Skip to comments.
The Irrational Atheist
WorldNetDaily ^
| 11/17/03
| Vox Day
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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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 ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660, 661-680, 681-700 ... 921-923 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
Which do you think it is, Phaedrus? Or is that still too complicated for you? Hey, RWP, you're the one with the problem ... here's Feynman again:
- I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
- The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool.
- I think that I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Edifying, don't you agree?
To: Tribune7
Our rights our inherent to an axiomatic belief they come from a Creator. I am as certain as I am of God's existence that if you change this axiom our rights go away
652 -t7-
Our rights are a self evident fact. They are an inherant part of our free will.
Our rights will not go away
if we do not believe in your God, or in any gods.
662
posted on
11/24/2003 12:29:28 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
To: Phaedrus
I can only conclude you do think Feynman was a charlatan, since you seem to believe he thought no one understands quantum mechanics, yet you don't deny he wrote copiously on the subject.
Fine, it's consistent with the rest of your antiscientific attitudes.
To: Tribune7
Waffle all you like. -- It's quite amusing to see the clintonian parsing of "if".
664
posted on
11/24/2003 12:32:49 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
To: Right Wing Professor
On and on you go, RWP. It is a joy to behold.
To: Tribune7
take "suppose his existence actually has no 'purpose'. Surely he is then correct . . ." to mean that the "no purpose" would be determined by the laws of physics that guide the universe. You can take what you want, but there can't be a purpose without a volitional being, and if one believes there is no volitional creator, then neither oneself nor anyone else has a purpose in that sense. On the other hand, I could potentially say that my major goal in life is to try to get some small notion of science into the heads of the wilfully ignorant*, and then clearly my life would have a purpose.
*Since many people seem to be having problems with conditionals today, I better say right now that that isn't my goal in life.
To: Phaedrus
Bringing joy is my purpose.
To: Right Wing Professor
Bringing joy is my purpose. Ah we are, at last, of like mind. Now if you would like the last word, it is yours.
To: jennyp
Almost. It's true that I was reading. Like reading Tolkien and being so inspired to say "I can write like that!" and then you start your own tale. To be honest, it's one step up from cut and paste.
To: tpaine
Our rights are a self evident fact . . .if we do not believe in your God, or in any gods. Our rights exist because God exist, whether you believe in Him or not.
670
posted on
11/24/2003 2:04:36 PM PST
by
Tribune7
(It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
To: Right Wing Professor
There can't be a purpose without a volitional being, and if one believes there is no volitional creator, then neither oneself nor anyone else has a purpose in that sense. So atheists think people have no purpose. What are you arguing with me for?
671
posted on
11/24/2003 2:08:06 PM PST
by
Tribune7
(It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
To: Dimensio
Maybe to you. To me, it's just something that other people believe. Atheist or not, you have my respect.
672
posted on
11/24/2003 2:10:37 PM PST
by
Tribune7
(It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
To: jennyp
Our whole structure of individual rights is based on the premise that each one of us decides our own purposes. No, our whole structure of individual rights is based on he premise that they are endowed by Our Creator.
You really believe on the premise that each one of us decides our own purpose? Suppose a sick person decides his purpose is to slaughter babies? You'd argue that he was violating the babies rights, and of courseheI would be.
But that's only because God endows us with these rights. According to his own lights he'd be fulfilling his self-defined purpose.
673
posted on
11/24/2003 2:17:26 PM PST
by
Tribune7
(It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
To: Tribune7
So atheists think people have no purpose. What are you arguing with me for? I can't speak as an atheist, but as an agnostic, I certainly have purpose; more than one purpose. I decided for myself what they were.
To: Tribune7
Tribune7
Our rights our inherent to an axiomatic belief they come from a Creator. I am as certain as I am of God's existence that if you change this axiom our rights go away
652 -t7-
Our rights are a self evident fact. They are an inherant part of our free will.
Our rights will not go away if we do not believe in your God, or in any gods.
662
Tribune7 wrote:
Our rights exist because God exist, whether you believe in Him or not
Free will & inalienable rights demonstrably exist, with or without a belief in your god.
At 652 you claim our rights "go away" if we change this belief. Has this happened? - When? Where?
675
posted on
11/24/2003 3:39:01 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
To: Right Wing Professor
I can't speak as an atheist, but as an agnostic, I certainly have purpose; more than one purpose. Oh, an agnostic. That's different. I never claimed you guys were irrational or shallow. :-)
And, atheists obviously have purpose even if they don't know or can't articulate it. God-given rights apply to everybody.
676
posted on
11/24/2003 4:17:40 PM PST
by
Tribune7
(It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
To: tpaine
At 652 you claim our rights "go away" if we change this belief. Has this happened? - When? Where? Since God exists and our rights are inalienable they can never go away.
The concern expressed in 652 was that those who acquire power will be unrestrained in violating those rights without the expressed, public understanding they are sacred.
You do recognize that rights can be violated?
677
posted on
11/24/2003 4:21:33 PM PST
by
Tribune7
(It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
To: Tribune7
Tribune7:
Our rights our inherent to an axiomatic belief they come from a Creator.
I am as certain as I am of God's existence that if you change this axiom our rights go away.
652 -t7-
______________________________________
At 652 you claim our rights "go away" if we change this belief. Has this happened? - When? Where?
Since God exists and our rights are inalienable they can never go away.
The concern expressed in 652 was that those who acquire power will be unrestrained in violating those rights without the expressed, public understanding they are sacred.
Then you weren't "certain as I am of God's existence" at all, were you?
-- You have now changed to a 'concern' you expressed in 652, because your reasoning was obviously invalid.
Thanks for playing, -- neat game when you can change 'certainties' to concerns whenever you wish.
678
posted on
11/24/2003 5:03:02 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
To: Tribune7
You really believe on the premise that each one of us decides our own purpose? Suppose a sick person decides his purpose is to slaughter babies? You'd argue that he was violating the babies rights, and of courseheI would be. You know, I thought you'd bring something like that up! :-)
One's "purpose" in life is a different question altogether from what their moral code should be.
679
posted on
11/24/2003 5:49:05 PM PST
by
jennyp
(http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
To: Tribune7
And, atheists obviously have purpose even if they don't know or can't articulate it. God-given rights apply to everybody.I don't understand this conflation of "rights" with "purpose". Maybe you should clarify what exactly you mean by our "purpose" in life. Is it "purpose" as in an externally-imposed positive obligation, or is it "purpose" as in that which makes us want to go on living? Or something else?
680
posted on
11/24/2003 5:52:46 PM PST
by
jennyp
(http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660, 661-680, 681-700 ... 921-923 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson