INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM

[Carl]

As to whether the ACLU has proclivities for atheism/agnosticism, I leave it to the member of this thread to decide. A comprehensive survey of cases sponsored by the ACLU over the last four decades should convince anyone as to who has the sympathies of the ACLU.

It was so from the start when the ACLU allied itself with Clarence Darrow at the infamous Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Tennessee in 1925. Darrow did everything he could during the trial not only to defend the teaching of evolution (a worthy enough cause) but also to attack and demolish the book of Genesis. Anyone who has read the trial transcript (I have) can see the venomous pleasure he took in discrediting the very idea of Creation.

The notorious atheist bigot H.L. Mencken was another friend of the ACLU. A reporter for the Baltimore Sun, he wrote blow by blow descriptions of the “Monkey” Trial and mocked the religious values of the Tennessee community. His hatred of religion was too much even for Darrow fans who tend to depict him as an extremist, thereby hoping to put Darrow in the middle path between extremes, as the play and movie Inherit the Wind suggests. But Inherit the Wind is itself a tissue of lies and fictions exposed by several writers who have researched the true circumstances of the trial. How many atheists/agnostics have been gulled by the play and movie it is impossible to count.

 

[Monarchy]

“The religions are all alike, not matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler

The Voice of Destruction, Rauschning

“It is great satisfaction for me to find myself totally foreign to the world of Christianity. I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure forever. I believe in truth.” Adolf Hitler

Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1953

The so called “lies” still endure, while Hitler’s “truth” lasted 12 years.

Nor should we forget the famous photo of Hitler admiring the recently sculpted bust of the “God is dead” atheist philosopher Nietzsche.

How about these:

“Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”
– Adolf Hitler, *Mein Kampf

*“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith… We need believing people.”
– Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933

 

[squirt]

Monarchy:

So all those Xians who post at Internet Infidels are not 100% at ease with their theism?

Thread drift:

A couple of years ago, I went out for pizza with a mixed group of theists (some Christian, some not), atheists and agnostics from Internet Infidels. Very nice group of people.

 

[Monarchy]

Carl:

I think atheism is much more organized than you think it is. Atheism showed how well organized it could be during the reign of the Soviet Union when theism was virtually outlawed for members of the Communist Party. For the common Russians who were churchgoers, church leaders were appointed or approved only by an atheist beaurocracy.

Theism was a an enemy of the state because the state wanted to be the religion. The whole you cannot serve two masters thing…

Dogma for Dogma

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

Once we acknowlege a sender of the message we have no choice but to hear, we have acnowleged God.

Hm, but which one?

The sender might well be Zeus or Vishnu or Illuvatar.

Or, what I think, the sender is reason. Humans are gregarious animals and not lone wolfs. To survive humans need to cooperate. Unsocial behaviour harms the herd, thus lowering the chances of survival. Moral keeps the individuals in line thus helping the herd to survive. Basic evolution after all.

Of course the fear of eternal punishment keeps individuals far better in line than reasoning, thus religion has evolved.

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

Hm, but which one?

The sender might well be Zeus or Vishnu or Illuvatar.

Or, what I think, the sender is reason. Humans are gregarious animals and not lone wolfs. To survive humans need to cooperate. Unsocial behaviour harms the herd, thus lowering the chances of survival. Moral keeps the individuals in line thus helping the herd to survive. Basic evolution after all.

Of course the fear of eternal punishment keeps individuals far better in line than reasoning, thus religion has evolved.

Who the sender might be is a different topic. Zeus and the others are regarded by some people (I assume) as God. My point is that acknowleging a sender is to acknowlege God. Defining who God is, would be an entirely new thread.

What you think is by far the more common approach of atheism, in my opinion. I was responding to Paul, who acnowleged there is something different about humans.

If I understand your position, you are arguing that humans act on the herd instinct. So there would not be anything necesarily different about humans? There are many gregorious animals who act for the good of the herd.

The herd instinct concept does not answer the question well enough for me to accept. For there are rights and wrongs that all humans recognize, many of which would not affect the herd…may even be good for the herd. For example. A homeless person with aids living on the street, with no family or friends, living off the government (paid for by the herd). An argument could be made that it would be good for the herd to remove this person. If no harm would come to the herd, why not kill the person? The same question coul be asked of elderly invalids, or the severly disabled.

Obvoiusly I am not advocating such a thing, but trying to illustrate the inadequacy of the “herd” or “societal good” argument.

 

[Carl]

MONARCHY

The quotes you cited from Hitler were from 1933 or before. Obviously, this was the period when Hitler was trying to consolidate his gains and was willing to say anything to make himself look like a Christian. The quotes I gave you were from a later period and reflect what his real agenda was all along.

Moreover, you cannot possibly attribute Hitler’s conduct to the mentality of a true Christian without insulting all Christians. Yet there is nothing inconsistent with attributing his conduct to an atheist, since atheists do not subscribe to moral absolutes or any absolute moral authority such as the Lawgiver of Jews and Christians. Atheists define their own morality. They worship the Absolute within themselves. Whatever they decide is good, is good. Whatever they decide is wrong, is wrong. When they submit to the laws of society, often they do so in protest, fully aware that the source of the social mores and laws in the West have their fountainhead in the teachings of Moses and Christ.

Notice, I did not say that all atheists have the mentality of a Hitler. What I said was that Hitler was an atheist, and there was no fear of God in him. It is a short step from atheism to moral anarchy. Not all atheists are so bold as to take it; the presence of Christianity and other religions will do much to impede their forward movement.

As Voltaire pointed out in his brilliant essay on atheism, the atheist senators of ancient Rome succeeded in openly mocking the ancient gods. Little did the senators know how soon the moral disintegration of Rome would lead to its social and military disintegration. Little did they sense that a God barely known to them was waiting in the wings to take center stage.

In Rome that God is still front and center.

 

[Monarchy]

Carl:

MONARCHY

The quotes you cited from Hitler were from 1933 or before. Obviously, this was the period when Hitler was trying to consolidate his gains and was willing to say anything to make himself look like a Christian. The quotes I gave you were from a later period and reflect what his real agenda was all along.

Moreover, you cannot possibly attribute Hitler’s conduct to the mentality of a true Christian without insulting all Christians. Yet there is nothing inconsistent with attributing his conduct to an atheist, since atheists do not subscribe to moral absolutes or any absolute moral authority such as the Lawgiver of Jews and Christians. Atheists define their own morality. They worship the Absolute within themselves. Whatever they decide is good, is good. Whatever they decide is wrong, is wrong. When they submit to the laws of society, often they do so in protest, fully aware that the source of the social mores and laws in the West have their fountainhead in the teachings of Moses and Christ.

Notice, I did not say that all atheists have the mentality of a Hitler. What I said was that Hitler was an atheist, and there was no fear of God in him. It is a short step from atheism to moral anarchy. Not all atheists are so bold as to take it; the presence of Christianity and other religions will do much to impede their forward movement.

As Voltaire pointed out in his brilliant essay on atheism, the atheist senators of ancient Rome succeeded in openly mocking the ancient gods. Little did the senators know how soon the moral disintegration of Rome would lead to its social and military disintegration. Little did they sense that a God barely known to them was waiting in the wings to take center stage.

In Rome that God is still front and center.

You brought up Hitler because because you want to paint Atheists with his brush, otherwise why would you bring it up? I have not once brought up the bloody history of the chuch (and it IS bloody) as an argument.

BTW in many circumstances the first person to bring up Hitler in an argument is considered to have the lesser argument.

 

[Carl]

BTW in many circumstances the first person to bring up Hitler in an argument is considered to have the lesser argument.

Actually, that cuts both ways. Apparently you have not read, or cannot remember, the whole thread. Bertrand Russell was cited earlier as one who could not mention often enough the cruelties performed supposedly in the name of Christ. Chesterton’s remark was a rebuttal of Russell’s view, with Hitler as only one example Chesterton would (and did) offer as an atheist bigot at his worst.

Anyway, I am done with Hitler if you are.

 

[AnAtheist]

“Herd instinct” is only one part of the (my) explanation. A very simple argument atheists have for developing morals is, “treat other people, like you want to be treated”. Which is quite reasonable, and in a sense quite egoistic. Since nobody wants to get murdered, raped, kidnapped, etc. it is quite logical that a human society invents laws against those deeds. On the other hand one wants to survive illness, have a good life when aged, etc. thus no wonder, that human societies have invented systems to care for that.

A god is not necessarily needed to develop moral standards. Reasoning can do that. And before you come with up absolutes, I agree beforehand that my viewpoint allows morale to change. It is not absolute. Oh, that reminds me, the moral standards of your God have changed too, or do you eat only kosher food or wear OT-conform clothing?

But actually sometimes I am happy that religion keeps those people in line, who lack the interlectual capacity to develop a morale by themselves, by dictating them what is good and bad.

 

[Carl]

*A god is not necessarily needed to develop moral standards. Reasoning can do that. *

Since God created reason too, our reasoning powers do help in the process of creating moral standards. But reasoning without God in the equation gets us only in the direction we choose, which is not necessarily the direction God has chosen for us.

Moral laws that come from God are absolutes that have alleviated, if not entirely eradicated, human evil. The question I must ask an atheist is whether our reasoning powers always serve us well. Is it not possible that three groups of people can reason without God and all three come up with moral systems that are self-destructive?

If this is denied, then reason is perceived by the atheist as infallible, a position clearly false based on our perception of individual and group behavior.

On the other hand, a moral system handed down from above is sure to guide us well: Love God and love one another. I would like to hear an atheist moral system that is as clear and succinct as the one laid down by Jesus.

 

[paul2]

Chris W:

Interesting. Are you saying you recognize something different about humans than all other life forms? I have not encountered this acknowlegment from an atheist before.

What I’m saying is the fact that we are able to have discussions like this sets us appart from the rest of the animal kingdom. But we are still “just animals,” reguardless of our higher intellect. Read into “fight or flight” for an interesting look at our more animalistic side.

The rest of nature is survival of the fittest, but human nature tells us to care for the sick and elderly.

You need to turn your tv to the discovery channel and watch a show documenting apes. They regularly groom each other, which tells me nature is not all “survival of the fittest,” but also “survival of the cleanest and most bug-free.” There’s alot of research done on the subject of social structures in the animal kingdom, may I suggest google?

Even though societies have dramatically changed, this moral law has always remained the same, even in mid-evil, barbaric times.

At one point it was “morally acceptable” to burn witches at the stake. I think moral law changes from generation to generation. My grandparents hate black people with a passion, my parents much less so, and i harbor no ill feelings towards them. At one point it was morally acceptable for a white person to own a black person. This reaffirms my assertion that morals change over time. The same thing is happening now with homosexuals. My grandparents hate them, my parent’s don’t condone them, and I personaly don’t care who they have sex with.

Once we acknowlege a sender of the message we have no choice but to hear, we have acnowleged God.

A better answer would be to study “social evolution” to see where we get our morals from. Why cover it with a blanket answer of “god did it.”

To sum up post:

1. Human morals do change over time.
2. Some animals are social beings, and some do care for their sick and elderly.
3. Human’s exibit animalistic traits.
4. My grandparents are bigots. (but it’s ok cause they’re old.)

 

[paul2]

*A god is not necessarily needed to develop moral standards. Reasoning can do that. *

Since God created reason too …

i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in order to convince us atheists that morals come from god and not some other “natural” function such as social evolution, you’ll need to prove that a god exists, especially since it’s pretty well explained allready. Click here to search Talk Origins for a ton of information.

… The question I must ask an atheist is whether our reasoning powers always serve us well. Is it not possible that three groups of people can reason without God and all three come up with moral systems that are self-destructive?

My reasoning powers have served me well. Except that one time in Mexico… and that one time in Vegas… but we won’t go there. What do you mean by self destructive morals?

 

[S.J]

I am having a hard time understanding why an atheist would be motivated by anything other than self interest? If this is all there is, why not grab all you can for yourself? If there is no consequence (a God of justice) then why not act at all times and in every way to benefit yourself? I am not talking about law breaking - I mean acting within the bounds of societal laws with your own self interest in mind.

I do not see how atheism can not ulitmately descend into mirror worship. The “cult of self”, in my humble opinion, becomes too strong. If there is no belief system beyond what is observed, measured and calculated, then what is more observed, measured and calculated to us then ourselves? We become the end all and be all. We do what it takes to make ourselves happy and comfortable.

Carl,

You mentioned that friends noticed a “coldness” during your atheistic period. Do you think that you fell prey to some of what I have mentioned above, even if not entirely consciously?

 

[Carl]

At one point it was “morally acceptable” to burn witches at the stake. I think moral law changes from generation to generation. My grandparents hate black people with a passion, my parents much less so, and i harbor no ill feelings towards them. At one point it was morally acceptable for a white person to own a black person. This reaffirms my assertion that morals change over time. The same thing is happening now with homosexuals. My grandparents hate them, my parent’s don’t condone them, and I personaly don’t care who they have sex with.

What you don’t seem to get is that if a thing is right, it is right from one generation to the next. If a thing is wrong, it’s wrong from one generation to the next. The rightness or wrongness of moral acts does not depend on the fancy of the current generation practicing them. You have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the liberal rot that morality is totally relative. That mentality is making a moral sewer of our culture. I don’t think you’ll be able to grasp that because I think you are very young and probably can’t see the moral perspective of the generations before you; nor can you see the decline in public and private morals over the last five decades.

Too bad.

 

[Carl]

S.J.

You mentioned that friends noticed a “coldness” during your atheistic period. Do you think that you fell prey to some of what I have mentioned above, even if not entirely consciously?

Very likely. The *mirror image * is another way of saying narcissist. Many of my generation simply turned away from God, but looked within ourselves to make gods of ourselves. Atheism fed into that psychology. The only things worth valuing were our own ego, our own values, our own possessions. We see others as people who are to give us pleasure or people to manipulate. This predatory nature cannot help but be noticed by others, especially if they knew us before when the Spirit was in us.

We no longer hold ourselves accountable to a higher law, but only to the law of Self. In the course of living this kind of life, time has a way of bringing us to our senses. When we become at last sated with Self, which I think was Augustine’s experience, and that of Saint Francis, we reach outside ourselves for the Other. Perhaps this helps to explain why so many Catholics of my generation are now returning to Christ. We have outgrown atheism, which now seems to us little more than the rebel brag of a son once prodigal but now home again … home again!

Deo gratias.

 

[Carl]

What do you mean by self destructive morals?

Morals that leads to self destruction. The most prominant and destructive of which is that *I’ll do what I please and I don’t care who stands in my way or who gets hurt to satisfy my pleasure. *

 

[squirt]

re: atheists and morality

I would guess that around half of the people that I work with are atheists. If, without asking which ones are theists, you looked at things like which ones are in long-term monogamous relationships, are willing to help when somebody has a problem, worry about their kids’ futures, wouldn’t download something illegally from the internet, etc, it would be pretty much impossible to identify who belongs to which group.

 

[Carl]

But if you saw a gang of thugs on one side of the street, and a group of people toting Bibles on the other side of the street, which side of the street would you rather be on?

 

[squirt]

Carl:

But if you saw a gang of thugs on one side of the street, and a group of people toting Bibles on the other side of the street, which side of the street would you rather be on?

If you saw a gang of thugs on one side of the street and a group of people toting “Candide” on other side of the street, which side of the street would you rather be on?