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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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 ...
I don't know if that was Einstein, but I've heard it before, so someone prominent said it. And it's a good question.
I’m reminded of a phrase, “Reasoning is the practice of non-contradictory identification”. If significant evidence evolved for the existence of the Christian God that resolved the contradictions within the Bible and between the Bible and all that we know, and if it were more persuasive than alternative explanations, then that would be “proof”. True not because it’s “proved to me”, but because evidence evaluated through induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions as objectively as possible leads to that conclusion.
That’s how opinions are arrived at that are based on reason rather than emotion or faith. I’m happy and secure in my beliefs, and respectful of others. Some Christians accept this, move forward and live happy honorable lives with their faith. Others go though what I hope is just “phases” of bad behavior, denying that their faith is not provable in a more objective sense, insulting non-believers and misrepresenting other ideologies. I think these people are a relatively small group, similar to the percent of those in the population that act badly. Nevertheless, I think it’s a moral imperative to highlighting that, often just using their own words.
Whenever I run into this kind of question in the general public, I am not surprised. Most people have no idea what liberty means, or of the principles behind it.
When I receive this kind of question from posters on Free Republic, I am absolutely amazed. These are supposedly people who love liberty and the principles this country was founded on, yet this question is answered in every piece of literature written by the founders of this country.
First, let me say, as a class, atheist are no more clear headed about these things than any other class and there are just many stupid bad atheists are there are stupid bad anything else. That is why I specified "thnking atheist," as opposed to the run-of-the-mill kind.
There are two answers to you question, one short, one long. I will spare you the long one in detail, because you can figure it out for yourself.
But first we have to say what we mean by, "free to think," because it is obvious everyone is always free to think whatever they want. There is no way to force someone to not think something. What we really mean by, "free to think," is freedom to put one's thoughts into action. In a Muslim country you are as free to think as you are anywhere else, but if you think there is no Allah, you better not say so, and if you are a woman and think there is nothing wrong with showing you bare legs, you better not put your thoughts into action.
Now the short answer is, if (1) the principle is accepted, that it is right to restrict some people's thinking (acting on what they think), there is always the danger, the people whose thoughts will be restricted will be one's own, but if (2) the principle is accepted, that it is wrong to restrict anyone's thinking, the freedom of one's own thoughts are guaranteed. The thinking atheist or thinking anyone else will obvious favor principle #2.
The long answer has to do with the principles of social ethics (philosophical politics) and the nature of rights and liberty. The only danger to the freedom of thought is from other people, particularly in the form of government. The desire for the freedom to think (and therefore the freedom to speak and write and act on what one thinks) is only possible within the framework of a political system that guarantees individual liberty for everyone. If you are familiar with the principles the US government is founded on, the rest should be clear to you.
There are two not very long books that provide very clear answers to all these kinds of qeustions. Both are by Ayn Rand: The Virtue of Selfishness, which explicates the principles of rationally derived objective ethics, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal which explains the nature of a moral social/economic system.
If you have an aversion to Ayn Rand, as some people do, especially those who have never read her, you can find the these same principles, (less clearly and not as fully explained), in John Locke, whose philosophy the design of our government is based on. He also originated the concepts of, "rational self-interest," (virtue of selfishness) and "the social contract" (a capitalist ideal).
Hank
This is totally disingenuous. There really is no such thing as "atheism." Not believing in something is not an ideology. There are millions of things I don't believe in, because they are complete nonsense or fictions, and some of them are things some people believe whole-heartedly. I do not believe in astrology, is that a-astrologism? I do not believe Allah. Is that a-allahism.
No atheist ever embraced socialism, communist, fascism, or or any other oppresive, statist, or collectivist ideology because he was an atheist. The atheism associated with these ideologies is the consequence of the ideologies, not the other way around. A disbelief is not an ideology. It is simply the absence of credulity concerning one concept, period.
My point about the Muslim terrorist was that religion is no protection from political evil. Another point I did not make is, atheism never results in those kinds of evil, all by itself. Some other ideology must be added to it. Religion is frequently the source of evil all by itself.
You might also be interested in these:
Hank
I'm rooting for tortoise & betting on RWN.
Ridley basically concludes that the modern free market is the most sophisticated example of an evolved system of cooperation.
Which of course is based on Christian thinking.
Which actually meshes with with what tortoise says about IPD.
If Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you: When you drop a rock from a great height, it seeks the Earth from whence it came with greater rapidity the longer time passes since it left thy hand", it would be an accurate statement. . . .Eventually, modern physics would describe the constant acceleration of an object being pulled by gravity.
First, that's not necessarily true. Who says modern physics had to come into existence?
Second -- and more to the point -- if the common wisdom was that the rock slowed as it fell, and whole governments and cultures and modes of behavior were based on the slowing rock, then Jesus' observation would be inarguably profound and significant regardless of the passage of 17 centuries before the math could be found to back it up.
What contradicitions do you see within the Bible?
I don't know that. Please explain. Actually, it is easy to see the number of countries invaded by these theee countries, in comparison with the number of countries invaded by England, Spain France, the U.S., Portugal, Belgium, and even Italy. The west cannot be defended as pro-peace, specially during last century. Mind you, the last century had more real Christian believers than we have today. At one time the West was occupying most of the earth! I do believe, however, that the West has improved the life of most, if not all these countries that they occupied.
I’m not qualified to debate specifics of that. I after a quick goggle search, this popped up. A List of Biblical Contradictions. I’m not endorsing these guys. I know nothing of them other than that they spent more time on this than I.
But it's the reason you give for not believing in God. I bring this up because it was contradictions in the scripture that led me to believe the Gospel was true.
That's silly if what you're implying is that this state exists any more in atheism than anything else. Christianity is predicated on this. You can choose to follow Christ or rejct Him.
The reasons I listed for disbelieving in the Bible in the post you are referring to (#363) were broader than that, and you know it.
I’m no more going to step into a forum with aggressive biblical evangelists (many of whom have behaved very dishonestly) to debate details of Biblical Contradictions than you’re likely to speak out in an aggressive Apple marketing meeting and promote why you dismiss Macs. It’s an old argument, well documented. If you’re sincerely interested in the contradictory evidence, I gave you a much better researched and organized list than I’m willing to compose.
Rest assured that I’ve had adequate exposure to have an informed opinion. I sincerely wish you well in your faith.
Yes it would be silly, but of course I never implied any such thing. I could not even think it, but apparently you could.
Hank
What is the disadvantage of having overly intelligent police/prosecuters. Simply the opportunity for successful corruption or something more subtle?
Can you suggest a text on this subject? Its fascinating.
It happens all the time, they are called politicians and they use the law itself as an instrument of injustice.
True. Show me an atheist and I'll show you someone attached to a particular sin, usually sexual in nature.
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.