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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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

[elfman2]

"My "fool or intellectual [and boundlessly arrogant]" assessment [of atheists] was not directed at you [an atheist] but it was quite sincere. Only the thoughtless or arrogant or insecure could be atheistic."

I can’t have this discussion with someone who doesn’t recognize the contradiction in that and won't acknowledge it before moving on.

[Tribune7]

whereas reason deals in things we can see for ourselves.

I disagree with this. You may intend to mean "science deals with things that can be measured," which I would agree with.

Reason, to me, describes the thought process by which we deal with data in a premediated, organized fashion. Most of this data, I'd argue, does not come from a direct sensory source.

You read a book about Caesar you will acquire data which will lead you to a conclusion via reason. Yet, you will have never directly "seen" Caesar.

[elfman2]

"The atheist insistance that God does not exist is an insanely arrogant claim. "

Go here and read the definition of “atheist”. You’ll see that an atheist doesn’t have to “insist” anything, just dismiss what you insist on. That doesn’t make you his victim so it doesn’t justify your anger and aggression, only your ignorance. While you’re there, look up how to spell “insistence”.

[Tribune7]

Belief that atheism leads inevitably to mass murder is ridiculous bigotry.

A poster -- I think it was Hank Kerchief -- broached this point earlier who noted that most atheists do not even declare themselves.

I agree that most atheist do not pose a threat to their neighbors. I did point out to Hank (I think) that those atheists who are outspoken in their belief and who acquired power have a horrific track record.

[Tribune7]

If you want the answers . . .

How about I just ask you?

And just because we don't currently have the answer to every single question doesn't mean we should say that god(s) are the answer.

OK, you don't know the answer. But you did miss my point.

Remember, you claim "(atheists & agnostics) tend to rely on science and that which can be proven."

But science isn't silent on the origin of life. It says axiomatically that it is impossible for life to come from non-life. So how can you rely on science to provide an explanation as to the origin of life?

[Tribune7]

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. is not equivilant with he is saying that atheists would never want to live in peace with their neighbors . . .?

He is saying that atheists have no good reason to live by the Golden Rule. They may have very good reasons apart from the Golden Rule to live in peace with their neighbors.

Or if tortoise is right about his Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, Vox may be wrong. Regardless, he is not saying that atheists would never want to live in peace with their neighbors.

[Phaedrus]

I can’t have this discussion with someone who doesn’t recognize the contradiction in that and won't acknowledge it before moving on.

I can live with that.

[Junior]

But atheists do have a reason to live by the Golden Rule -- they want to live in peace just like everyone else. That is what the Golden Rule promotes ("Do unto others as you'd have done to you."). Indeed, the precepts of the Golden Rule are so universal that just about every culture has come up with it.

Atheists simply follow it because it's best for them, not because God is threatening them lest they don't. Indeed, I often find atheists motives for doing good more pure than many Christians, who do it only because they are afraid of divine retribution.

[Tribune7]

Science says it's impossible for life to come from non-life . . .That's not true.

Sure it is. Here's an interesting link to the subject at the University of Virginia. (The author's an evo BTW).

Now creditionaled people are, of course, speculating on abiogenisis. But when they do they (generally) are participating in metaphysics or philosophy rather than science.

The hard and fast presumption of biology is when life is found it came from other life.

A-G & Betty, you may enjoy the link -- and not just the Bently Glass aritcle. It looks like a great resource.

[Tribune7]

But atheists do have a reason to live by the Golden Rule -- they want to live in peace just like everyone else.

ARRGGGGHH.

ALL OF US have a reason to live by the Golden Rule.

It's just that we don't. If we did the Crucifixion would never have needed to occur.

And who says everyone wants to live in peace?

And I do hope tortoise's Iterated Prisoner Dilemma claim is correct. It would give mathematical backing to a the teachings of Jesus.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

The Irrational Atheist

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. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.

I am saying nothing new here. It is an ancient concept. More than 2,000 years ago, the first atheist martyr, Socrates, declared "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Being fully aware of the repercussions of this teaching, he also argued that it was necessary to keep such virtuous knowledge to the elite.

"I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects...these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd...breaking out into rebellion."

The Romans, ever practical, understood this as well. Seneca the Younger wrote: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." It is more than useful for a civilized society, though, it is a downright necessity.

Even the great champions of reason accepted this bitter truth. Alvin Bernstein writes of Voltaire: "He regarded belief in God and in an afterlife of rewards and punishments as requisites of ethical behavior...Voltaire was convinced that the lower classes must fear God in order to be ethical. His religious outlook...is a stepping-stone toward a full secular outlook in which moral judgments have nothing to do with religious and spiritual abstractions.

This is not to say there are no atheists who are rational, that there are none who are true to their godless convictions. Friedrich Nietzsche is the foremost example, but there are certainly others who do not fear to determine their own moral compass. Today, we call them sociopaths and suicides.

Without God, there is only the left-hand path of the philosopher. It leads invariably to Hell, by way of the guillotine, the gulag and the gas chamber. The atheist is irrational because he has no other choice – because the rational consequences of his non-belief are simply too terrible to bear.

______________________________

An outstanding article worthy of a full post (I didn't see a full post of it on this thread)....



- ConservativeStLouisGuy

[Terriergal]

Cyrano- check this guy's post out - might come in handy in some of your 'exchanges' with a certain agnostic/atheist we know.

Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics,

I watched a special on String theory a few weeks ago... (and maybe Cyrano can help me out here in explaining what I mean --) It struck me as if they were trying to come up with something to magically create order from chaos. (sure the fabric of time/space is erratic and chaotic, but it supports all life as we know it...)

Good post CStLouisGuy - much more eloquent than I would have been able to say it, but expresses my thoughts.

[Terriergal]

Ping to 172

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding (as always) post, tortoise!

I believe that game theoretics can tell us a great deal about why people behave as they do and also give us much insight into history and the likely outcome of current events. It would be very useful to discuss this, but because of its wide applicability - I’d like to see it on a separate thread where "atheism, science, and the Golden Rule" is not the main focus. You said:

A pedestrian and more fully expressed version of the Golden Rule from mathematics would be like the following: Do unto others as you have them do unto you. But if they do harm, punish in like kind.

I agree! And I also agree that this is the common thread among the ancient cultures and religions – and the predictor of human nature. For Lurkers interested in researching other ancient religions: Asian Religions -- An Introduction to the Study of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, and Taoi

But Christianity is unique! Here is the Golden Rule as you asserted it from Scripture, i.e. Matthew 7:12 (emphasis mine)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Christ further explains that phrase in Matthew 22:37-40 – by showing on what the Golden Rule must be based, i.e. the Great Commandmen:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

There are many, many verses in the New Testament which reinforce the overarching commandment to love your neighbor. Moreover, this sets Christianity apart from other religions, including fulfilling the Jewish law - in that it indeed goes against human nature as you described it: ” But if they do harm, punish in like kind.”

Going back to the Sermon on the Mount, Christ explicitly describes this fulfillment of the law in Matthew 5:17-48 (excerpted):

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil….

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven...

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; …

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Truly, I am not aware of any religion whereby the believer is commanded and also empowered to go completely against his own nature through love. That is why I asked the loaded question:

Out of curiosity, which pre-Christian ideologies supported the concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" based on unfailing love - no matter what the others might say or do, consistently forgiving all such offenses as if they never happened?

Having said all of that, I re-emphasize that I agree with you as to the nature of man:

A pedestrian and more fully expressed version of the Golden Rule from mathematics would be like the following: Do unto others as you have them do unto you. But if they do harm, punish in like kind.

Belief in Christ followed by the indwelling of the Spirit – abiding in Him – is the only way to overcome this human nature. Sadly, very few actually find this path. Continuing your verse selection to the next two:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[PatrickHenry]

There's also the OT statement of the golden rule:

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you so very much for the verse!!!

[whattajoke]

Good post CStLouisGuy - much more eloquent than I would have been able to say it, but expresses my thoughts.

Just as an FYI, StLouisGuy's post was actually just a repost of the full original article we are discussion in this particular thread.

[whattajoke]

And I have to point out this sentence again:

Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.

Is it just me, or is that statement one of the stupidest things ever written?

[Tribune7]

Great post A-G & great link concerning Asian religions.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the kudos, Tribune7! I'm glad the linked article was helpful!