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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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 ...
Don't be an ass. Until you give me a reason why I should waste time on such an endeavor, when it is clear that I not only know all about the Golden Rule but could cut-n-paste ad nauseum even if I didn't, I'm not going to deign to press the keys on my keyboard to acommodate a desire on your part that serves no obvious purpose. I see no evidence that doing so would be anything other than a waste of my time.
The myriad of expressions of the Golden Rule are all quaint heuristics that are derivable from core theorems of game theory. Those who do not grok this do not grok the Golden Rule. I have a suspicion that you place yourself among that number.
Because God wants us to.
Well he obviously wants it if he is commanding it. But why should I care about what God wants or commands?
In fact, you can choose not to obey any commands from anyone.
Of course not. But for some reason, religious individuals tend to obey God's commands, or at least make an attempt to do so.
Why do they choose to obey God instead of choosing not to obey Him?
I have no problem if it should turn out to be true. I just suspect it isn't going to, and I think he may be confusing the Golden Rule with something else.
Obviousy you don't really agree that following the golden rule is a rational non-religious behavior, common to most societies of the world Why is that?
Because it isn't common to most societies of the world. Can you articulate it?
Well, I know of one group of atheists in the 20th century that lined people up at gunpoint, killed them, sent them to labor camps in no-man's land, starved them, and drained all hope of life. Eventually they collapsed under the hollowness of their philosophy.
I know of another group of atheists that killed the intellectuals, then killed more people for the glorious 'Great Leap Forward', and still practice vitual slavery on segments of the population.
Then there was another group of atheists to whom a tribute to their handiwork is still able to be viewed in Southeast Asia.
Knock it off. You're baiting people, and it is intellectually dishonest to equate all who subscribe to a religious faith the characteristics of a group of nutcases.
Is it only theists’ that choose to obey?
If this is determined by society and what is best for us all, I guess we should ask our President who he follows…
(This is a conservative forum)
Let me understand this: providing a 10 word answer is a waste of time while writing 200 or 300 words without giving an answer isn't?
The first question you should ask is whether God exists?
If your answer is "no" then whatever I suggest will be ignored. Of course, I, like the author, hold the view that the "no" answer is emotion-driven and doesn't hold up to reason.
If your answer is "yes", the next question is what is the nature of God? Is God a fearsome, jealous entity that will condemn you to eternal tortue if you so much as burp at the wrong time? Well, then the answer is obvious.
Or is God a detached watchmaker who set things in motion eons ago and then went off to do something else? The answer there is less obvious (although one would be wise not to ignore the provided owner's manual.)
Or is God a loving father who wishes only the best for you? In that case, why not obey?
And if this is the case, for those who choose not to, I'd imagine he'd grant their wish -- which ultimately would mean being without Him for eternity.
Your point is that the Golden Rule -- which you won't articulate -- is common to all societies. It's not common to all societies. It's not common to human nature. Saying so doesn't make it so.
I typically choose to obey others because I believe it is in my best interest to do so. I might fear the consequences of disobeying or believe the benefits of obeying outweigh the costs. For example, as a kid the pleasure of chewing gum in class was not as significant as the boredom of detention, so I obeyed the rule against chewing gum in class.
I have given my reason for obeying others. Do religious individuals obey God for similar utilitarian reasons, or for some other reason(s)?
Is it only theists’ that choose to obey?
If this is determined by society and what is best for us all, I guess we should ask our President who he follows…
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by either of those statements.
(This is a conservative forum)
It certainly is.
And if this is the case, for those who choose not to, I'd imagine he'd grant their wish -- which ultimately would mean being without Him for eternity.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but in any of the cases, the reason to obey seems to be that it is the most profitable choice for the believer.
In the case of the vengeful God, obedience keeps the believer from being thrown in a realm of eternal torture. In the case of the detached God, obeying gives the believer a guide for life, or an owner's maual as you put it. In the case of the loving paternal God (which seems closest to the Christian concept), the believer obeys because God will know what is best for them, and their obedience will keep them from losing the eternal happiness that God can provide.
Is that any different from the utilitarianism that forms the foundation of athiest ethics, as the author of the article claims?
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.