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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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

[Tribune7]

Further, someone "loving me" is not sufficient reason for me to do as they say, as it is entierly possible for someone to love me yet still give me bad advice.

OK, someone who loves you and is infinitely smarter.

I don't. This discussion is purely academic.

OK, then you should obey God because He loves you and is inintely smarter.

[Dimensio]

So many of our laws and beliefs in moral right and good descend from Judeo-Christian teachings.

Could you, perhaps, name some examples? Some that exist only in Judeo-Christian and no other base teachings?

I believe this because there's something in my subconscious which affirms this.

Gut-feelings. Never the best justification. That subconscious is what survives when the body dies and withers away to dust. I believe this because no atheist has been able to convince me otherwise.

Interesting. I believe that the mind -- conscious and unconscious -- cease upon death because they are simply extensions of brain activity. I believe this because all evidence indicates as such, and no one has shown me sufficient evidence to believe otherwise.

And who is more right: the atheist who attempts to impose his way of life on others (ie, lawsuits filed for the alleged violations of church and state)or the Christian who at least tries to explain his beliefs without imposing them on anyone else?

In your scenario, the Christian. Could you name a few atheists who want to impose their way of life on others? Be specific as to what exactly they're trying to do.

I looked there were no Christians filing lawsuits for someone imposing their atheistic ways on them.

No, but a Catholic family and a Mormon family did sue to stop school-sponsored religious ceremonies during a Santa Fe high school's football games. Also, a Lutherian father sued to have state-sponsored public school prayer removed. Christians haven't sued to remove enforced atheism because, well, no one is really trying to force atheism on anyone, but they have sued to remove state-sponsored religious rituals.

[Dimensio]

If there is no God why pretend there is?

"Do as I say. Why? Because I'm telling you what GOD wants you to do!"

If we are all here by accident why not just party on? Sex and drugs and rock & roll?

I have no desire to waste my life on sex and drugs. Sex is fun in the right amounts, but too much of it desensitizes a person, and I personally believe that a non-monogamous relationship destroys the intimacy that is part of the pleasure of sex. Drugs may be "fun" for a short time, but they can quickly lead to destruction of self, mentally and physically.

No comment on rock-and-roll :)

[Dimensio]

OK, then you should obey God because He loves you and is inintely smarter.

And you should strive to have Cthulu eat you first so that you will not suffer too greatly in the times to come.

[BikerNYC]

But to come to the decision that God provides the purpose in your life, you have already decided that God has value to you. You have judged God as having value. For that decision there is no justification. After it, you can justify your actions by an appeal to authority. "This is the right thing to do because God tells me so." But, you have already decided, on your own, without an appeal to authority, that you value the authority.

Even if God exists, one is not compelled to believe that what he says to do is Good. If we were so compelled, there would be no morality. If we all were compelled to do the things we do, where does that leave morality?

The theist has to answer the question, "Why do what God tells us to do?" The only answer I can see that makes sense is, "You do what God tells you to do because you want to." It's just something that you want to do. There is no higher justification for it.

All people, theists and atheists, can have regrets. It is part of the human condition. We all wake up now and then and say, "Damn, I shouldn't have done that last night." In other words, the expression "I'll do it, but I'll probably hate myself in the morning," is something that all people, theists and atheists alike understand. Why? Because our short term desires are sometimes different than our long-term goals.

[Tribune7]

"Do as I say. Why? Because I'm telling you what GOD wants you to do!"

Actually, my view is that God doesn't need me to tell you what to do. You and He can communicate directly and He is not your enemy.

I have no desire to waste my life on sex and drugs.

Wow. A Puritan atheist??? Fine by me. :-)

[Tribune7]

And you should strive to have Cthulhu eat you first so that you will not suffer too greatly in the times to come.

And if Cthulhu were real rather than a figment of Lovecraft's mind what would BikerNYC say about accountability?

[Hank Kerchief]

There really is no such thing as "atheism."

Actually, there is, though you're right in that it isn't an ideology, because it's the absence fo a belief. There are words to describe abcences, such as asymmetry, apolitical and amoral (not to be confused with immoral, though many do fall into that confusion).

All your examples actually name things that have a particular qaulity described by means of something that is absent: there are actual things without symmetry, there are concepts that have no political aspect, and there are acts that have no moral consequence (or concepts that have no moral aspect). There is nothing that atheism is a name, aspect, or quality of.

It is an attempt to identify a person in terms of what is not true of them. It is like trying to identify a person's nationality by naming all the nationalities they are not. If a person is Chinese, we do not say, that are non-French, non-Spanish, non-Italian, non-Japanese, etc. ad infinitum.

Why would we try to identify a person by all the superstitions they don't hold, as he's an aZeusist, aSwedenborganist, aZoroastrianist, aTheist, a-Allahist, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

If we are not going to name them all, why is one any more significant than any other?

Hank

[Tribune7]

Shoulda pinged you to post 446. My bad.

[Dimensio]

We should obey God because we are convinced that that is the purpose of our existence.

I was trying to answer your question through example, though I should have been more clear.

Why pretend that God exists? A number of reasons. One is to assert authority. Another is because people want there to be a God. They want the comfort of an omnipotent parental figure who watches over them with the absolute best of intentions, someone who can justify their personal moral beliefs and the promise of continued existence beyond death (one in which people who don't act they way they like aren't invited).

Wow. A Puritan atheist??? Fine by me. :-)

I'm not sure that I'm a puritan. Then again, I don't even consume alcohol apart from NyQuil (and some wine coolers when I needed a sleep aid but couln't take antihistamines).

[Hank Kerchief]

You've been reading it wrong.

No, but my explanation was satirical, not literal. My essential criticism is the same. It is an unworkable non-essential principle.

Thank you for a cordial and Christian reply.

Hank

[Tribune7]

Why pretend that God exists? A number of reasons.

If I weren't absolutely certain that God existed I wouldn't pretend He did.

I'm not sure that I'm a puritan. Then again, I don't even consume alcohol apart from NyQuil (and some wine coolers when I needed a sleep aid but couln't take antihistamines).

Well, maybe you're not a Puritan then. They hit the jug pretty hard. :-)

[BikerNYC]

I suppose you are the type to do everything you are told to do. Yep...put a sign up and he'll obey. If not, why do you do some of the things you are told to do and not others?

[Dimensio]

All your examples actually name things that have a particular qaulity described by means of something that is absent: there are actual things without symmetry, there are concepts that have no political aspect, and there are acts that have no moral consequence (or concepts that have no moral aspect). There is nothing that atheism is a name, aspect, or quality of.

Actually atheism fits perfectly. Asymmetry describes something without symmetry -- an object that is not symmetrical is asymmetric. Atheism describes something without theism -- someone who is not a theist (lacks theism) is an atheist.

If we are not going to name them all, why is one any more significant than any other?

Atheism is only significant by virtue of the existence of theism, however the existence of theism -- and the general term to describe it -- warrants a term to describe those who are without it. A non-Christian could be a Jew, a Hindu or a Muslim. "Atheist" eliminates such ambiguity.

[Tribune7]

My essential criticism is the same. It is an unworkable non-essential principle.

You missed the big discussion about IPD and game theory. The consensus now, I think, is that mathematics has shown it to be the supreme code of conduct for success in life and a happy society.

Thank you for a cordial and Christian reply.

You are welcome and it was my pleasure.

[BikerNYC]

Forget about whether any particular god is real. Let's assume that whatever god we are talking about is real. Now, why should you do what he says?

[Dimensio]

If I weren't absolutely certain that God existed I wouldn't pretend He did.

Not that I think that your religion is remotely similar, but I doubt that Al-Qaida terrorists would blow themselves up if they were not "absolutely certain" that their God found their actions righteous.

Well, maybe you're not a Puritan then. They hit the jug pretty hard. :-)

I also dance, albeit badly.

[Tribune7]

Yep...put a sign up and he'll obey.

I have a trailer 13-foot tall. I see a sign saying 12-foot clearance. 99,999 out of 100,000 (at least) I'm going to heed the warning. It is called being rational.

And with that I'm going to say good night.

Good night.

[MitchellC]

Because as the ultimate creator of all things, God created you with the purpose of doing what he says. (Keep in mind that why you should and why you would could be two different things.)

[Tribune7]

I doubt that Al-Qaida terrorists would blow themselves up if they were not "absolutely certain" that their God found their actions righteous.

That is true. Better to have no god than the wrong one.