Militant Atheism - Its Apparent Inconsistency

reply to post by jagdflieger


That's the whole point, morals change over time as we, as the human species, evolve. Luckily morals aren't something set in stone (apart from the bible that is), so we are able to change morals to reflect our progress as a species.

Atheists (and anyone else for that matter) has morals because SOCIETY imposes those morals. Society changes over time (abandonment of slaver, no more kings/queens, equality, etc.) and it's only natural that morals change as well.

It might come as a shock to you, but a lot of the morals stated in the bible have (LUCKILY) been abandoned because they just don't fit into today's society. And the morals stated in the bible were written by MEN. People can claim God gave them the info, but there is ZERO proof of that. We don't have proof of a supreme being, ergo, as far as we know, all those rules/statements/stories are nothing but the product of human writers.

Originally posted by Centurionx
ETA: Atheists agree on one thing, that the billions of people that believe in a supreme being are all drooling idiots, and are delusional. Also, they are more intelligent than said people.

Excuse me?

The only non-atheists I think are drooling idiots are the ones that post statements such as these, and generalise us all in the same basket

reply to post by MrXYZ

Oh, and there's of course the Pope, you know...the guy who's the leader of the Christian faith, who in 1320 authorized the inquisition. The Pope is the direct link to God, isn't he? So technically it was God being ok with it, and talking through the pope.

You are not correct. The Pope is not the leader of the Christian faith, only the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church was established before 324CE (Council of Nicea). The first pope was Pope Damasus I (366CE to 384CE). Also don't forget Martin Luther decided in 1517CE that the pope was getting out of hand and started the Reformation. The pope only thinks he is the head of the Christian faith. Where do you get the idea that the pope speaks for all Christians?

reply to post by Centurionx

Atheists agree on one thing, that the billions of people that believe in a supreme being are all drooling idiots, and are delusional. Also, they are more intelligent than said people.

Wrong. As an atheist and former Christian myself I know that most of those trapped within religious belief systems are not there by direct choice but by indoctrination. Having been deceived into being a fundamentalist Christian as a child it took years to break the religious programming, this gives me a window through which to understand why fundamentalist Christians still defend their ignorant beliefs - because they've been indoctrinated to do so.

That doesn't mean religious zealots don't still frustrate me because I assure you they do.

Deists or agnostic theists do not bother me, in fact for a time, before I fully broke the religious brainwashing, I considered myself amongst those who believed there was a God but that said God was not described in any flawed human religion and was for all purposes beyond human perception. So not everyone who believes in a higher power is a drooling idiot.

I won't say much more because I've made the mistake of generalizing before, most of us have but we should at least try to keep the stereotyping of a whole group of people to a minimum don't you think?

reply to post by MrXYZ

It might come as a shock to you, but a lot of the morals stated in the bible have (LUCKILY) been abandoned because they just don't fit into today's society. And the morals stated in the bible were written by MEN. People can claim God gave them the info, but there is ZERO proof of that. We don't have proof of a supreme being, ergo, as far as we know, all those rules/statements/stories are nothing but the product of human writers.

No it does not come as any great shock. First most of the morals to which you refer are Mosaic Law. Mosaic Law was a covenant (contract) between God and the Jews. Before entering the Promised Land, the Jews agreed to the contract. In exchange for the Jews following the Law in Israel, God promised to protect Israel from its enemies and make it prosper. Mosaic Law only applied to the Jews. Remember one of the first things Paul taught was that the rite of circumcision was no longer required (one of the requirements of Mosaic Law), he then said that the dietary laws did not need to be followed, and so forth. As to the source of Mosaic Law, we can debate, but it was intended only for the Jews in Israel, and not for the gentiles. When you say "a lot of the morals stated in the bible have (LUCKILY) been abandoned", well my response is that is old news. Paul did that 2000 years ago.

Oh by the way, here are some atheists who did a wonderful job in redefining morals: Stalin, Mao Zedong (Mao Tse Tung), Pol Phot.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by jagdflieger]

Originally posted by jagdflieger

Oh by the way, here are some atheists who did a wonderful job in redefining morals: Stalin, Mao Zedong (Mao Tse Tung), Pol Phot.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by jagdflieger]

You mean like a certain German dictator who's responsible for one of the biggest genocides in history?

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Adolf Hitler. (1941). My New Order. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, p. 144.

Oh wait...sry...he was Christian.

Whatever atrocities Staling, Hitler, and all the others did, claiming the cause of their evil is atheism/religion is ridiculous.

Anyway, I'm happy that you agree that all those morals/rules in the bible are the word of men, written by men...doesn't matter if whoever wrote what is called Moses or Paul, they're both human, and there's no proof whatsoever that a supreme being A) exists, and B) chose to use them as a way to communicate with us.

So technically, atheists and Christians base their morals on the same thing...the words of MEN.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by MrXYZ]

As an atheist, i imagine i enjoy life just as much as any realigious individual. I enjoy the company of friends and loved ones. I enjoy all the wonders of the Universes and the big unanswered questions that still reamain. I enjoy a hot day in the Sun, the taste of a fine wine and a good meal just as much as any eny religious individual.

I work as a volunteer in my community, to try and improve the lives of those less fortunate to me. I see the children of other's as part of my community and a responsibility to see them grow up properly for the benefit of the community. My socialist beliefs are far more important to me. I believe in society and working together to improve society for all.

Being an Atheist Socialist on ATS is quite a frustrating experience.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by MrXYZ

You mean like a certain German dictator who's responsible for one of the biggest genocides in history?

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
Adolf Hitler. (1941). My New Order. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, p. 144.

Actually I think Stalin did a better job at genocide, as for percentage of the population, more died under Pol Phot, then under either Stalin or Hitler. (Pol Phot killed a much higher percentage of available bodies than either Hitler or Stalin.) As for Hitler being a Christian. He was born a Roman Catholic (so what), his actions and other statements indicate that basically his beliefs were based on old teutonic gods. Also he allowed Himmler (a known occultist) to run the Gestapo and the Waffen SS. In fact Hitler took great steps to removing a Jewish Jesus from the Bible and making Him a pure Aryan. That is not very biblical I would say. Saying "Christianity as the foundation of our national morality" doesn't mean that what Hitler was really doing, he was just putting out sound bytes when he knew that was a bare face lie. It's like the Japanese when they invaded China, "There were there to liberate the Chinese". Again Hitler a man redefined morality to fit his world view. He did bad things, but why the outrage. All he did was redefine what was good and what was bad (and without any biblical basis).

Whatever atrocities Staling, Hitler, and all the others did, claiming the cause of their evil is atheism/religion is ridiculous.

I never claimed that the cause of their atrocities was atheism. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Phot committed their atrocities in the name of communism. But they were still atheists.

Anyway, I'm happy that you agree that all those morals/rules in the bible are the word of men, written by men...doesn't matter if whoever wrote what is called Moses or Paul, they're both human, and there's no proof whatsoever that a supreme being A) exists, and B) chose to use them as a way to communicate with us.

No I never said that. Moses got Mosaic Law from God, it was intended for the Jews. After the crucifixion of Jesus, the requirement for many of these laws were done away with. Also Mosaic Law was not intended to be applied to the Gentiles. As for proof, I will still disagree with you.

reply to post by jagdflieger


...and you KNOW they got that info from God because you have proof, right? And your proof is the bible...the same bible that was WRITTEN by MEN. And round and round the circle goes

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Without God, there is no basis for any set of moral values.

Which god? Yahweh, Allah, Satan, Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Baal, Shiva, Brahma, Marduk, Amun, ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...?
Since man is creating god, man can devise one or more gods today, and then tomorrow redefine the entire pantheon. Men can define different concepts of religion and no one can say who is right. What rational basis do you have for preferring one god/religion over another?

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Lilitu]

reply to post by jagdflieger


In order to be called a "militant," a religious person has to kill someone in the name of their religion.

In order to be called a "militant," an atheist has to write a book that nobody has to read.

I was going to respond to the rest of this ridiculous thread topic, but what's the point? People with opinions like this about atheists will never change their simple minds. You have picked up a bunch of soundbytes from the religious status quo, shuffled them around a bit, and then deployed them as if they are your own opinion (that is to say, you are functionally a mechanical apparatus of wealthy religious institutions).

Especially that bit about "Nihilism" being the "logical conclusion of atheism-" I mean, come on, atheist philosophers and writers have wasted tens of thousands of pages refuting this silly statement but to no avail. Not because their arguments aren't successful (they are), but because people like you will never bother to read them- your opinions are good enough for you as they are, and you'll never bother trying to expand your horizons.

I hope that some day you meet an atheist- scratch that, you probably have. You might even have one in your family. Why don't you try actually talking to an atheist instead of expounding at length about things that no atheist believes? I'm an atheist. I know hundreds of atheists. I lead a local atheist organization, and you know what we do? It isn't sit around and read French existentialists. It isn't burn down churches or sit around talking about how meaningless life is. We have barbeques. We go to museums. We talk about our families and figure out how to get our kids to and from little league games.

In closing, and I apologize if this shocks you, but: atheists are people, too.

reply to post by Homoousia316

I was going to respond to the rest of this ridiculous thread topic, but what's the point? People with opinions like this about atheists will never change their simple minds. You have picked up a bunch of soundbytes from the religious status quo, shuffled them around a bit, and then deployed them as if they are your own opinion (that is to say, you are functionally a mechanical apparatus of wealthy religious institutions).

Well then why did you reply to this ridiculous thread? It was headed for the obscurity of Page 2 and beyond before you responded. Also you known nothing about my association with any "wealthy religious organization".

I hope that some day you meet an atheist- scratch that, you probably have. You might even have one in your family. Why don't you try actually talking to an atheist instead of expounding at length about things that no atheist believes?

Yes I have met an atheist - me. And I have talked to an atheist - me. How are we to take your postings seriously when it appears that you have not read the original OP. Have you ever asked why you do the things you do?

Your op does an excellent job highlighting the insurmountable and unresolvable paradoxes that atheism throws up on any issue of morality.

I'd like to add my own views on some of the points you bring up:

Originally posted by jagdflieger
The logical conclusion of atheism is either Nihilism (life is without objective meaning or purpose, we are here just for the moment, despair) or Hedonism (the only good thing is what gives us pleasure).

I was making a similar point on another thread; atheism logically begets nihilism. For an atheist to form any other worldview is contrary to logic - by an atheist's own admission there is no wrong or right, so why adopt a constrictive and contradictory ethos where you acknowledge your own arbitrary definition of wrong and right ? It defies logic.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
If you truly believe in no afterlife, then whatever you do in this life is "it", there isn't anymore for you. The only way an atheist can logically justify his actions is to state "it gives me pleasure" or it is required to get the means to do the things that give me pleasure (such as holding a job). For if there is no God, then our existence is meaningless. Improving conditions for humanity means that the atheist wishes to continue this repetition of one meaningless existence after another. In this case it would be better to render each person incapable of having children and eventually end this continual succession of meaningless existences while having a nice party in the meantime.

This is very profound; and I have to admit that atheists having children is something that has never sat comfortably with me.
A common atheist argument is: ''If God exists, why is there so much misery and pain in the world ?'' - so why would an atheist bring a child into the world, when by their own admission existence is meaningless, without purpose and potentially full of uncontrollable and arbitrary pain and misery for their child ?
That's not only illogical and irresponsible, but some would say it's borderline child cruelty.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
In view of this, I find it absolutely amazing at the time the atheists spend bashing Christianity and trying to convince Christians (and others) that we believe in nothing more than myths. The conclusion I reached is that atheists bash Christians because it gives them some sort of pleasure feeling to do so.

I'm not a Christian, but I'm absolutely flabbergasted by how many supposed atheists obsess about that religion ! Before I first clicked on a few threads discussing Christianity, I assumed ( probably naively ) that most of the contributors would be Christians discussing different aspects of the Bible and varying interpretations of scripture; but the threads are absolutely chock-a-block with atheists !

They are not, however, attempting to constructively exchange thoughts and dialogue with Christians, but trying to mock, ridicule and sadistically attempt to make them doubt their faith.
For example, I saw one thread not so long ago, along the lines of: ''How do Christians explain dinosaurs'' - the motive behind the thread was clearly not one of genuine curiosity or a wish to broaden knowledge, but a thinly disguised: ''Ha ha, I've got you on this one''.

And it's yet another contradiction that atheist use in arguments; if a religion is based on myths, then under an atheist worldview, believing and following that religion is neither right or wrong, so why on earth would an atheist be bothered about anybody following a religion ?!

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Yet we see atheists rant about the "killings of millions of people", hypocrisy, etc. Where is their basis for condemning such actions?

It's an excellent point you make, and highlights the pure hypocrisy in many atheist's thinking.
They say people have killed millions in the name of religion. They argue as if that is wrong, thus contradicting their own worldview.

It's further contradictory, because an atheist believes in a morally relativist viewpoint, where moral and societal standards are malleable and arbitrary.
Therefore, they can't bring up historic examples and retrospectively label them wrong, when they were morally acceptable in days gone by.

For example, it was perfectly morally acceptable to forcibly convert ''heathen natives'' a few hundred years ago, so it is completely illogical and intellectually dishonest to judge those actions in a negative manner retrospectively.
Believing forcibly converting people was morally correct a few hundred years ago is just as arbitrary as believing it's morally wrong in the modern day. Any atheist disagreeing with that assertion is contradicting their own worldview, and essentially saying that their current arbitrary values are superior.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
In short atheism gives no basis for moral condemnation of anyone, anytime. The only real basis an atheist has is to say his definition of morality is different.

The ultimate paradox with atheism and morality is that an atheist adopting a moral view on anything, is forcing their beliefs on somebody else - which in itself is generally considered to be immoral.

Strong conservative Christian attitudes, such as being against homosexuality, abortion and sex before marriage, are often criticised by atheists as''forcing their beliefs'' on others; yet, atheists that believes in gay rights, abortion and sexual freedom, are equally forcing their beliefs on other people.

How can an atheist criticise a religious person for forcing their beliefs onto others, when they are the opposite side of the coin and equally culpable ?

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
What if I want my kids, and their kids to live in the best conditions possible? You assume we are all selfish bigots who only look after ourselves.

If we are to be fair about this, your views are selfish and bigoted too.
What's the ''best conditions possible'' ? Your own personal definition ? In other words you want your children and their children to live in a world that is tailor-made to best suit your own view of things. That's selfish.

Bigot:

''a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices''

That just about sums up everybody ! It certainly sums up anybody with an arbitrary moral code that is based entirely on their own opinions.