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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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 ...
Not because they were atheist, but because they were totalitarian. And the figures are not exactly correct. The Nazis (21 million murdered) Chaing Kai-shek Nationalist Regime (10 million murdered) Japan (6 million murdered) Turkey (2 million murdered) Poland's ethnic cleansing (1.6 million murdered) and at least a million each -- Mexico and Feudal Russia, were not atheist at all and these account for 57 million murders by governments. (The actual total figure is more like 169 million, so your 100 million figure is correct for officially atheistic regimes, meaning they were not alone in their enterprise, just the most efficient.)
Irrationality and murderousness are not necessarily limited to the religious mindset.
But certainly religion is no protection from them. The cause of mass murders and oppression by government is ideology, specifically any ideology that believes men have the right to use unlimited force and coercion to impose their ideology on others. Except for those remnants of Marxism, Atheism today rejects all use of physical coecion in relations between men, and are usually the most outspoken about protecting freedom of religion. It is only in religion today that the belief one has a right to use force, especially government force, to impose beliefs (or practices based on beliefs) on others is alive and well, and there is plenty of that in the good old USA.
(I'm only comparing Atheism to actual Religions here. There is plenty of collectivist statist ideology in the world that is a-religious, such as American liberals and almost the entire leftist educational community, from top to bottom.) Hank
The proof is all around you -- you are immersed in it. Careful thought will get you there. Faith, as such, is not required but it can be helpful, if only because it is an indicator of due modesty.
Right ... Stalin, for example.
What? An universal church of atheism? :-)
And Mao. And Pol Pot. And Kim Il Jung. And Fidel
This would seem to imply that the atheist lives by the Golden Rule voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so.
This is one of the worst articles yet. This guy is really saying that no one can be sure of anything. He's a modern Skeptic.
You said it! I thank God often for opening my eyes to their empty, failed philosophies.
<><
I think He does both. I think He has provided both public proof in the form of public miracles which show His power and public prophecies which show His foreknowledge. As well as proving Himself on a personal level with individuals.
I do think God is provable. But just like there are some people who refuse to believe that man walked on the moon, you can't get everyone to spend the time to consider the evidence, or to believe the validity of the evidence.
Believing or not whether man walked on the moon doesn't really have any ramifications for how we live. Believing or not in God has major ramifications.
Unfortuately I think many people allow the ramifications to influence their objectivity in weighing the evidence. Hence, instead of truly considering the evidence, people choose what they want to believe first and then see the evidence through rose colored glasses.
To be sure, Atheists aren't the only ones who do that. Christians do too. And it accounts for many of the differing interpretations of scripture that are out there.
Then maybe since you’ve abandoned that “due modesty” to call all disbelievers irrational, you can be the first person to “prove” it as you claim you can rather than sink into the ambiguous and childish little one-liners that we’ve seen from you on this thread.
Perhaps you along with Phaedrus could be the first in history (that I’m aware of) to do so. I’m sure virtually everyone would consider that worthy of publication.
This was something that kept me from "religion" for a long time, until I started focusing on the Christian (and the Muslim, Hindi, agnostic, Buddhist, etc) next door vs. the "famous leaders" of any one faith. I also studied (a little) the teachings of the leaders of the mainstream religions -- Moohammed vs. Jesus, for example. I figured I could either discount them all or find the One who embodied Truth and follow Him. Guess Who's teachings won out and Whose eye-witnesses I believe?
I'm reminded of this quote (author unknown): "Religion is man's attempt to reach God; Jesus is God's attempt to reach man."
<><
Funny, I went to a Quaker college and never saw any evidence of irrational religiosity. Irrational politics, yes.
That's nice and I believe you, but any one of us living by even the highest moral values is not enough to approach a Holy God, whose idea of high morals is much, well, higher than our finite minds can imagine or which our physical bodies can follow. Of course, you may be a person who doesn't believe in the word "holy" or, like myself at one time, you may have an immature understanding of what holy means.
<><
First, unless you have actually studied the life of Jesus and understood what the fruits of the spirit and the virtues of Godly wisdom are and what they are not, I question whether you even have a good understanding of what "morally clean" is. To me He is the standard. By what light to you judge yourself to be "morally clean"?
Second, lets assume you have. Which IS entirely possible. I've known some fine outstanding people who are caring and trustworthy who have never trusted the Lord. You may well be of higher moral fiber than the average God-fearing Christian.
However therein lies the problem and the difference between Christianity and all other religions. God doesn't judge on a bell curve. It doesn't matter whether you are better than Adolf or better than Mother Teresa. Because you are going to be compared to God's own standard, which is Holy perfection. If we rely on our works, on our own goodness, like most other religions teach. We are toast.
God expects perfection. There are two ways to stand before God and not suffer the second death (spiritual destruction): 1) Never Sin or 2) Be forgiven.
The Christian may very well not be of as high of moral fiber as you are. But if the Christian accepted the pardoned that was offered to all and you did not. Well it's not going to be pretty.
And that's why I changed "hell-fearing Christian" to "God-fearing Christian". The Christian who knows his scripture, who knows the permanent nature of the pardon, knows that as Paul said, "Nothing can separate him from the Love of God, not even life nor death". The Christian does not fear Hell, because Hell is not a possibility for him. He does fear God, because God chastises those whom He loves. But God will not disown his adopted children.
The reason we don't believe in all the other gods. Is simply that they aren't real. They haven't done the kind of miracles and prophecies that God has. Nor have they set a perfect pure standard. Nor can they make themselves real in peoples lives.
When you meet God, you will understand why we believe in this God, but not the others.
Yes, and also: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
<><
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.