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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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

[tpaine]

There's no doubt about the Christian morality of the Founders and the Framers (most of them), but they intended to create a secular government -- something very different from what they were familiar with in Europe.
-PH-

---

Yes, PH -- they were seeking to found a novo ordo seclorum -- a new secular order. There's no question about this.

But I haven't disputed this point. ----

--- But many of the Framers made it clear that the fledgling United States of America would not prosper, let alone last, if the citizens of the several states were not willing to live under the moral law ----

--- And the fact of the matter is, that law was understood to be divine in origin, and of distinctly Judeo-Christian character.
-BB-

---

You ~are~ disputing PH's point, Betty.

Parse it as you like, you propose we live under an understood 'moral law'.

You are advocating a return to a type of government sponsored authoritarian theocracy in your attempt to make the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Laws of the Christian dispensation part of our constitutional contract, just as you said at #799.

[Tribune7]

Nice, now Alamo-girl’s supporters are also pretending to be stupid in order to avoid addressing her mischaracterization. It can be a slippery slope to a life of dishonesty. Thank Alamo-girl for her part in your journey.

My reference to atheists as irrational is general, limited and slightly, just slightly, facetious.

Then I read your posts.

[GETMAIN]

What I want to know is this:

If the establishment clause was currently interpreted and implemented according to your views, what would be different about modern day America? I am asking for specifics -- what would be different in the current body of law and governance? What would be different about life for Joe Citizen?

Thanks in advance.

[GETMAIN]

I should clarify that I would welcome a response from anyone who wishes to jump in, and not just betty boop exclusively.

Thanks.

[tpaine]

My reference to atheists as irrational is general, limited and slightly, just slightly, facetious.
Then I read your posts.
862 -t7-

---

Your reference to atheists as irrational is a silly generalization, obviously based on your limited mental capacity and a facetious effort to attract attention by arguing with your betters.

Reading your posts proves that point.

[Tribune7]

If the establishment clause was currently interpreted and implemented according to your views, what would be different about modern day America?

The big difference -- and it would be a big difference -- would be in public education.

Schools would not be afraid of teaching the Bible in a positive -- and I don't mean 6-day creationist -- light, with fear of being tied up in lawsuits.

Nor would our educational institutions be afraid of specifically saying that our rights are God-given, and people will be accountable to God in how the live their lives.

I think this would mean a huge improvement in our schools and culture.

[whattajoke]

Just for the fun of it, try to imagine what the United States would "look like" if it had been founded by a band of Confucians, or Buddhists.

As for confucians, I think they could have come up with more or less the same documents. They don't necessariy believe in a deity, but they certainly have a rather extensive and impressive set of moral dictums. and they are big on freedoms and such.

Buddhists, however, might have been a bit different country, but again, as far as morals and laws go, I think we'd be OK. (Note: only in the context of morals and laws).

[tpaine]

GETMAIN wrote:
If the establishment clause was currently interpreted and implemented according to your views, what would be different about modern day America?

I am asking for specifics -- what would be different in the current body of law and governance? What would be different about life for Joe Citizen?

---

There a hundreds of self-described conservatives on this forum that truly believe that our BOR's does not apply to state & local governments.

'Joe' would live in a locality where his every act could be dictated by the whims of the majority.

[PatrickHenry]

And the fact of the matter is, that law was understood to be divine in origin, and of distinctly Judeo-Christian character.

I think I agree with your entire post (which is a bit of a rarity), except for one little sentence, copied above. And even that sentence is mostly correct, except for those who, like Jefferson, sometimes preferred the concept of "Nature and Nature's God," which was a deist formulation.

But Jefferson and the other deists (however many there were) knew what to say when the occasion required it, so the actual theism-deism picture is a bit foggy. Still, I'm of the impression that the deists were a minority among the Founders. In any event, their morality was entirely agreeable to the rest (they were, after all, products of the same society), so when you get right down to it, this is merely a quibble.

I think one way way to put it is that their religion animated their political work, but didn't overwhelm it.

[Tribune7]

And the fact of the matter is, that law was understood to be divine in origin, and of distinctly Judeo-Christian character. . . . I think I agree with your entire post (which is a bit of a rarity), except for one little sentence, copied above. And even that sentence is mostly correct, except for those who, like Jefferson, sometimes preferred the concept of "Nature and Nature's God," which was a deist formulation.

Deism is an offshoot of Christianity. The term "Deism" originally referred to a belief in one deity, as contrasted with the belief in no God (Atheism) and belief in many Gods (Polytheism). During the later 17th century, the meaning of "Deism" began to change. It refered to forms of radical Christianity - belief systems that rejected miracles, revelation, and the inerrancy of the Bible.

But Jefferson and the other deists (however many there were) knew what to say when the occasion required it . . .

Jefferson called himself a Christian :-)

[Right Wing Professor]

Jeepers, I don't know why this is so difficult

Me neither.

At post 817 I said: Yockey used Shannon entropy to examine the information content of a small protein, cytochrome c and concluded that even it could not have arisen by happenstance; and the minimum information content of a simplest organism is much larger than the information content of cytochrome c.

No one is claiming it arose by happenstance. Straw man.

[betty boop]

I think one way way to put it is that their religion animated their political work, but didn't overwhelm it.

Excellently, beautifully put, PatrickHenry. Needless to say, I completely concur.

"Finding the balance" is the great challenge of intelligent human living. Or so it seems to me.

Thank you so much, PH, for the beautiful post.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

No one is claiming it arose by happenstance.

If you have a highly plausible theory for how biological information arose from non-life, then please publish it and claim the million dollar prize!

Origin of Life Prize

"The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") consists of $1.35 Million (USD) paid directly to the winner(s). The Prize will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. To win, the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s).

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping, betty boop! And thank you for the great post, PatrickHenry!

[betty boop]

If the establishment clause was currently interpreted and implemented according to your views, what would be different about modern day America? I am asking for specifics -- what would be different in the current body of law and governance? What would be different about life for Joe Citizen?

GETMAIN, I am most intrigued by your challenge. I think you will understand when I say "I need to think about it" before replying.

I will think about this problem. I hope to reply soon.

Meanwhile, this seems to be such an interesting question, wouldn't it be a good idea to open up this conversation to anybody else who wants to weigh in? We have a whole lot of thoughtful people here at FR.... This could get really interesting!

Thanks for writing!

[jennyp]

jennyp, after the Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan, for some strange reason I thought that women throughout that country would throw off their burkahs, like liberated slaves would throw off their chains. This, of course, did not happen. Afghan women kept their burkahs. After hearing about what happened to that little Palestinian girl, I now understand why. The more beautiful the woman, the greater the incentive to keep covered up.

Well, as I get older & wiser, I realize it takes time for a sick society to heal. In fact any large societal change - good or bad - can take a generation or more to fully play themselves out in people's lives. (That's why FDR's welfare state had the support of so many people for decades.)

[Tribune7]

No one is claiming it arose by happenstance

Then we all agree that it happened by design.

[Doctor Stochastic]

False dichotomy.

[Right Wing Professor]

No one is claiming it arose by happenstance

Then we all agree that it happened by design

No. But maybe we can agree you've a penchant for false dichotomies

[Right Wing Professor]

If you have a highly plausible theory for how biological information arose from non-life, then please publish it and claim the million dollar prize!

Uh huh. Or I could hold a debate about the truth of Islam with the Ayatollah Khamenei, the winner to be decided by an impartial jury of Iranian clerics.