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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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 ...
That is not a moral system. Those guys have to get killed. That's the moral thing to do. Self defense.
Wow! Thank you.
Hey, did you just agree with me? Even people who argue for self-interest as the basis for governing personal action recognize that morality must go beyond the self. I suppose you could think of it as a "meta-self-interest", in which you love your neighbor as you do your self.
I think Rand always feared that if she ever admitted that altruistic self-sacrifice had a beautiful place at the center of human behavior, the commisars would come to drag her away to the gulags. She feared institutions that demanded self-sacrifice of its subjects, and rightly so, and so she tended to overstate her fears of "altruism" for dramatic effect, I think. But free souls regularly choose to inconvenience themselves, or even when the moment is dire to lay down their lives for another. It happens all the time, and it is freely done which only adds to the tragic beauty of the gesture.
Objectivists are no doubt capable of making such a gesture because they are not one-dimensional creatures even if their arguments are a little tightly drawn. I have read some Objectivist analysis, and I find I agree with them on a goodly number of things, but I always have the impression that they assume that I somehow shouldn't agree with them. I think they enjoy picking the fight, for the fun of it. And I think sometimes they think only they have found the Pacific Ocean.
But we are both there and we are both wet. I thank God for it, and maybe you are just thankful.
True. And more than one. They will either change or be exterminated. Or they will exterminate their competition. So what?
Oh Patrick, I do agree with you, almost completely!!! From my perspective, the real enemy here, the "main enemy," is precisely the moral system that incubates and motivates these murderous thugs. I haven't got the least problem with desiring all such dead, and as soon as possible.
If you see a rabid dog, snarling and snapping with blood in its eyes, coming down the street at you, you don't set up an inquiry board to look into the factual circumstances of the case. You just shoot it. You thereby protect yourself, your kith and kin, and your neighbors. And THAT is the moral thing to do.
This is indeed a problem of self-defense, on "just war" principles. But this defense is of more than just one particular people -- that is, more than just us. It is the defense of a particular way of life, premised in liberty and equal justice; of Western civilization itself -- and preeminently of the moral system that historically has made both possible.
And now, let us meditate on a theme:
"The entire point of Moby Dick is "be yourself." -- Homer Simpson, 2003
Having just recently read Lance Morrow's Evil: An Investigation, I do have one point to add to the mix...
There is a well-documented historical tendency among groups of people whether by tribe, race, nationality, ideology, religion, etc. - to consider "outsiders" as sub-human. Thus, the murder, rape or subjugation of such outsiders is considered "good" to them. In their worldview, it would be “evil” not to murder, rape or subjugate the outsiders.
IMHO, the Westernized civilizations of this day and age - which was built upon Judeo/Christian values - takes the broad view that all human life is equally precious. This is not a new doctrine; the Great Commandment has always been to love God absolutely and our neighbor unconditionally (paraphrased) – but until very recent times, the “tribal” instinct was so great that even Christians wanted to pick and choose who would be their “neighbor” (to be loved) and who would be sub-human (to be destroyed).
Thankfully, the telecommunications age has made the world quite small and it is very easy to identify the groups who still hold that ancient “tribal” worldview, e.g. Islamic fundamentalists. I suspect that mankind – left to its own wisdom, without the light of Christ’s teachings – would still be dominated by such “tribal” instincts.
IMHO, the Westernized civilizations of this day and age - which was built upon Judeo/Christian values - takes the broad view that all human life is equally precious. This is not a new doctrine; the Great Commandment has always been to love God absolutely and our neighbor unconditionally (paraphrased) – but until very recent times, the “tribal” instinct was so great that even Christians wanted to pick and choose who would be their “neighbor” (to be loved) and who would be sub-human (to be destroyed).
When I think of "recent times", I think of the '90s concept of total cultural diversity as a fundamental value. Where does that come from? I thought that was a combination of a last-gasp tactic by the postmodern Left to save collectivism by making moral judgement itself seem evil, and a generational reaction to the Jim Crow era by idealistic baby boomers carrying around their ideological hammer so treasured from their youth & looking for more nails.
Thankfully, the telecommunications age has made the world quite small and it is very easy to identify the groups who still hold that ancient “tribal” worldview, e.g. Islamic fundamentalists. I suspect that mankind – left to its own wisdom, without the light of Christ’s teachings – would still be dominated by such “tribal” instincts.
Of course, one could make the argument that with a global marketplace & free trade, it becomes that much more expensive to declare someone "the other". I wonder if that has something to do with it, too? That could explain the rash of pretentious commercials for global corporations back in the late '90s, where some native tribesman intones some profoundly mystical-sounding platitude to the camera & we're supposed to be moved.
Boy, that was sooo September 10th! And yet in the long run I'm still an optimist, because Western-style civilization is, objectively speaking, so much better than the alternatives that are yet standing out there. It's just a question of how long a run one has too look to... :-)
LOL, I think you're right!
But free souls regularly choose to inconvenience themselves, or even when the moment is dire to lay down their lives for another. It happens all the time, and it is freely done which only adds to the tragic beauty of the gesture.
Don't forget Francisco d'Anconia, who decides at a young age to dedicate his life to squandering his family's fortune, in order to help save America from destruction.
For instance, Saudi law proscribes females from operating motor vehicles, or going about in public without a close family-member male attendant (all of which some might say is rather to take the enlightened view of such matters); not to mention concealing the female form in the omnipresent, voluminous burka, the deprivation of educational opportunities, the extraordinarily restricted scope for female civil participation, etc....Speaking as a Western female type, I am particularly appalled by the fundamentalist Muslim view of female chastity, on which all of family honor and social respectability depends in that part of our world-in-common. Whatever gross misdeed of sexuality in that culture, it is always the woman's fault for breaches of the chastity law.
Even in the [recently documented] case of a young Palestinian girl who was raped by her two older brothers, and impregnated as a result, it is the innocent victim who is held personally culpable; and it is she, not the rapists, who can be "justly murdered" in the name of family honor and social position. Which is exactly what happened in this recent case: This poor girl was the victim of a grisly murder committed by her own mother -- "for the sake of family honor."
<shudder>
IMO, Theoretically the best way for a person to discover for themselves, with true objectivity, what the best moral system is, would be to split up and live a whole life simultaneously in several different cultures. Then at the end of each of these lives, merge back together into one person and compare how their life turned out. Then I guess each sub-person would vote on the best culture & moral system.
In the real world, what do we have? Well, anything that lets us understand other cultures - both how people turn out in them, and what their rationales/rationalizations are for why they're structured in the ways they are.
I keep thinking about all those Arabs who come to America to study. You'd think they'd come to appreciate our freedom & prosperity and want to import it back to their countries. And some of them do.
But I get the impression that most Arab students only see the surface of a free society: "I can read porn! I can go to a strip club! All the women dress like hookers (just look at those exposed ankles)! <sigh> So, um, this is freedom, huh?"
They don't understand the rationale for Western-style freedom, especially the freedom of women. Both the West & the Arab world needed to come up with a way to protect the women from the men.
In the muslim world, they force the women to stay away from men and to cover up as much of their bodies as they can to remove the possibility of the men being tempted. But this means it's inevitable that the women (who are of course equal in potential to men) won't be able to flourish as the human beings they are, no matter how many platitudes of "we respect our women" they spout. And though the men have it much better, they are put into an impossible position WRT controlling their sexual impulses. How can a muslim man ever learn to treat real women as equals if he can never interact with them? How can he learn to behave himself with a woman?
In the West we teach the men to respect women as equals, and we women in turn can live & work out in the open & do virtually everything the men can do. This means we show a lot more skin as we bump up against men all the time, but that's a necessary side-effect if we're to be truly equal in the world. It also means the men become relatively jaded to our voluptuous bodies - which is why we're able to be protected to a high degree even though we're in what should be such a vulnerable position.
The West's system for protecting women in a sea of men is objectively superior to the Muslim approach because it allows us to flourish as equals in virtually all aspects of life. The Muslim approach locks women into a role as second class, dangerous citizens.
1) Alamo Girl posts improbability numbers by Hoyle and Yockey developed in the 1970s and with no relevance to modern theory as “disproof” of abiogenesis. (They were to the point and in plain English.)None of the ancillary stuff in Yokey’s 1992 book and subsequent works has any relevance to the above as far as I can tell. Alamo-girl wont explain it.2) I responded directly to them (in plain English) demonstrating that they were not addressing modern dynamic abiogenesis at all, using this discussion as a source.
3) Alamo-girl refuses to reply to me directly. She just changes the subject to a maze of subsequent esoteric jargon riddled theories . It’s not the job of everyone who reads her simple improbability numbers to have to digest that. This is her wondering response to my plea to her to succinctly explain the relevance of any of that. It’s no better.
I can see no conclusion other than that she tried to completely change the subject of that debate to this irrelevant maze of theories, assuming that because some of it involves Yockey no one would notice. That’s just like when Carville refuses to discuss perjury, only right wing conspiracies and the evil Ken Star. The deception’s clear, except to those that are either blinded by their commitment to disproving abiogenesis or their loyalty to Alamo-girl.
BTW, the fact that she hung you out to dry, leaving you to defend the indefensible and struggling to find reason in her lie, doesn’t reflect too favorably on her either.
No, tpaine. Not necessary. Our constitutional contract is based on the world view of the Ten Commandments. Which is perhaps why the progressive Left seems to hate it so much, and why we need to constantly defend it.
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.