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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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

[Phaedrus]

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?

[tpaine]

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.

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

[tpaine]

Waffle all you like. -- It's quite amusing to see the clintonian parsing of "if".

[Phaedrus]

On and on you go, RWP. It is a joy to behold.

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

[Right Wing Professor]

Bringing joy is my purpose.

[Phaedrus]

Bringing joy is my purpose.

Ah we are, at last, of like mind. Now if you would like the last word, it is yours.

[cornelis]

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.

[Tribune7]

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.

[Tribune7]

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?

[Tribune7]

Maybe to you. To me, it's just something that other people believe.

Atheist or not, you have my respect.

[Tribune7]

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.

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

[tpaine]

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?

[Tribune7]

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.

[Tribune7]

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?

[tpaine]

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.

[jennyp]

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.

[jennyp]

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?