicide.
religion is no protection from political evil.
And again, the atheist has no reason to believe that anything at all is "evil."
I'd need to be convinced that this act would make the world a better place for the people I value & cherish, and that their gain would be worth the loss of my life.
How does the atheist determine what is "better" a place for someone to live without a universal standard to judge according to? Why is freedom universally and objectively "better" than slavery, for instance?
But it is. Consider the Old Testament Code of eye for an eye. Consider the Roman code of the 12 Tablets.
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is revolutionary.
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.