Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Skip]

Perhaps somebody should point out that truth is not achieved through repetition.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheists have moral views.

Good. Then you won't mind sharing one.

What is it?

Morality exists for the vast majority of us because our brains are hardwired for moral thinking.

That's a non-answer. We're also hardwired with what evolutionists call a "vestigial tail," or tailbone. That doesn't mean we should work to grow tails. We're clearly hardwired for violence as well; but that doesn't mean we should become violent.

Morality predates religion...

Sorry, but it does not. All ancient societies of which we have any knowledge at all were profoundly religious. Sacred versus profane is the root of all of the first moral distinctions, and our Western morality is developed out of Biblical morality and things like the Code of Hammurabi...also from a very religious society. So in our case, your claim is not credible either.

Ontology precedes ethics. We come to believe in good and evil based on what else we think exists in the universe as a fundamental reality, not the other way around.

Religion was based on morality, not the other way around.

Historically untrue. There is not one ancient society that had morality but not religion. But we do have those that have a complicated religious or superstitious set of beliefs, and a comparatively limited and underdeveloped level of morality.

...it is pure nonsense for anyone to claim that without religion, anything is permitted.

Oh really? That's very interesting. Well, then you'll have absolutely no difficulty in telling me something morally "unpermitted" by Atheism.

I'll point out again that I've been asking for such a thing for some time now. And it's your sure road to win your point. So if it's so easy, just do it: tell me one moral precept, positive or negative, that Atheism requires of its adherents. Just one. One little precept. Anything.

If you cannot, then you've got to see that you are affirming something for which you would be obliged to realize you have no evidence, and not even a single actual example; and whatever else you can say, that's not rational.

[Immanuel Can]

But those moral judgements are grounded on a mistake: the mistaken belief that there is a God.

If it's a mistake. But you haven't shown that it is.

In order for this argument to be resolved the first step would necessarily be for one of us to prove to the other's satisfaction that God does or doesn't exist, before that is established there is no common frame of reference from which to argue. It is completely pointless, the best we can achieve is to annoy each other, which doesn't seem like a particularly moral aim.

I don't think that's true. We can, for example, agree that logic and evidence are relevant to arbitrating the case. And if nothing else, then we can certainly go the opposite direction -- by which I mean we can ask ourselves what follows logically from Atheism.

We can start from an honest Atheist premise: the assumption that there is no God, and see very easily that we are both epistemologically and ethically on impossible territory. We can't justify our Atheism with evidence (epistemologically inadequate), and we cannot find a single moral precept (ethically inadequate). And since Atheism is so evidently irrational and amoral, and since we can't live without reasons and morality, we can be quite confident that Atheism is a bad thing. Then we can go looking for a better view.

That sort of progress is quite possible. But so long as we rest on Atheism, and don't ask it to prove its case or to justify any moral precepts, that's not going to happen.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think they can, you can very easily show it. Give us just ONE moral precept that every Atheist is morally obligated to follow.

That would make me almost as dishonest as you are.

Au contraire: it would make you honest, and the clear winner of the debate.

But I know you cannot do it. And now you know it too.

We are all individuals, and each of us answers to whatever moral and/or legal authority we choose, or a singular, personal one, or none.

I actually said that.

Atheist are amoral. They follow morality only when, and to the degree, that it suits them and their particular social group. They have no inviolable principles.

You haven't named me even one. That's either because you simply don't know what Atheist morality entails, or because there is none. What other explanation can there possibly be? For if you knew of such, you'd have given it; and if you haven't given it, it's because you don't have it.

QED.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps somebody should point out that truth is not achieved through repetition.

Thank you. I was asking for someone to point that out.

[Harbal]

If it's a mistake. But you haven't shown that it is.

And I wouldn't, even if I could. 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.

[Belinda]

The mainstream ethics in Europe and America and other Europeanised countries are based upon Christian ethics. The Humanist ethics of such as Thomas Paine are an upshot from liberal reformed Catholicism, with a strong admixture of Judaism.

[Belinda]

Correction : Judeo-Christian ethics.

[Greta]

Demonisation of atheists is simply competitive behaviour.

It says everything about the demonisers and nothing about modern people who logically find the outrageous myths of the ancients a tad hard to swallow. Eaten by a whale and safely regurgitated much later on. All animal species on an ark, two by two, for months. Six days to make a universe. A talking snake. Virgin birth. Satan. Angels. Demonic possession. Resurrection from death. Healing with hands. Walking on water. Parting the seas. Don't speak with women who are on their periods. Don't eat shellfish. Really??

[Skip]

Once upon a time, when I was unemployed and getting hungry, I signed up for a recruitment seminar for encyclopedia salesmen.
They gave us strategies for getting in the door, showed us how to display the samples, gave us a spiel to memorize and impressed upon us that we must not deviate from the script, which was very precisely worded to push all of a potential customer's buttons.
In the afternoon, they were going to demonstrate how to break down resistance and deflect questions.
I didn't go back after the lunch break, and thought I would never learn the technique of selling what one doesn't believe in.
Now I know.
But it's still wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

If it's a mistake. But you haven't shown that it is.

And I wouldn't, even if I could. 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?

Is your position 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?

I think what makes for a "good Christian" depends a lot on how one weighs the value of being personally praised as omni-tolerant, "accepting" and liberal, versus the eternal value of human souls. And I'm content to take my stand for the latter.

So say what you will. Like or don't like what you want. But 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.

[Harbal]

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

Is your position 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?

I think what makes for a "good Christian" depends a lot on how one weighs the value of being personally praised as omni-tolerant, "accepting" and liberal, versus the eternal value of human souls. And I'm content to take my stand for the latter.

So say what you will. Like or don't like what you want. But 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.

Okay, IC, at least you can tell God you did your best.

[Science Fan]

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. You claim that atheists and non-Christians shall go to hell; therefore, you need to behave like you do to allegedly save their alleged souls. Where is this hell? Please point it out for us on a map, so we can identify what it is you are claiming exists? Where are our alleged souls? Can you identify them on an MRI scan? What concrete evidence do you have for their existence? Explain how it is in any way moral for you to worship a god that is so twisted in its moral understanding, that it would send an atheist to hell for all eternity simply for non-belief?

Your beliefs are irrational because they have no empirical evidence to support them. They are also immoral, because the concept of sending atheists to hell for all eternity is immoral.

You are basically someone who caves in to a dictator.

[Skip]

Your beliefs are irrational because they have no empirical evidence to support them. They are also immoral, because the concept of sending atheists to hell for all eternity is immoral.

You are basically someone who caves in to a dictator.

I think you're wrong, SF. He doesn't believe a word of that cut-and-paste-marathon. Most apologists don't actually partake of the woo they pitch, any more than successful drug-dealers use their own product. They do not "cave in" to a dictator; they serve the dictator willingly, gathering more vassals under his power.

Shilling for this patched and tattered hand-me-down morality, the rules of which they themselves breach daily, hourly, is a fundamentally immoral undertaking. 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.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, IC, at least you can tell God you did your best.

It's not about me.