Re: Arrogant atheist
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:59 am
IMO, it is futile to put up statistics comparing the evils of religion to the evils of secular humanism/atheism.
Immoral acts do not prove that one philosophy is right or wrong. They do both however prove that man is utterly corrupt. Man will hi-jack politics, religion and any other medium to further his own selfish agenda. This also reveals something else. We can see that such things are in violation of an objective moral standard.
Example: Hitler took this idea and corrupted it for his own evil agenda. In fact, Hitler manipulated every possible area to use as propaganda, even the church itself. Hitler even had his own Bible written to reflect his twisted ideas. We also see more common violations of nationalism when soccer fans will attack referees or opposing fans with extreme violance. There is nothing wrong with one being loyal to their nation. But man can certainly twist this for his own desire. So, is nationalism evil? No, man is evil.
If the Christian puts up such statistics, they are only getting into a pissing match. Plus, in a sense, without really meaning to, they are conceding that religion is only less evil than atheism. If the atheist puts up stats, then they are saying that religion is evil. However, to do so they have to admit evil. And if evil exist, then they are also conceding an objective standard of right and wrong that has been violated. This also presumes inherent value in human life. Anyone who follows secular humanism or materialism to its logical ends can only claim life's inherent value if they are deluded. Since the Atheist denies God, they cannot really blame religion. They have to blame man. If there is no God, then religion is just a result of society. Blaming religious people is a contradiction. This leads to three alternatives.
1) A creator exist, and he is the author of evil.
2) A creator exist, but is not attached or involved in his creation. Therefore man is responsible for evil
3) There is no God, and therefore man is responsible for evil. But, evil is arbitrary sense there is no moral law giver.
There is a 4th option. There is a God, He is a moral law giver, yet man is still responsible his acts of evil. This one complies with Judeo-Christianity.
Truly following atheism, there is no more value in being religious or atheist. We are all deluded in a sense. The atheist says it is important to be "RIGHT" about atheism, yet has to smuggle in objective truth to do so. If atheism is true, then religion is just a natural by-product. if it's natural then it is neither good or bad. It just is. The religious person may be deluded. However, the atheist is also deluded because they think it is "RIGHT" to be right. They are saying truth has inherent value. Yet, a material universe is not interested in truth, nor has any basis for it. Man killing man, would be no more immoral than bacteria killing bacteria.
Question: If there is no God, then who is to blame for all of these atrocities? Man. You can't blame religion, because religion would only be an ideology of man. No different than political, social, etc. Therefore, the conclusion is that man, left to his own devices, will do such things. It's natural. If it's natural then it isn't 'evil.' The word evil carries within it the idea that a universal standard of good has been violated. Without a moral law giver, right and wrong, good and evil, are just arbitrary terms. "Morals" are no more significant biologically than an elephant fart. It is just a delusion of being self-aware. A cruel trick of nature. One could make just as good a case for resisting morality as submitting to it. "Might is right," would have as much inherent moral quality as, "do unto others."
In the case of these atrocities we have to look back at the core tenets to see if the perpetrators are acting consistently with their ideology. If one reads the new testament they will quickly see that genocide or war to advance a cause are in direct contradiction with the teachings. So, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and Papal abuse are instantly in trouble. If one studies Mein Kampf, they will no doubt see the atrocities of Nazi fascism as a consistent outcome of following that ideology.
If it wasn't for OM how could humanity have corrected course? If morality is subject to change based on the preferences of society, then how could man see that Nazi Fascism was a moral violation and then work to right a wrong? One who rejects OM has to admit, there is nothing inherently wrong with killing people because they are Jewish. To use the terms progress, better, right, wrong, good or evil is to contradict. Many will deny OM, all the while smuggling it in. Unless one is a soicopath, they will always live as if OM is a reality. Sadly, they deny it, because they know, they know, they know, that OM is a giant finger pointing to a moral law giver. And the thought of their own thoughts, words and actions being in violation of an objective standard is simply unacceptable. And so, people will knowingly, consciously, live in contradiction. People aren't condemned because they won't join the right team. They are condemend because they are enemies of truth. Why would someone who lives in contradiction and an enemy of truth, want to spend eternity with the Truth source? And so, they will spend it with themselves in eternal contradiction. If a person is a law unto themselves, then under such they will be judged. But we all know, through our conscience that somethings are good and others evil. We know it is wrong, objectively wrong to torture puppies for fun. We know that a person who derives pleasure from such, is evil. It is not an issue of chocolate or vanilla.
Immoral acts do not prove that one philosophy is right or wrong. They do both however prove that man is utterly corrupt. Man will hi-jack politics, religion and any other medium to further his own selfish agenda. This also reveals something else. We can see that such things are in violation of an objective moral standard.
Example: Hitler took this idea and corrupted it for his own evil agenda. In fact, Hitler manipulated every possible area to use as propaganda, even the church itself. Hitler even had his own Bible written to reflect his twisted ideas. We also see more common violations of nationalism when soccer fans will attack referees or opposing fans with extreme violance. There is nothing wrong with one being loyal to their nation. But man can certainly twist this for his own desire. So, is nationalism evil? No, man is evil.
If the Christian puts up such statistics, they are only getting into a pissing match. Plus, in a sense, without really meaning to, they are conceding that religion is only less evil than atheism. If the atheist puts up stats, then they are saying that religion is evil. However, to do so they have to admit evil. And if evil exist, then they are also conceding an objective standard of right and wrong that has been violated. This also presumes inherent value in human life. Anyone who follows secular humanism or materialism to its logical ends can only claim life's inherent value if they are deluded. Since the Atheist denies God, they cannot really blame religion. They have to blame man. If there is no God, then religion is just a result of society. Blaming religious people is a contradiction. This leads to three alternatives.
1) A creator exist, and he is the author of evil.
2) A creator exist, but is not attached or involved in his creation. Therefore man is responsible for evil
3) There is no God, and therefore man is responsible for evil. But, evil is arbitrary sense there is no moral law giver.
There is a 4th option. There is a God, He is a moral law giver, yet man is still responsible his acts of evil. This one complies with Judeo-Christianity.
Truly following atheism, there is no more value in being religious or atheist. We are all deluded in a sense. The atheist says it is important to be "RIGHT" about atheism, yet has to smuggle in objective truth to do so. If atheism is true, then religion is just a natural by-product. if it's natural then it is neither good or bad. It just is. The religious person may be deluded. However, the atheist is also deluded because they think it is "RIGHT" to be right. They are saying truth has inherent value. Yet, a material universe is not interested in truth, nor has any basis for it. Man killing man, would be no more immoral than bacteria killing bacteria.
Question: If there is no God, then who is to blame for all of these atrocities? Man. You can't blame religion, because religion would only be an ideology of man. No different than political, social, etc. Therefore, the conclusion is that man, left to his own devices, will do such things. It's natural. If it's natural then it isn't 'evil.' The word evil carries within it the idea that a universal standard of good has been violated. Without a moral law giver, right and wrong, good and evil, are just arbitrary terms. "Morals" are no more significant biologically than an elephant fart. It is just a delusion of being self-aware. A cruel trick of nature. One could make just as good a case for resisting morality as submitting to it. "Might is right," would have as much inherent moral quality as, "do unto others."
In the case of these atrocities we have to look back at the core tenets to see if the perpetrators are acting consistently with their ideology. If one reads the new testament they will quickly see that genocide or war to advance a cause are in direct contradiction with the teachings. So, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and Papal abuse are instantly in trouble. If one studies Mein Kampf, they will no doubt see the atrocities of Nazi fascism as a consistent outcome of following that ideology.
If it wasn't for OM how could humanity have corrected course? If morality is subject to change based on the preferences of society, then how could man see that Nazi Fascism was a moral violation and then work to right a wrong? One who rejects OM has to admit, there is nothing inherently wrong with killing people because they are Jewish. To use the terms progress, better, right, wrong, good or evil is to contradict. Many will deny OM, all the while smuggling it in. Unless one is a soicopath, they will always live as if OM is a reality. Sadly, they deny it, because they know, they know, they know, that OM is a giant finger pointing to a moral law giver. And the thought of their own thoughts, words and actions being in violation of an objective standard is simply unacceptable. And so, people will knowingly, consciously, live in contradiction. People aren't condemned because they won't join the right team. They are condemend because they are enemies of truth. Why would someone who lives in contradiction and an enemy of truth, want to spend eternity with the Truth source? And so, they will spend it with themselves in eternal contradiction. If a person is a law unto themselves, then under such they will be judged. But we all know, through our conscience that somethings are good and others evil. We know it is wrong, objectively wrong to torture puppies for fun. We know that a person who derives pleasure from such, is evil. It is not an issue of chocolate or vanilla.
