The Irrational Atheist

WorldNetDaily ^ | 11/17/03 | Vox Day

[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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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.

[Dimensio]

That doesn't tell me why it's "better."

Well, I find freedom for me to be "better" than slavery for me. Likewise, I find it "better" that my friends and family are free than slaves. Yes, it's a relative term, but I never claimed otherwise.

[BikerNYC]

That doesn't tell me why it's "better."

Perhaps it's better in the same sense that some people find vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. To say something is better is to say that you prefer it more than other things.

[MitchellC]

Well, I find freedom for me to be "better" than slavery for me. Likewise, I find it "better" that my friends and family are free than slaves. Yes, it's a relative term, but I never claimed otherwise.

Good! I appreciate your straight-forwardness and honesty.

You illustrate my point - that all atheism is left to deal in is a relativism based on personal desires, with no justification for applying any moral code to the whole of humanity.

[MitchellC]

Perhaps it's better in the same sense that some people find vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. To say something is better is to say that you prefer it more than other things.

You are being consistent. The atheist has no more justification in judging someone wrong for murdering a person than they do in judging someone wrong for disliking chocolate ice cream.

[BikerNYC]

Not just the athiest, everyone. For even the theist is ultimately reduced to having to say he prefers God's moral system more than any other.

[RightWingNilla]

I'm rooting for tortoise & betting on RWN.

I gotta say the more I think about it, the more I agree with JS. My initial reaction to tit-for-tat made me overlook that the optimal strategy in IPD is to "forgive" (cooperate) even if he has defected any times in the past. Also the concept of treating others as I would want to be treated. If I was engaging in behavior that was causing other(s) harm, I would (in the long run) want to be corrected for it.

[ThinkDifferent]

For even the theist is ultimately reduced to having to say he prefers God's moral system more than any other.

Unless, of course, he simply follows (what he believes to be) the word of God without question. We've had numerous recent demonstrations of where that can lead.

[Hank Kerchief]

I apologize. I misread your post.,p> I write too long and too complex posts. No need to apologize.

Why would you be willing to base your life philosophy on Ayn Rand (or Locke) and not Christ?

I do not base my life on the teaching of any man (or woman). I have learned a great deal from many, including some philosophers (with the exception of Aristotle, Peter Abelard, Occam, Bacon, Locke, and Rand and a few minor others, most are worthless, however), and theologians (only two worth reading. No I won't say which.)

I do prefer both Rand and Locke to Christ. Neither of them said anything as absurd as, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Mat. 7:12)

As a practical rule, it is useless, since usually what we want others to "do unto us" is leave us alone, or if we really do want something from them, it is some service we don't care to do for ouselves. To follow this rule, if I want my garage mechanic to change my oil, I have to change his oil.

Morally it is worse. If I am a masochist I want people to hurt me. If I am suicidal, I might want someone to shoot me. If I am a husband, I cannot do unto my wife what I want her to do unto me, and she cannot do unto me what she wants me to do unto her; and if I am a child I cannot do unto my parents what I want them to do unto me.

Besides, I have not met one Christian who knows what his Bible teaches, even those who have studied it as long as I have, and I'm no youngster. They think they know, but most of what the believe are corruptions introduced by Augustine that Christianity has never shaken off. (Not that it makes any difference, one set of superstitions is as good as another.)

So when a Christian asks me why I don't believe what Christ taught, I usually answer, "why should I, you don't?"

The response is seldom cordial or Christian.

Hank

[MitchellC]

But to the theist, there is a universal standard that can legitimately be applied to others - and by which he likely believes will ultimately be applied to him.

[BikerNYC]

That simply means that he really prefers God's way more than any other. Someone following (what he believes to be) the moral system he finds in any book doesn't mean he still doesn't have to make the judgment that the moral system in that book (or anywhere else) is better than any other.

No matter what moral code you follow, no one can get away from the bottom-line decision that the code that they follow is better than any other. It is that decision that has no justification. You simply choose what you like better.

[ThinkDifferent]

But to the theist, there is a universal standard that can legitimately be applied to others

But *which* universal standard? Suppose I'm looking at two books, both of which are claimed to be the Word of God. One says "love your neighbors", the other says "kill the infidels". Do I just flip a coin?

[BikerNYC]

Legitimately?

Just because any particular theist believes his moral code can be applied to others doesn't mean he hasn't decided that he prefers (or likes) his code more than any other. It's still a matter of preference.

[MitchellC]

But *which* universal standard?

That is a secondary issue as far as the current topic is concerned. I am dealing with the inherent amorality of atheism and am not making a case for any particular system of theism... though I'm convinced that Christianity is the true one. A good website that has a ton of material to deal with this is here.

[ThinkDifferent]

No matter what moral code you follow, no one can get away from the bottom-line decision that the code that they follow is better than any other. It is that decision that has no justification. You simply choose what you like better.

Yes, we pretty much agree. I'd argue that someone could choose the meta-code of "use the moral code which God commands", but even in that case they still have no ultimate justification for their preference of obedience.

[Tribune7]

To follow this rule, if I want my garage mechanic to change my oil, I have to change his oil.

You've been reading it wrong.

[BikerNYC]

Yes. It is difficult for a theist to answer the question, "Why do what God commands?" Sometimes they say because it will get you into heaven. Then, you might say, we should do anything that makes us feel good.

[Tribune7]

The Golden Rule is supported by mathematics. Very cool

[MitchellC]

This may be true but is beside the point. The inherent amorality of atheism means that it gives no reason to the atheist to seek that any code of morality is applied to others; such a mission is not and could not be derived from the person's atheism.

[Tribune7]

It is that decision that has no justification. You simply choose what you like better.

Unless God exists and is an authority to whom you must account.

[js1138]

One thing though, it's possible to have a criminal that's smarter than any policeman; it's nearly impossible to have criminal that's smarter than all the police.

In real life, most crimes are not solved. the problem for the criminal is that he repeats, and unlike a coin toss, each crime increases the probability of being caught. Lots of folks are already in prison when they are fingered for an old crime.