Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

IC: One of the reasons why atheism is more rational than theism concerns your so-called "justification" for being rude and for your insulting behavior towards atheists and other non-Christians.

I shall be pleased to respond to every one of your questions. But first, you must respond to mine:

Give me one moral precept that Atheists are obligated to believe.

If you continue to insist that Atheism is not amoral, but still find yourself unable to render even one such precept, then your line above is clearly just slander. You are obfuscating to escape a conclusion you cannot face. Meanwhile, on the other side, an inability to answer shows decisively that nobody's been "rude" or "insulting" -- I've spoken the pure truth about Atheism, a truth which you also know and cannot find the means to deny with even one spot of evidence.

Believe it or not, when I say all of this I don't mean to be mean to you. But this is very serious. You Atheists live in a house built for you by others, others who have been men not of good will but spiteful, God-hating and addicted to ego. And it's a house of straw, a house already on fire.

Somebody's got to say that, or how will you ever escape it?

[Immanuel Can]

In fact, the atheists I know personally (I cannot and would not presume to speak for all of you out there) began life under the auspices of some brand of Christianity, and have rejected it, precisely because its deity and clergy failed to meet our ethical standards.

I think this is often true. Very many Atheists began as nominal religious people, often in large, unwieldy, insincere and corrupt religious organizations. And eventually, sickened by hypocrisy or discouraged by their own inability to toe the line, they left in anger. And faced with the same things, I'm not sure I wouldn't do the same.

But they made some mistakes. They thought that men were God, so blamed God for what men did. They thought that religion was truth, so they declared all truth relative. They thought morality could be had without a moral Source, so they lived off the diminishing capital of other people's morality, without any rationale of their own. Most importantly, they thought that freedom would come to them when they simply denied the possibility of judgment.

I understand the anger. But reason must prevail, for Atheism is not a rational alternative. Ultimately, it's certain to prove treacherous.

[Lacewing]

I'm fine with you believing in God, I'm just not fine with you telling me I am illogical and that my soul is doomed for not believing in God. Your attitude is exactly what creates unnecessary divides and conflict between people who would otherwise be quite happy to coexist amicably. I don't care how intensively you've studied your Bible, your interpretation of "Christian values" is not something to be proud of.

And if it's the truth? What's the right thing to do then?

LOVE! From a MUCH BROADER understanding... LOVE! Demonstrating what people would actually be inspired by and drawn to -- instead of wanting them to bow down to the power and brilliance of another's ego.

What if, IC, it's true that there's NO god? That it's only a manifestation in the mind and experience of the one who believes it. What's the right thing to do then?

In such a case, can you recognize the insanity that non-theists are confronted with continually? Is that right? Is that helpful?

... that I should smile, say nothing about Atheism, and pretend there's nothing at stake, and meanwhile secretly say under my breath, "So long as you all find me congenial, you can all go to Hell"...literally?

Are you actually going to pretend that you are fighting for our souls rather than stroking yourself? I've not seen you do or say ANYTHING on this forum demonstrative of an appealing or convincing argument or plea aimed at anyone's soul. Rather, it's all about the authority and rightness that you imagine yourself to have.

one thing is certain: that when the time comes, you will not be saying, "Nobody ever even told me." That moment has long ago passed.

And there you have it: "Don't say I didn't tell you. You are doomed... from long ago." Right. That's real helpful.

No, IC... that's just more evidence of the never-ending righteousness and arrogance that infects some theists as they aim to perfect their arguments and minds to be impenetrable to broader views and logic. They must control the universe with specific rules and condemnations... thereby making THEMSELVES into a god who knows all and sits above others.

Meanwhile, sane people recognize the sacredness and equality in each other, regardless of chosen path. There is no separation between what is god and what is not. That mindset is only valuable to those who seek to elevate and serve themselves above others.

It's so fascinating to me that the most obvious BIRTHPLACE of EVIL and DARKNESS is in theism!! Theists try to project that outward onto the world, while claiming that WHAT THEY DO is some imaginary god's work which can only be considered holy. It's so fucking twisted. They know NOT what they do!!!

[Science Fan]

IC: Atheists are not obligated to believe in any moral claim. That's one reason why atheists are more moral than you and most theists --- most atheists behave morally because they voluntarily do the right thing, not because they are commanded to by some religious dictator.

[Science Fan]

IC turns reality upside down for us: He claims that belief in things like heaven, hell, god, without any credible evidence is "rational" while an atheist who requires evidence for such claims is ""irrational." He believes that a god that would torture an innocent person for all eternity is moral and deserving of worship, when such a being would not even be worth spitting on. After all, since this alleged god has provided no credible evidence of any kind regarding its existence, any atheist is perfectly innocent in not believing in it. So, this means that if god sends atheists to hell, simply because they did not believe, this god is not just immoral, but a fiend.

In the 21st century, can't we stop believing in ancient primitive nonsense?

[Science Fan]

IC: You claim that atheism is irrational, so here is my challenge to you: Provide a rational argument, even one, that proves your alleged god exists. The world has seen you theists struggle with this challenge for thousands of years, and you have repeatedly failed to provide a single cogent argument. From the cosmological argument to the ontological argument to the argument from morality, every single argument the theist camp has devised has been easily shown to have major flaws.

If you can't come up with even one rational argument for the existence of your alleged god, then how is it that your position is rational?

[Immanuel Can]

IC: Atheists are not obligated to believe in any moral claim.

Quite right. Atheism is inherently amoral. Agreed.

So your claim that Atheism has a moral perspective has turned out to be incorrect. Agreed.

That's one reason why atheists are more moral than you and most theists --- most atheists behave morally because they voluntarily do the right thing, not because they are commanded to by some religious dictator.

Justify that claim with data.

Oh, sorry...you can't get data. Why? Because Atheism is amoral, and thus has no criteria for what "moral" would even be. You can't locate data without referring to any moral criteria.

So if Atheists ever "behave morally," as you say, it is clearly without help from their Atheism. Instead, they must needs be borrowing criteria from somewhere else...most obviously, from the religious...for as you now recognize, Atheism itself has no moral information in it.

So an Atheists cannot even justify the claim, "I am more moral." Because from an Atheist perspective, he is uttering nonsense. "Moral" has no real-world referent, under Atheism. His claim then reduces to something like, "I am more XZITLY."

[Immanuel Can]

... if god sends atheists to hell, simply because they did not believe, this god is not just immoral, but a fiend.

Au contraire: if God grants Atheists their most fervent, self-declared wish -- that is, to be eternally without God -- that makes him no fiend, but rather the chief Supporter and Authorizer of human freedom and choice.

Meanwhile, Atheism has within its worldview no legitimate category called "immoral."

[Science Fan]

IC: Sending atheists to hell for all eternity, for doing nothing wrong, is not something that any atheist desires. The fact you try to justify your immoral beliefs with an outright falsehood once again shows how morally corrupt you are.

You worship an alleged god, which if it actually existed, and sent innocent people to hell, would be the most twisted, sick, and immoral being ever to have existed. Only someone who is immoral could stoop so low as to worship your alleged God.

[Immanuel Can]

IC: Sending atheists to hell for all eternity, for doing nothing wrong, is not something that any atheist desires.

Atheists don't believe in "wrong." That means they can do wrong still, just as they can do right; but they can't know which is which -- at least, not from their Atheism. What they do want, and what they do declare, is that they want to live without God: that is, without the consummate Source of health, life, light, hope, beauty and joy.

That may be a foolish wish, but it's the one to which they've sworn allegiance. I would recommend they should choose better.

Meanwhile, the Bible doesn't just claim that Atheists have sinned. It says, "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," and that the only way back for ANY of us, religious or not, is "being justified (made right) by His grace (i.e. out of his kind gift of forgiveness). That's an incredibly equitable position: nobody is privileged, and nobody is denied an opportunity in that.

All have alike done wrong; but all alike are freely offered forgiveness. And you really can't get any more fair than that.

[Science Fan]

IC: There you go yet again with your self-serving irrational claims. Prove Plato wrong, when he explained to the world thousands of years ago that morality is not dependent upon any god. Here's the argument, yet again, which no theist has been able to refute:

Does God give a command because it is moral or is the command moral merely because God gave it? If the former, then God is itself using a moral standard, which means, morality comes from that standard and not from God. So, we can ignore any reference to God and simply refer to the moral standard, saving us an unnecessary step. If it's the latter, then that makes morality arbitrary, because God could have decided to do something different.

The existence of a god would simply add another subjective moral opinion among many others. It would not in any way make god's moral opinion correct. In fact, for all you know, a god exists, but that god has no concern whatsoever with morality. This also shows that there is no logical link between a god and any moral claims from this alleged god.

You keep claiming because you imagine a god exists that this somehow gives you a solid moral basis, when, logic tells us, that even if a god did exist, it would not ground any moral claim.

[Arising_uk]

It's not about me.

As if!!

[Arising_uk]

Atheists don't believe in "wrong." ...

Yes we do, we just don't base it upon the idea of an imaginary being who's going to burn us for eternity if we do it.

That means they can do wrong still, just as they can do right; but they can't know which is which -- at least, not from their Atheism. ...

How can we do it from a non-belief in your 'God'?

What they do want, and what they do declare, is that they want to live without God: ...

Nope, that appears to be your ex-theists.

that is, without the consummate Source of health, life, light, hope, beauty and joy. ...

Me, I find these already in the world and mainly within my fellows.

That may be a foolish wish, but it's the one to which they've sworn allegiance. I would recommend they should choose better.

We choose fine thanks.

Meanwhile, the Bible doesn't just claim that Atheists have sinned. It says, "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," and that the only way back for ANY of us, religious or not, is "being justified (made right) by His grace (i.e. out of his kind gift of forgiveness). That's an incredibly equitable position: nobody is privileged, and nobody is denied an opportunity in that. ...

It also demonstrates a poor opinion of yourself and your fellows. So I do understand that if you personally don't have this 'God' of yours threatening you with punishment you may well be the type to behave badly as your self-esteem is low. Is that why you are born-again? You were a bad boy and are now trying to suck up.

All have alike done wrong; but all alike are freely offered forgiveness. And you really can't get any more fair than that.

But I thought the reason why we have all sinned is because we upset daddy and he's a nasty little piece of work when crossed? Although it looks like it was done more from fear of us eating from the Tree of Life rather than some great moral stance.

[Immanuel Can]

Prove Plato wrong, when he explained to the world thousands of years ago that morality is not dependent upon any god. Here's the argument, yet again, which no theist has been able to refute:

Does God give a command because it is moral or is the command moral merely because God gave it? If the former, then God is itself using a moral standard, which means, morality comes from that standard and not from God. So, we can ignore any reference to God and simply refer to the moral standard, saving us an unnecessary step. If it's the latter, then that makes morality arbitrary, because God could have decided to do something different.

I'll repeat myself, though I addressed this earlier. (You can look back and check.)

This "dilemma" is called "The Euthyphro Problem," and it may be a defeater for various forms of Polytheism, but not relevant to Theism. In Theism, the question, "Is God good or is good God?" which is the essence of the EP, cannot coherently be asked, because God is BOTH. God is good, and the Entity to which the Ultimate Good corresponds is God. Since God is eternal, neither "comes first" and neither is the cause or reason for the other: they are different descriptors of the same thing.

So the EP becomes a question like, "Is a man male, or are males men?" The answer to both is "yes," and there is no problem there anymore. Or it's like asking, "Is a circle a circle because it's round, or is it round because it's a circle?" You see, that's just nonsense, isn't it? The premise tries to compel a distinction between two identical things.

That is why Theists are untroubled by the EP...it's premised on a category error, and is thus merely expressive of a fallacy.

I think that on the whole, Atheism is far too easily impressed. The minute it runs into a problem like the EP, it rejoices and quits the field, declaring victory unilaterally. Then it is surprised when thinking Theists don't wilt in sheer terror of that flimsy critique. It complains that it already dispatched Theism with one fell blow, and in frustration begins to rail that Theists just failed to understand how wonderful that critique was.

However, maybe that's just human nature.

[Science Fan]

IC: That's a complete failure to address the point raised by Plato. You claim specifically that God gives a command and the command must be followed. Plato shows that this type of reasoning is fatally flawed when its advocate claims that God itself provides the justification for following the so-called divine-command. If god is good, then this would require god to follow a morally good code, which means we can ignore god and simply refer to the moral standard. There is no other way for you to establish god is good. If you claim god could do anything, and it would be moral, that is an admission that god's morality is arbitrary. If you claim because god is alleged good god must do the morally right thing, then god is obeying a moral standard, external to itself.

This, of course, even assumes that you can prove a god exists, which you have never been able to do. It also further assumes you know what God has said about various moral issues, another issue you have no credible evidence for.