Lonewolf Diaries: Why Atheism is a “Mental Handicap”
by Steven CrowderNotice how I avoided using the word “Retarded?” I’ve seen that many conservatives have developed a sudden hyper-sensitivity for the disabled this week, so I’ve opted to tread lightly.
The truth is that atheism is literally a “retarded” philosophy in the sense that it is very “late to the table” in its thinking. Atheists will tell you that religion impedes the progress of man. To that I say “Poppycock!”, and that atheism has no place in a civilized society. Think I’m wrong? Let me know, amigos.
…Yes, I used the word “poppycock,” and no I don’t wear a monocle.
The biggest problem with atheism is that it’s a philosophy which, at its very core, diminishes the value of life. If we were simply spawned from a puddle of gook, human life has no intrinsic value. Human worth is ultimately left up to societal circumstances, and that’s never a good thing… Especially if said society is Hollywood.
Ah, Hollywood. It is a silly place. It’s also the largest gathering of practicing atheists around. Whether these folks claim to believe in “God” or not, their religion is hedonism with their ultimate nirvana being self-pleasure. They hold themselves accountable to no one. Not to their spouses (as displayed by the divorce rate), not to themselves (as displayed by the constant substance abuse and self-destructive behavior) and certainly not to God.
I don’t care how many times you thank “the spirit in the sky” at an awards ceremony; if you’re living your life answerable to nobody, you’re an atheist.
Hollywood also follows lockstep with atheism in being an elitist group that believes it holds “all the answers.” To be an atheist, is to say that there is nothing that can’t be explained by current science. “We MUST know that God is an impossibility… Because we know everything.” Is it illogical? Of course. There are holes in the religion of atheism more cavernous than Julia Roberts cakehole, folks. But who really cares? Since when has Hollywood given a damn about logic? Just like atheists, as far as Hollywood is concerned; “As long as your worldview doesn’t affect my ability to do what I want, when I want, regardless of cause and effect… We’re good, compadre!”
Atheism of course works well with Hollywood liberalism from a social standpoint. Morally speaking, when human life is deemed to serve no greater purpose, topics such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research become non-issues. These outlooks always sit well with the Hollywood folk who would love nothing more than to live their lives consequence free, with the absence of any finger-pointing judgment.
Atheists out there, am I wrong? I can’t say that I fully grasp your thought process, so feel free to slap me around here.
I’m not saying that there aren’t some decent atheists out there, so don’t get me wrong. I am saying however, that when you employ a philosophy which forces you to become a product of your environment, you better be damn sure that it’s the right environment… And if you look around to find that Sean Penn is an integral part of your surroundings, you can bet that you’re on the wrong track.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
635 Comments
Decent atheists… hmmmm… one supposes that decency is not the sole repository of the faith based- but believing in nothing= nihilism, and humanism being the only acceptable alternative suffices. Ergo this inexplicable love of flawed science (global warming) and devotion to politics as substitutes. Great post; the only quibble that we have is that more Hollywood types are pagans rather than true atheists…
Steven, the image is apropos — you are indeed howling at the moon. Atheism is an excuse for atheists to do whatever they want, and rationalization (i.e., justifying one's behavior) is the most powerful force in the universe; reason just can't compete.
good points- the rationalization has a euphimism- moral relativism. It's as if a belief in nothing can have a moral bearing; yet be infinitely flexible… so as do undo any 'moral' judgement. Can any atheists explain this seeming contradiction? without the tired 'brotherhood of mankind' canard?
A rational atheist (I agree not all are rational) values life tremendously, because that's all there is. No afterlife where you can "start over and get it right this time."
Intrinsic value is not the only kind of value (and in fact, some philosophies reject the idea of intrinsic value altogether).
Also, why does atheism necessarily imply hedonism? Hedonism is anti-life, if one wants to live life as a human (i.e., rational) being.
Steve, I love a lot of your stuff, but I think you're all wrong about atheism.
Denying God IS the atheist religion. Many don't seem content just not believing, they often feel compelled to go out of their way to ridicule, insult and try to disprove the faith of those who are not atheists. One could even call it "evangelizing".
Where do I start? Well, I guess to say that I am an atheist. I do not subscribe to the notion that there is a cognizant being that spoke our world in to existence. However, you make the mistake of treating atheism as a religion, which it is not. I will agree that many atheists do treat their atheism as a religion, but I am not one of them. I generally side with conservatives, I even consider myself one. I do not agree with abortion, nor 'assisted suicide'. Evolution makes more sense than any competing theory, and global warming is a hoax because there is no evidence to support the assertion. However, when I read things like you have posted it makes me angry and isolated. I respect your beliefs, so why can't you respect mine? And just for the record, Hollywood isn't full of a bunch of atheists. Hollywood is full of catholics, jews, cabalists, scientologist, to name a few, whom are not atheists. So why did you decide to vent about me? I have done nothing to offend you, too bad you can't return the favor.
you seem more an agnostic than an atheist- and there is a huge difference. We have met and known those folk, and they do believe there is a spirit of goodness… and maybe more than a dirt nap awaits…
Do you have proof that Hollywood is the largest gathering of practicing atheists around? And do you have figures re: the higher divorce rate and substance abuse? Unfortunately divorce and substance abuse are widespread among our country — Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics — you can't just put the blame on Atheists.
Amy, I'm not being snarky — this is a serious question: who (or what) is your authority for such an absolute judgment?
Artboy is right! They feel horribly threatened by those of faith; most particularly the Christian faith- and are seeking
it's irrelevance, if not outright destruction…
No, I am an atheist. Perhaps the reason I don't come across as confrontational as some atheists is because I wasn't brought up with any religion, so I haven't had to work to reject it in my own mind the way some atheists have. Not sure.
Isn't the whole point of atheism to reject authority in favor of the judgment of one's own mind?
I agree with Aristotle and Rand on these issues, FWIW, but I came to the conclusion that I didn't believe in a god, and decided I thought it was important to be ethical, on my own, before I ever heard of philosophy.
Yeah, some of them are that way, unfortunately. They ruin it for us nicer, less "in your face" atheists.
Okay, so you are your own authority, ergo a moral relativist. And you'd agree that if one atheist's personal flavor of ethics demanded you be decapitated, you'd have no rational argument against their decision?
The fact: all life is equal across the board
The fact: personal subjective derivations for deciding the value of life is vast
The fact: do I know what the "first cause" was? No – and neither do any of you – all you have is conjecture – which is fine and no American would infringe on your freedom to think or worship as you wish – as long as your choices to do so are at no cost to others without their consent
The fact: you can't know where you're going unless you know what you're doing – education about ALL options of contraception can lead to more accurate choices of eliminating abortion as an option – that requires expansive thinking – are you there yet?
The fact: we take life everyday – for sport, for safety, for sustenance, for defense, for many reasons – we place subjective value upon one life over another – like a free market system where the individual decides – we make laws which create a consequence when an individual infringes on another's life to live that life at no cost to others.
If horses had Gods, they would look like horses !!!!
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
If you want to be sanctimonious about "life" – go ahead – however, you sound ignorant and stupid because your derivations for deciding the value of life are simply subjective and personal
If you want to dialogue and debate this, I'm happy to do so. If you want to just rant and rave about what you "think you know" then you are just like liberals who think they know how everyone else should live and want to control, manipulate and regulate behavior they have distaste and dislike for
Shared value, shared ideas are nothing more than "shared" – doesn't give it credential or authority
To impose your religious beliefs onto government is to negate the government of law and take ownership of the nation to do what? control and manipulate others
whenever you are not giving people a choice you are controlling and manipulating them.
If you want to be sanctimonious about "life" – go ahead – however, you sound ignorant and stupid because your derivations for deciding the value of life are simply subjective and personal
If you want to dialogue and debate this, I'm happy to do so. If you want to just rant and rave about what you "think you know" then you are just like liberals who think they know how everyone else should live and want to control, manipulate and regulate behavior they have distaste and dislike for
Shared value, shared ideas are nothing more than "shared" – doesn't give it credential or authority
To impose your religious beliefs onto government is to negate the government of law and take ownership of the nation to do what? control and manipulate others
whenever you are not giving people a choice you are controlling and manipulating them.
Not to steal Amy's thunder, but as another empiricist (which I prefer to either Agnostic/Atheist) who does not believe in god, I'll throw in with her. I suppose I'm a "moral relativist," but I embrace the deep responsibility that comes from defining ethics and morals by choice, not by writ. If another person chooses that decapitating me is moral, I'm free to resist — by persuasion if possible, by force if necessary. Not all rational arguments are based in an Absolute. People all over the political spectrum (sometimes) justify policy choices by speculating about their good/bad effects, without always resorting to Absolute Principles.
Not to steal Amy's thunder, but as another empiricist (which I prefer to either Agnostic/Atheist) who does not believe in god, I'll throw in with her. I suppose I'm a "moral relativist," but I embrace the deep responsibility that comes from defining ethics and morals by choice, not by writ. If another person chooses that decapitating me is moral, I'm free to resist — by persuasion if possible, by force if necessary. Not all rational arguments are based in an Absolute. People all over the political spectrum (sometimes) justify policy choices by speculating about their good/bad effects, without always resorting to Absolute Principles.
Being your own authority does not mean you're a moral relativist. The only way that would be true was if you decided to go by your own arbitrary whim or emotion when deciding what you thought was "right." There are objective truths about the nature of human beings that must be heeded if one chooses to live. These truths provide an objective basis for ethics. Of course a human being could *try* to live like an animal or a plant (and many do), but they don't thrive. Sorry, but I don't have time to discuss further. I have only one life to live and I need to make the most of it
I refer you to Rand's Objectivist Ethics for any of your follow-up questions.
Being your own authority does not mean you're a moral relativist. The only way that would be true was if you decided to go by your own arbitrary whim or emotion when deciding what you thought was "right." There are objective truths about the nature of human beings that must be heeded if one chooses to live. These truths provide an objective basis for ethics. Of course a human being could *try* to live like an animal or a plant (and many do), but they don't thrive. Sorry, but I don't have time to discuss further. I have only one life to live and I need to make the most of it
I refer you to Rand's Objectivist Ethics for any of your follow-up questions.
Atheism is not a philosophy, Steven, stick to the funny.
Incidentally, I've never met an agnostic, scientist or atheist (myself, a scientist, included) who thinks that *current* science explains everything. Electricity couldn't be explained 200 years ago, it can be now. Was it evidence for god in 1809, but not 2009. Just because we haven't explained something, doesn't mean we won't.
Incidentally, I've never met an agnostic, scientist or atheist (myself, a scientist, included) who thinks that *current* science explains everything. Electricity couldn't be explained 200 years ago, it can be now. Was it evidence for god in 1809, but not 2009. Just because we haven't explained something, doesn't mean we won't.
At best, I'm agnostic – I don't know and neither does anyone else – I don't care
I don't need to live my life by some outside source from myself – nobody does anyway, say it all you want, but you don't
either you know from within NOT to kill, steal, etc. or you don't – that's either sociopath behavior or conscious understanding that we live in a world where we don't live our lives at a cost to others without their consent – we've evolved and developed as a society toward such understanding
a by-product of such understanding of personal choice, accountability (ownership of choice) and response-ability(the ability to respond to the choice) will certainly lead others to observe you as a "good person" if that is your goal
At best, I'm agnostic – I don't know and neither does anyone else – I don't care
I don't need to live my life by some outside source from myself – nobody does anyway, say it all you want, but you don't
either you know from within NOT to kill, steal, etc. or you don't – that's either sociopath behavior or conscious understanding that we live in a world where we don't live our lives at a cost to others without their consent – we've evolved and developed as a society toward such understanding
a by-product of such understanding of personal choice, accountability (ownership of choice) and response-ability(the ability to respond to the choice) will certainly lead others to observe you as a "good person" if that is your goal
The question makes no sense. The fact that atheists do not submit to supernatural authority does not mean we do not abide by the social contract, or that we refuse to submit to real-world authority. Thus, code of law is our guideline.
"Atheists out there, am I wrong? I can’t say that I fully grasp your thought process, so feel free to slap me around here."
Try reading or looking into some arguments against your position. Its clear you haven't. I mean, i'm all for saying whatever you want, but c'mon, at least show me you're even serious about this.
"Steve, I love a lot of your stuff, but I think you're all wrong about atheism. "
Agreed.
"Atheists out there, am I wrong? I can’t say that I fully grasp your thought process, so feel free to slap me around here."
Try reading or looking into some arguments against your position. Its clear you haven't. I mean, i'm all for saying whatever you want, but c'mon, at least show me you're even serious about this.
"Steve, I love a lot of your stuff, but I think you're all wrong about atheism. "
Agreed.
once again sounding more agnostic- an atheist rejects the notion of any creative force- that's what makes them confrontational. Agnostics are generally passive non-believers. Don't want to tell you what you are, but we have seen confusion (much) with these modalities…
once again sounding more agnostic- an atheist rejects the notion of any creative force- that's what makes them confrontational. Agnostics are generally passive non-believers. Don't want to tell you what you are, but we have seen confusion (much) with these modalities…
Being an atheist does not mean being a moral relativist. And it is certainly true that there is quite a bit of common ground that can be found between theists and atheists without appeal to absolutes. That is, after all, the strength of pluralist societies. In fact, I'd argue that it is easier for, say, Christians and atheists to find common ground than it would be for Christians and Muslims, both of whom have conflicting absolute value systems. Atheists can be far more flexible. Of course, this presumes that both Christians and atheists are willing to agree to disagree on first principles (there are plenty of both who won't agree to this).
It's not difficult to find atheists who would argue that "moral relativism" is merely a rhetorical creation, and that in reality, shared cultural and political institutions make true relativism impossible. We're assured a broad moral agreement in spite of our theistic commitments (or lack thereof), making appeals to divine authority virtually unnecessary. You'll find pro-life atheists as often as you'll find pro-choice religious believers, you know. It's not as though theism guarantees that life is respected in all its form.
In short, theism is not a guarantee of agreement on *any* ethical or political question. So, can someone please tell me why it's all that important?
Being an atheist does not mean being a moral relativist. And it is certainly true that there is quite a bit of common ground that can be found between theists and atheists without appeal to absolutes. That is, after all, the strength of pluralist societies. In fact, I'd argue that it is easier for, say, Christians and atheists to find common ground than it would be for Christians and Muslims, both of whom have conflicting absolute value systems. Atheists can be far more flexible. Of course, this presumes that both Christians and atheists are willing to agree to disagree on first principles (there are plenty of both who won't agree to this).
It's not difficult to find atheists who would argue that "moral relativism" is merely a rhetorical creation, and that in reality, shared cultural and political institutions make true relativism impossible. We're assured a broad moral agreement in spite of our theistic commitments (or lack thereof), making appeals to divine authority virtually unnecessary. You'll find pro-life atheists as often as you'll find pro-choice religious believers, you know. It's not as though theism guarantees that life is respected in all its form.
In short, theism is not a guarantee of agreement on *any* ethical or political question. So, can someone please tell me why it's all that important?
"Am I wrong?"
Yes.
Now, if you expect to prompt an actual conversation, present a case that's something other than the usual shots from the hip. Just because your gut tells you atheists believe or behave a particular thing doesn't make it true. A place to start: Hedonism is not atheism. One denies the existence of god (Yes, small g. Go ahead and freak out if you're gonna, folks. That wasn't at typo.) and the other holds that pleasure is the ultimate good.
Beyond that, spend some of your own time looking into this stuff before asking someone else to waste their time educating you.
"Am I wrong?"
Yes.
Now, if you expect to prompt an actual conversation, present a case that's something other than the usual shots from the hip. Just because your gut tells you atheists believe or behave a particular thing doesn't make it true. A place to start: Hedonism is not atheism. One denies the existence of god (Yes, small g. Go ahead and freak out if you're gonna, folks. That wasn't at typo.) and the other holds that pleasure is the ultimate good.
Beyond that, spend some of your own time looking into this stuff before asking someone else to waste their time educating you.
If you actually believe the argument you're making then you also believe that anyone who is religious should submit to the beliefs of anyone else who is also religious, regardless of whether they believe the same things.
Of course, I don't think for a second that you actually believe that.
But if you do, here's a good example of the trouble you get into when you try to "prove" that the source of your own reasoning is superior to someone else's. As an agnostic liberal, I can tell you that one of the things that turns me off the most from even trying to communicate with religious people is that they won't get past the condescending sort of "well, I'll grant that you have your own cute lil' inferior belief system" attitude you're displaying here.
Atheism is merely the belief that “there's no invisible man in the sky.'' You seem to have it in your head that people who believe “there _is_ an invisible man in the sky'' somehow “value life more'', which you seem to have concluded by comparing yourself to Sean Penn. If anything you've called attention to is “retarded'', it's that.
Atheism is merely the belief that “there's no invisible man in the sky.'' You seem to have it in your head that people who believe “there _is_ an invisible man in the sky'' somehow “value life more'', which you seem to have concluded by comparing yourself to Sean Penn. If anything you've called attention to is “retarded'', it's that.
We're scared by your attempts to legislate the Christian faith. No problem at all with its existence in and of itself.
There's a difference, which I think we can all acknowledge, between atheists and antitheists. There are those who simply don't buy into the idea of God, and those who actively and virulently oppose it.
Okay, I'll step up. I'm an atheist — but the absence of an invisible hall monitor isn't an excuse for license and self-indulgence. Why not?
Because I am a member of a society. Even if it's just a big troop of primates wearing clothes, I am still a part of it and as such I have duties as a human being and a citizen. Since I have no afterlife to look forward to, that gives me a powerful incentive to make this society as good to live in as possible, and provide for my children and all those who may preserve my memory in the future. And because I value a healthy and sane society, I recognize the value of religion even if I don't accept its premises.
The self-proclaimed atheists who live only to tear down and destroy society are simply vermin, God or no God.
Here's a counter-question: why does the existence of God necessarily provide any framework of morality? I'm serious — being good "because God says so" just brings up the question "why should we obey God?" To which the answer, apparently, is "because he'll boil you in molten sulfur for a billion years if you don't." That's a loving Creator? A human who acted that way would be called unjust and a tyrant.
I am a good person because I choose to be, not because I'm scared of an invisible tyrant.
As Ann Druyan wrote after the death of her husband, Carl Sagan:
"Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it's much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful."
Yeah, I can see where you might think the person who could write something like that would be a believer in "a philosophy which, at its very core, diminishes the value of life."
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/ann-druyan.html
And the thing that keeps me from trying to communicate with heathens like you is your attitude of 'religious people are just dumb morons trying to push their beliefs on me' attitude, of which you and many others are displaying here.
no one wants to legislate any faith. Protecting unborn life is a practical reality as a species. Codifying marriage as a heterosexual family structure superior to anything else is not faith. Projectiing strong morals is not faith. Ayn Rand took Christian concepts and developed Objectivism which we have no problem with.
So relax…
I don't need to live my life by some outside source from myself – nobody does anyway, say it all they want, but they don't
either you know from within NOT to kill, steal, etc. or you don't – that's either sociopath behavior or conscious understanding that we live in a world where we don't live our lives at a cost to others without their consent – we've evolved and developed as a society toward such understanding
a by-product of such understanding of personal choice, accountability (ownership of choice) and response-ability(the ability to respond to the choice) will certainly lead others to observe you as a "good person" if that is your goal
Occam's Razor. Don't multiply causes more than is neccessary. However, Kalam Cosmological Arguement, a First Cause is neccessary. The defenses against KCA are Turtles All the Way Down (illogical), or Its All a Mystery (false modesty as its not really that complicated), Its Ununderstandable (Abandoning Reason), and Just Because (A Bigger Miracle…and Illogical to boot).
Now that you're a Theist, or you've abandoned Reason, we could move on to proving that Jesus the Christ is the same Being that spoke the Universe into being..
And if an atheist had a horse, twould be a hobbyhorse.
Occam's Razor. Don't multiply causes more than is neccessary. However, Kalam Cosmological Arguement, a First Cause is neccessary. The defenses against KCA are Turtles All the Way Down (illogical), or Its All a Mystery (false modesty as its not really that complicated), Its Ununderstandable (Abandoning Reason), and Just Because (A Bigger Miracle…and Illogical to boot).
Now that you're a Theist, or you've abandoned Reason, we could move on to proving that Jesus the Christ is the same Being that spoke the Universe into being..
And if an atheist had a horse, twould be a hobbyhorse.
All I am going to say about atheism and those that partake in it is that I have never met a nice atheist. Ever. Whereas Christians have always been polite with me. They always introduce themselves, they're not judgmental and they don't make assumptions about me. Unlike atheists who mock the way I look and everything else about me. I don't give anyone a reason to behave that way towards me; they just do. And then, on occasion, I make the huge mistake of admitting that I'm Catholic, and either they crack a 'priests are molesters' joke or they roll their eyes at the stupid moron who believes in some bearded guy in the sky. That's my entire experience with atheists. I just don't think these people have any respect for the beliefs of others, and when you call them out on it, they just go 'well, I don't want Christianity in legislation' – they act like we're completely stupid regarding US law and religion. What it really means is that they want gay marriage and abortion to be legal.
But I bet you wholeheartedly support abortion. If you do, then it's obvious that you don't value life more than the average Christian, and are therefore painfully retarded.
I've always found it rather interesting that a good many scientists, physicists in particular, are believers in God, if not a particular religion. It seems that the further we explore our universe, as well as subatomic particles, the closer we get to God. Nuclear physics seems to me to be as much about finding God as anything else. Even Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the universe".
Amy-
If you're not actually related to Leonard Peikoff, then you in the least, you have a very strong command of Rand's philosophy. Having just finished Atlas for a 3rd time, I can easily recognize the language and thoughts coming from your responses.
Keep fighting the good fight. It always is refreshing to see ideas applied correctly and as they were intended. Personally, I tire of seeing advocates, opponents, or even enthusiastic novices wrongly characterizing what they think they understand. Given the fact of your replies for this topic, it seems that you do as well.
Waste sounds pretty angry. Not sure why. Steven was trying to start a conversation. Waste and Joel are an interesting contrast to Amy.
You're right, Elena, you should judge everyone by the few you've met. Should we then judge all blacks by BO? Judge all women by Hillary? Judge all men by Bill O'Reilly?
come on, no one cares about your beliefs. No American would infringe on your right to have your beliefs – many dislike the legislation, courts and mob mentality behavior to infringe on others who choose a life that doesn't support your views of how others should live
it appears that you're rather a fraud; you like being victimized and at the very least you want to control other people's choices, just like liberals
I don't believe in the existence of atheists.
Oh, they'll say they are, but I don't believe them.
Simple me…I believe that "God" is that force that gives one the knowledge to choose which is the way to be a good person beyond one's self-interest,not the other guise, ("organized" religion) which is usually tied-in to self-centered power games,etc. Where did that urge of choosing good come from?
Simple me…I believe that "God" is that force that gives one the knowledge to choose which is the way to be a good person beyond one's self-interest,not the other guise, ("organized" religion) which is usually tied-in to self-centered power games,etc. Where did that urge of choosing good come from?
Einstein only said that because he thought quantum physics was a bunch of BS.
I disagree with him on that — although, when you get into some of the loopier ramifications of superstring theory, I tend to sympathize. There's theorizing, and then there's random-ass blue-skying. (And I've witnessed both theists and atheists being guilty of the latter.)
The logic connecting the dots here is very, VERY tenuous. There are like half a dozen correlation without causation statements in this argument. I usually read your column for laughs not for depth, but this one isn't very funny either. Pick it up Chowder.
Einstein said something about god, therefore god exists? are you serious? come on, this isn't even logical.
Huck Finn said that god doesn't exist – so it must be true, too.
think for yourself: does anyone know for certain the "first cause"? No – so why do religious people act, behave and speak as if they do? Which is fine, but it's not enough – they want everyone to adopt their "beliefs", as well. To the extent of limiting freedom, using the courts, using legislation, putting civil liberties of other human beings (agree or not with their choice) up for a vote. Why do religious people get to make those decisions for everyone else?
Where did that urge of choosing good come from?
Not only that, why are we generally racked with self-disgust when we fail to do so? If there's not some Higher Order to things, how else can the urge to moralize be explained — and the urge to beat oneself up unnecessarily over one's failures?
ESV Romans 1:18-25 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
3 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Continued……
…….Continued
If we are going to discuss God, I think we should let God speak for Himself, from His revealed Word.
God has revealed Himself in the way He made all things. The creation of the Earth, how it is placed in the solar system perfectly, how it was designed to be inhabited by human life, and how all things, especially living things, even beyond the cellular level, have irreducible complexity. DNA is a language, even Stephen Hawking supports that.
Atheistic philosophy is self refuting. In the end, it has no logical leg on which to stand. Post Modernism is more likely the debate. Even unwittingly, people get caught up in the protean reasoning that allows them to shift to whatever acceptable social norms are popular at the time. When ones mind is educated, first by the Word of God, and then by diligent research (creationist research), and then by godly counsel, one will find their moral compass, and that is the One from which all love, justice, morality, and yes, even wrath, springs: God.
Dcase, here you are quibbling. Peikoff says she is an atheist: an agnostic is someone who is open to the possibility of a God; an atheist says that there is no God.
And, in this case, she is right and you are wrong. Atheism does not imply hedonism or liberalism or even Eudiamonism. Back when I was an atheist (I converted) I believed that there was an innate and intrinsic value in life and in reason. I believed it to be MORALLY WRONG to be unreasonable no matter how pleasant or useful unreason might appear — because pleasure nor utility was the foundation of my thought.
So be careful not to generalized. Not all atheist s are Village Idiot types like R. Dawkins who believes in infanticide.
Can you give me an instance of anyone "legislating the Christian faith" upon you in this country? I'm not talking about someone talking to you about religion. You used the word "legislate" which means to mandate, force or order. If no one has actually made it a law for you to believe in Christianity, held a gun to you or threatened you with death to force you to accept religion, then using the word legislate is an exaggeration. I've had athiests or agnostics try to give me a good reason why they think I should believe as they do, but none have forced me to believe the way they do.
"Okay, so you are your own authority, ergo a moral relativist."
Nonsense. That statement does not follow logically from her statement, which was that "decided I thought it was important to be ethical, on my own, before I ever heard of philosophy."
Her statement means only that she came to her conclusions without outside influence, but it does not necessarily mean that the conclusion to which she came was moral relativism.
Back when I was an atheist, I believed that the universe contained an objective moral order which could be deduced by any rational mind, much in the same way the laws of mathematics can be deduced.
There are as many varieties of atheism out there as there are denominations of religion. You do our side no credit if you argue that all atheists are hedonists or relativists: it is as if an atheist were to argue that all religious people believed in the Pope, or some form or heirarchy. Well, that is true of some Christians, but not all.
Fantastic!
I hate to tell you, but I have had the same experience with atheists that Elena has had. The only decent atheists I have met I can count on one hand.
And I will admit, as a former atheist, I was not a pleasant person to be around.
I wish it was not that way, but it's how I have experienced it. :
"We're scared by your attempts to legislate the Christian faith. "
That fear is itself an article of the atheist faith. It certainly has no basis in fact. It is like a Christian fearing the devil: part of the religion
Because we live in a democratic republic, and there are more religious people than there are atheists.
Shut up, and deal with it.
wait a second – you hammer Elena for making snap judgments, then go on to say "no one cares…" (I do) and "No American would" (are you sure?) and "you like being victimized…" (how would you know?)
Nice to meet you pot, sez Kettle
Thanks, anon. I appreciate it. I try to be brief and responsive, which is sometimes a challenge given that I am usually answering someone with a completely different philosophical context. Such is life in a (semi-)free country.
I become an anti-theist only when theists want to force their religion on me via government (some of today's Christians), or kill me for not believing (some of today's Muslims). Otherwise, live and let live.
Part 1
Steve,
First I want you to know that this atheist is a fan of your work. I particularly enjoy your videos on Youtube. I’m not here to discuss my atheism since it’s something I rarely discuss with people since I think it’s my own personal way of being.
Speaking of Youtube a couple of weeks ago I decided to watch some of the videos that atheists have recently been uploading to that site. Frankly, I found many rather distasteful or rather anti-social. The main tone seems rather combative. This is nothing new for me to find other atheists bordering on the maniacal. I like to think of these atheists as capital “A” Atheists because they seem to be forming a post-modern religion of their own. I’ve also encountered the same type of manic obsession with Atheists in my own personal interactions with them. More particularly when they take their anti-Christian rants to the extreme. I can only imagine that dealing with Hollywood Atheists conduct themselves in a similar manner.
Part 2
Anyway, keep up the good work and just remember that there are a lot of good atheists. We’re a bit hard to find because we’re not as vocal as the loud mouths. I’m perfectly happy with “In God We Trust” in our money and other symbols that represent the heritage of the American people.
Cheers.
PS I voted for McCain and Palin in November and I think Obama is going to ruin (or is ruining) this country. Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and the rest of the Hollywood leftist pseudo-elite are a waste of energy and film. That last video you did on Torture was a riot.
I have to agree with the comment from Amy Peikoff – life is to short and too precious.
So I won't take the bait today.
I cannot find the words to describe how insanely idiotic is what you wrote. Religion is stupidity.
Whomever, or whatever one submits to as their final moral authority is, in fact, their god. So for the non-believers, atheists, empiricists,etc., their god is themselves.
Real f__king diplomatic, man. Really helped our case there.
Love your stuff, Steve. I'd like to also try to create a bridge of understanding by explaining where i think most militant atheists go wrong. It's rather a simple thing, really. The believe the terms "religious" and "irrational" are interchangeable. When they talk about religion ruining everything, what they're really trying to say is that irrationality is ruining everything, which is a difficult statement against which to argue. Too many of them fall victim to the very thing against which they're arguing, though.
It's amusing the only "freedom" the left seems to want is the ability to freely rip a living being from your uterus. Or the ability to have porn with no restrictions, as one of the lawyers on Obama's team fought for, at the expense of our children. You put the ability to abort on demand above a person's right to religion. Thank you oh so much for your fight for freedom.
And if you want to go down THIS avenue: "Why do religious people get to make those decisions for everyone else?" Then why do the people that lack religion get to make decisions for everyone else? Why do you get to tell me I can't pray in school or public places? Why do you get to tell me when and where I can pray? Why do you get to tell me how a Catholic church should do it's finances and take away any say from them in it? Why do you get to take control of property that that Church BOUGHT? Because that's what happened in North Carolina. WHY do you get to take my hard earned money and use it to pay for abortions and condoms and birth control? Why do you get to tell me that my child is better off in public school and not at home learning because you happen think it's wrong their mother is teaching creationism and not your bs evolution? Because that's what's happening in North Carolina. Why do you take away my right to decide what lifestyles my child should and shouldn't be taught? Regardless if I agree or not, it's STILL MY child. Why do YOU think you know what's best for my child??
SO. Tell me. What makes you think you can tell me that the decisions you make are better than mine?
I don't pigeonhole intelligent people who don't agree with me on the existence of God (or non-existence),and your position is quite reasonable, even though I don't agree. I still hold to my belief that atheists can no more prove the non-existence of God than I can prove His existence. That's why it's called faith. My problem with atheism or any philosophy which uses man or intellect as the basis of its world-view is that man-based philosophy is malleable. Without basic God-given rules, the ground under the current mode of thinking can shift far too quickly.
Abortion is one of the most obvious examples. Traditional Christians and orthodox/conservative Jews believe that God denies us the right to terminate the life of the unborn except under the most extreme of circumstances. Those circumstances are few and refer to life versus life. Traditional Catholics are absolutist. With atheists, objectivists, agnostics and other man-based philsophies, abortion can be re-defined in multiple variations, from "never" up to life termination during or immediately after birth. The reasons for an abortion are equally malleable in man-based thinking.
With God, all things are possible. With man, all things are permissible. Christian Humanists asked questions, then based their answers on theology using human beings as the yardstick. Secular humanists carry "man is the measure of all things" to its logical extreme. Come up with a logical reason to do so, and almost anything can be justified. Much damage has been done in the name of religion throughout history. Much worse has been done in the name of man.
Who is trying to legislate faith? Christians are guided (or should be) in their political endeavors by the moral code and principals set forth by our God. The same as any other group. If you don't support a certain candidates positions, don't vote for him. Simple as that. But trying to squelch or smear a candidates position because that position may be informed by his religious beliefs is just plain wrong.
Amy: I just went into the moderation black hole. I was agreeing with you in part, dissenting in part. But if the reply shows up at all, it will probably be tomorrow, so I apologize on behalf ot the moderators for the time lag. These moderation "delays" are damaging to good debate where immediacy is a major component of the debate.
Morality cannot be legislated. Both believers and unbelievers have been guilty of falling into this worldview. When God changes hearts, and brings people to an understanding of Himself, then they can approach the world with clarity, having the proper presuppositions. I could just as easily say that liberals want to force their agenda, their belief system, their religion of postmodernism on everyone. Support for this comes right from the mainstream media, which is largely liberal. They constantly foist liberal information upon people, and hide any debilitating information about their favorites.
I am an Independent, and non-partisan. I see the weaknesses and fallacies of both political parties. I pluck the log out of my own eye, before trying to remove the speck from someone else's. Unfortunately, there is a large contingency of Americans who want to legislate morality, in the name of Conservativism. Yet, you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The morality which they defend at least stems from objective truth, which stems from God's own wisdom, even if they don't know God all that well either.
Morality cannot be legislated. Both believers and unbelievers have been guilty of falling into this worldview. When God changes hearts, and brings people to an understanding of Himself, then they can approach the world with clarity, having the proper presuppositions. I could just as easily say that liberals want to force their agenda, their belief system, their religion of postmodernism on everyone. Support for this comes right from the mainstream media, which is largely liberal. They constantly foist liberal information upon people, and hide any debilitating information about their favorites.
I am an Independent, and non-partisan. I see the weaknesses and fallacies of both political parties. I pluck the log out of my own eye, before trying to remove the speck from someone else's. Unfortunately, there is a large contingency of Americans who want to legislate morality, in the name of Conservativism. Yet, you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The morality which they defend at least stems from objective truth, which stems from God's own wisdom, even if they don't know God all that well either.
Another defense against the fallacical KCA is that the universe is cyclical in nature, or conventional mathematics cannot describe the nature of the universe.
In other words: PROVE the statement that "a first cause is necessary for the Universe's existence"
Secondly, you can't PROVE the universe was formed by a God any more than you can prove it was formed by some mathematical formulae we have not yet discovered. There is actually LESS proof for God since the
My favorite defense against the KCA actually utilizes its own logic against it. Ready?
1) Everything requires a first cause (unprovable, but to make the KCA work you have to posit this)
2) The universe requires a first cause
3) God is that first cause (unprovable without evidence, but I'll even allow you this one)
4) God requires a first cause….
Whoops, we've slipped into the "Turtles All the Way Down" Fallacy!
You can't apply fallacies selectively – either you're consistent with your logic, or not. I wouldn't expect logical consistency from a Theist though…
Well I'm not going to lie to him. That's simply the truth whether he likes it or not.
And another large contingency of Americans who want to legislate moral relativism in the name of Liberalism. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…
"Rational theism" is an oxymoron to the militant atheist.
I have always believed in God…not the Father, not theSon, not the Holy Spirit(I was raised Catholic) but in God, the truth in all things, the presense of thought and beauty and reason. You can believe or not you can choose to be "moral" or not but you cannot deny that when you close your eyes and dream that there is something that you acknowledge to be beyond yourself. Just Sayin'
Interesting post, Steve. And for the most part, interesting discussion going on. I think one of the main problems with this kind of conversation, especially on an internet comment section, is that few people have adequate knowledge of both sides of the argument (not that anyone is going to be persuaded anyway). Personally I'm a Roman Catholic – born and raised and still practicing.
I've done a lot of studying and have tried to take an active interest in my faith, and so I feel like I have a good grounding in why I believe what I believe. Likewise I'm sure there are many atheists and agnostics that believe what they believe for what seems to them to be sound reasoning.
Someone said that they have met few atheists who are nice people. That hasn't been my experience at all. Even if it were, if it's meant as an attack on atheism, it's a rather ad-hominem one.
I personally think the main problem lies in the fact that few people care (I believe iconicfreedom said he or she doesn't) and thus they don't really seek the truth. It's somewhat understandable – life has many distractions. But you'd think people would realize that if there is an afterlife, it spans eternity, making our time here like a grain of sand in a vast desert.
…being good "because God says so" just brings up the question "why should we obey God?"
Judeo-Christian morality isn't based on blind obedience, but upon a love for God and neighbor. The thing is, love of neighbor must be based on something. If God wants us to love our neighbor, there must be some unique and intrinsic value to human life. This is an essential part of Judeo-Christian philosophy: a divine plan, a meaning to life. If life has no meaning, if thoughts and emotions are nothing more than electrical impulses, then where is the logic behind morality?
…being good "because God says so" just brings up the question "why should we obey God?"
Judeo-Christian morality isn't based on blind obedience, but upon a love for God and neighbor. The thing is, love of neighbor must be based on something. If God wants us to love our neighbor, there must be some unique and intrinsic value to human life. This is an essential part of Judeo-Christian philosophy: a divine plan, a meaning to life. If life has no meaning, if thoughts and emotions are nothing more than electrical impulses, then where is the logic behind morality?
You aren't necessarily a dumb moron (how could anyone know either way by reading a single, rather vague post on a blog?), but I would say that calling someone a heathen is akin to pushing one's religious beliefs on that person.
You aren't necessarily a dumb moron (how could anyone know either way by reading a single, rather vague post on a blog?), but I would say that calling someone a heathen is akin to pushing one's religious beliefs on that person.
This article is embarrassingly bad. So wrong on so many levels, its not even funny. Everything Steven Crowder said about atheists is wrong.
Atheists are cannibals who eat Xian brains. Why only Xian ones? Because they have never been used!
But that's exactly the point. Atheism does not imply hedonism or liberalism or any other morality, in fact it doesn't require one at all. To adopt a system of morality is a choice.
And since that system is contingent entirely upon the individual and how they feel at the time then it is completely relative and thus no real system at all. If they do their best to stick to a consistent moral system to avoid this problem, well…that's a moral choice that they have made, no more valid than the guy who doesn't.
What I find so interesting is that all of these Western Atheists just happen to wind up developing moral codes that tend to go right in line with the Judeo/Christian moral code upon which their society is based. So it's not really a moral code that they developed out of whole cloth, but rather an adaptation of the one they grew up with.
In other cultures, without a Judeo/Christian background, or where that background has been totally erased, Atheists tend to come up with entirely different codes.
"If life has no meaning, if thoughts and emotions are nothing more than electrical impulses, then where is the logic behind morality?"
Because we can communicate and understand one another as the bi-product of on-going 'electrical impulses', as you put it – why isn't that enough?
"where is the logic behind morality?"
what even makes this an important question and why does only 'god' satisfy it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.