Atheists Steal Rights From God

Charisma News ^ | 2/6/2015 | Frank Turek

[xzins]

Atheist Richard Dawkins has declared, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. ... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."

But Dawkins doesn't act like he actually believes that. He recently affirmed a woman has the right to choose an abortion and asserted that it would be "immoral" to give birth to a baby with Down syndrome. According to Dawkins, the "right to choose" is a good thing and giving birth to Down syndrome children is a bad thing.

Well, which is it? Is there really good and evil, or are we just moist robots dancing to the music of our DNA?

Atheists like Dawkins are often ardent supporters of rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, taxpayer-provided healthcare, welfare, contraceptives and several other entitlements. But who says those are rights? By what objective standard are abortion, same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, taxpayer-provided healthcare and the like, moral rights? There isn't such a standard in the materialistic universe of atheism. So atheists must steal the grounds for objective moral rights from God while arguing that God doesn't exist.

Now, I am not saying that you have to believe in God to be a good person or that atheists are immoral people. Some atheists live more moral lives than many Christians. I am also not saying that atheists don't know morality. Everyone knows basic right and wrong whether they believe in God or not. In fact, that's exactly what the Bible teaches (see Rom. 2:14-15).

What I am saying is that atheists can't justify morality. Atheists routinely confuse knowing what's right with justifying what's right. They say it's right to love. I agree, but why is it right to love? Why are we obligated to do so? The issue isn't how we know what's right, but why an authoritative standard of rightness exists in the first place.

You may come to know about objective morality in many different ways: from parents, teachers, society, your conscience, etc. And you can know it while denying God exists. But that's like saying you can know what a book says while denying there's an author. Of course you can do that, but there would be no book to know unless there was an author! In other words, atheists can know objective morality while denying God exists, but there would be no objective morality unless God exists.

Atheists are caught in a dilemma. If God doesn't exist, then everything is a matter of human opinion and objective moral rights don't exist, including all those that atheists support. If God does exist, then objective moral rights exist. But those rights clearly don't include cutting up babies in the womb, same-sex marriage and their other invented absolutes contrary to every major religion and natural law.

Now, an atheist might say, "In our country, we have a constitution that the majority approved. We have no need to appeal to God." True, you don't have to appeal to God to write laws, but you do have to appeal to God if you want to ground them in anything other than human opinion. Otherwise, your "rights" are mere preferences that can be voted out of existence at the ballot box or at the whim of an activist judge or dictator. That's why our Declaration of Independence grounds our rights in the Creator. It recognizes the fact that even if someone changes the constitution you still have certain rights because they come from God, not man-made law.

However, my point isn't about how we should put objective God-given rights into human law. My point is that without God there are no objective human rights. There is no right to abortion or same-sex marriage. Of course, without God there is no right to life or natural marriage either!

In other words, no matter what side of the political aisle you're on—no matter how passionate you believe in certain causes or rights—without God they aren't really rights at all. Human rights amount to no more than your subjective preferences. So atheists can believe in and fight for rights to abortion, same-sex marriage and taxpayer-provided entitlements, but they can't justify them as truly being rights.

In fact, to be a consistent atheist—and this is going to sound outrageous, but it's true—you can't believe that anyone has ever actually changed the world for the better. Objectively good political or moral reform is impossible if atheism is true. Which means you have to believe that everything Wilberforce, Lincoln and Martin Luther King did to abolish slavery and racism wasn't really good; it was just different. It means you have to believe that rescuing Jews from the ovens was not objectively better than murdering them. It means you have to believe that gay marriage is no better than gay bashing. (Since we're all just "dancing to our DNA," the gay basher was just born with the anti-gay gene. You can't blame him!) It means you have to believe that loving people is no better than raping them.

You may be thinking, "That's outrageous! Racism, murder, assault and rape are objectively wrong, and people do have a right not to be harmed!" I agree. But that's true only if God exists. In an atheistic universe there is nothing objectively wrong with anything at any time. There are no limits. Anything goes. Which means to be a consistent atheist you have to believe in the outrageous.

If you are mad at me for these comments, then you agree with me in a very important sense. If you don't like the behaviors and ideas I am advocating here, you are admitting that all behaviors and ideas are not equal—that some are closer to the real objective moral truth than others. But what is the source of that objective truth? It can't be changeable, fallible human beings like you or me. It can only be God whose unchangeable nature is the ground of all moral value. That's why atheists are unwittingly stealing from God whenever they claim a right to anything.

[xzins]

As I think about it, Marron, your line “God intended power to be well distributed” speaks to the pre-diluvian and the aftermath diluvian world as well. With God’s people we aren’t introduced to kings and queens. We’re introduced to Noahs and Abrahams and Jacobs. I’m not saying they weren’t substantial people in their own right, but that wasn’t because of elevation in some human system. It was due to their relationship with God.

Melchizadek is both a priest and king....and a foreshadowing of Christ.

[marron]

Speaking of the antediluvian... I don’t know if this means anything, but it occurs to me. The patriarchy is dead because we act like employees instead of patriarchs.

Time to start acting like patriarchs. Let God lead and you find yourself leading without really intending to.

Patriarchs have to deal with kings but they aren’t dependent on them.

[betty boop]

Adding to my previous post, what’s the possibility that Obama is an atheist? His actions say ‘muslim’, but so many socialists seem to get along with muslims that I’ve wondered if there is some affinity or some similarity that socialist/atheists see in islam.

I've been wondering over precisely that same question in recent times, dear brother in Christ.

What do I think?

I think it's entirely possible that 0bama can be both a Muslim and an atheist at the same time. Here's my reasoning:

(1) Both Atheism and Islam are religions — though the former might deny it, that is how they are regarded by the Supreme Court of the United States.

(2) Atheism is the religion of Godlessness. I.e., it is the religion of FOOLS in the Classical and Judeo-Christian sense of the word. We are speaking of the nabal, the idiotes — of the man who says in his heart, "There is no God."

Islam, on the other hand, has a "god." But I wonder, what kind of "god" can this be? To my point: Is this "god" Allah? Or is it the 7th-century Arab Bedouin warlord, Mohammed?

(3) Both Atheism and Islam detest Christianity, and will not live in peace with it. This profoundly shared animosity is their common ground. Atheism has its "no-God"; Islam has Allah.

Atheists demand "no-God"; because to actually have a God to whom one is faithful means having to adjust one's life to a Will outside one's own. Atheists believe they are entirely self-determined, and write their own moral laws as they go along. From whence expectation the rest of society is subjected to the doctrine of moral relativism.

The Arabic word "islam" means submission. It does not mean "peace," as is widely alleged these days. As a word, "Islam" and the Russian/Soviet "Mir" denote the same thing: One gets "peace" only when one "submits." Then human bliss erupts all over the place. Right.

But submission to WHAT?

This would be a problem for Atheists; for they submit to nothing outside of what their crabby little minds and depleted spirits can conjure.

Then again, one could say that Atheists live in submission to their own isolated selves. It must be totally suffocating.... But what do I know??? I'm not an Atheist.

On the topic of "submission," 0bama's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast a few days ago sheds much light. He took pains to poke every American Christian directly in the eye with his assertion of a moral equivalency between the Crusades of some 900 years ago, and what ISIS, Al Qaida, Boko Haram, et al., ad nauseam, are doing today.

In the first place, the long-ago Crusaders were military types, deployed to the Holy Land to protect Christian pilgrims visiting there, who had been subjected to brutal treatment — gratuitous slaughter, beheadings, etc. — such as still persists in that region to this day.

But the most egregious insult to a Christian like me was 0bama's allegation that human chattel slavery was sanctioned by Christianity. Whatta joke!!!

Slavery in the United States was abolished mainly because American Christians were viscerally opposed to it. And they had the majority back then.

Funny how our ersatz POTUS forgets that the slave trade mainly depended on Arab Muslim slave traders. They were the very first link on the slave-trade chain, the ones who swooped down on Africa every Spring to round up innocent human beings living there, to load them up like cordwood on ships destined for England....

The Koran itself legitimizes human chattel slavery, virtually on every page. We see it to this day, as female and child captives taken by, e.g., ISIS and Boko Haram are sold for money into slavery, sexual or otherwise. IF they're not murdered first.

0bama wants us to "submit" — to total historical amnesia, to sheer irrationality.... He is the new "god," dontacha know?

Though much more could be said, I'll close for now. Thank you so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!

[xzins]

Thank you, Sister, for bringing up ‘submission’. It is a tenet of Islam, and it is brutally enforced. One has a place among the leadership or one is merely an adherent, a serf.

It is similar, as you say, with atheistic socialisms of all varieties. There is a leadership and there are the serfs.

Surprisingly, this ties directly into this article. What one who ‘submits’ does not have is ‘rights’. Atheism and any totalitarianism cannot logically argue for inherent rights. In atheism, any voiced rights are ephemeral, changing when convenient if present at all. And that is true of dictators, too. Whatever right you think you have is one the whim of the dictator disallows in his next breath. The various Kims of North Korea make the case. No one pretends there are such things as rights with those dictators.

So, we arrive again at the similarity between Islam, totalitarianism, and atheism being the absence of rights.

So, it is possible that Obama could be both atheist/socialist AND Islamic. The only problem would be his narcissism would see himself as the dictator caliph.

[betty boop]

Atheism and any totalitarianism cannot logically argue for inherent rights. In atheism, any voiced rights are ephemeral, changing when convenient if present at all.... Whatever right you think you have is one the whim of the dictator disallows in his next breath....

So very true, dear Brother!

The only problem would be [0bama's] narcissism would see himself as the dictator caliph.

So what??? That's 0bama's problem: He is never going to be the universal dictator caliph, no more than any of the other world-beating, would-be conquerors and hegemons of the human past, such as Alexander, Xerxes, Napoleon — or Hitler, Stalin or Mao — for instance.

What happens in eras dominated by such persons is a great deal of human cultural dislocation, chaos, and suffering. The would-be great ones don't even look at the problem at that level. They are so in love with themselves that there isn't even an ounce of love to devote to anything "other" than themselves.

But all such comes to naught, in due time, as Percy Bysshe Shelley reminds us, in Ozymandias:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert.
Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains.
Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Thank you for your wonderful insights, dear Brother!

[Zionist Conspirator]

Atheist Richard Dawkins has declared, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. ... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."

If this is the case, then why do Dawkins and all the other atheists get so worked up over "homophobia," "discrimination," "sexism," etc? Isn't he implying that according to DNA those are evil?

[Alamo-Girl]

Truly, this President and Presidency has been pro-Islam, anti-Israel and anti-Christianity.

Thank you so much for all you insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Attending church is an accepted definition of ‘christian’ among the unthinking.

Sad but true, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

The tyrant form of government might actually work better when most of the citizens are atheist, marxist or muslim.

The judicial oath, or any oath for that matter, means nothing to them:

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

[Alamo-Girl]

As Christ said, a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit. (Matthew 7)

Most all the fruit of this Presidency has been bad.

[xzins]

There is another element that occurred to me. When you look at the generations of bohemians who fled to Morocco to live lives doing things you couldn’t legally do back home, there is in the western mind the idea that Islam has some kind of escape clause or bubble that somehow applies to them.

I, too, have noticed that, Marron. There appears to be some sense among western liberals that they are immune from the brutality of Islam. They see their relationship to muslims as some kind of throwback to a colonial period in which they would be overseers, and the locals would continue their Islamic lives ignoring the liberals living near them and lording over them. It can only be some fantasy created for them by Hollywood or derived from that bygone colonial era.

They, of course, would be the 'good' masters, and the muslims would be the happy servants going about their daily lives.

[YHAOS]

“Slavery in the United States was abolished mainly because American Christians were viscerally opposed to it. And they had the majority back then.”

It continues to (and continually) astound me how Liberals such as 0bama, and his trons, hold to the irrational belief that 21st Century behavior can be judged by 7th Century standards, in the one instance, and that 12th and 13th Century behavior must be judged by 21st Century standards in another, and that the glaring discrepancy will not be noticed.

“0bama wants us to “submit” — to total historical amnesia, to sheer irrationality.... He is the new “god,”

Precisely. And so goes the thinking of every Liberal, be he a professor, a Kenyan Pretender, or any other kind of Tinker Belle.

Thanks for the comeback.

[Zeneta]

I’ve posted this link many times here on FR, and I strongly recommend it for those that have yet to watch, and listen.

No Science, No Logic and No Morality: Atheism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxz84kS8k4U

This is from an open air discussion between the vice-president of the Cornell Universities atheist society and Jeff Durbin of Apologia Christian Ministries.

The discussion occurred at the “Reason Rally” in Washington DC in 2012.

While the young atheist is misguided, IMHO, he is very intelligent and Jeff Durbin is fantastic.

The video runs about 13 minutes and it really addresses your original post.