As a parent you are responsible for the well being and happiness, health and welfare of your child. You have to feed and clothe them, teach them to be good people, and take them to school. These little lives, made in your image, depend on you to help them, hold them, shape them and mold them.
Frankly, it’s a real drag and it cuts into the time you could spend chasing college girls or getting drunk. This is why our culture has started to move away from it all. No longer a Christian nation, we now have alternatives. Options! More choices than the Christian west used to offer to the average man or woman.
Now, obviously I can’t speak for myself in these matters. As a Christian I am shackled to the religious constraints of selfless care and love for my children and spouse. God hates lies, so he expects me to keep the promises I made when I got married.
You atheists don’t have any idea what that is like.
You can break those vows anytime you wish, or just don’t make any vows at all! But let me tell you, swearing before GOD and man to love, honor, etc. is a heavy deal. And beyond that, God demands I care for and provide for my family. I mean, I have to be INVOLVED. It’s nothing but continuous responsibility. So believe me when I say I understand the appeal of Atheism. You have only your own primitive passions and innate desires to control you. You’re not only free from religion, you’re free from ANYTHING.
An atheist has no reason to get married, or stay married. An atheist has no reason to make vows or keep the vows they make. An atheist has no reason to have kids. Heck! You can LEGALLY have your children murdered by a professional baby killer before they are even born! Talk about an escape hatch! Baby gonna come along and take away your “Drunk at the strip club” time? Nope! Kill.. er, ABORT that little parasite.
Daddy needs a little more ME time.
But even in the event you do let them live, you have no real incentive to pay them more mind than you REALLY have to in order to keep them alive, and believe me when I say it isn’t much. Besides, your desire to care for and nurture your kids is just your DNA trying to replicate itself. It’s just as much a product of random mutations and natural selection as your eye color or ingrown toenails. I know it FEELS like your kids are valuable, but they are the same accidental, decaying matter as the rest of the universe- like that ’89 Buick Lesabre you have rusting away on cinder blocks in the side yard.
Your kids are only valuable if you decide they are valuable to YOU.
You make your own values! So, when parenting is hard, Atheism gives you some sound advice: BE SELFISH! Survival of the fittest can apply to your own family as well as to the rat race or the natural order. Let the little buggers fend for themselves. They know where the Cap’n Crunch and the tv remote are.
Why do the hard thing and parent unless it makes you happy? If you only live once! Why not focus on your own happiness even at the cost of your own kids or spouse or anyone else? As long as there is divorce, infidelity, abortion, and good old fashioned neglect, the American Atheist has lots of good alternatives to being a parent or spouse.
Why else would you cling to a lie as STUPID and indefensible as Atheism?
Please check us out at YouTube.com/ABitOfOrange
Thanks for liking and subscribing, and remember, #JesusLovesYou
You paint a very broad brush. You have no idea what kind of thoughtfulness and love there is in my home. Atheist and Catholics tied for the lowest divorce rates
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not painting anyone with any brush. I am merely pointing out the conflict between Atheism and anything which requires a moral code- between responsibility and survival of the fittest.
I don’t doubt that you and your family love each other. I merely point out that atheism offers no basis to give value to love or priority to your duties as a parent or spouse. On atheism, there is no good and evil, so the difference between loving your children or killing and eating them differs only in the normative evolutionary path our species has taken thus far, and the moral code AGAINST killing one’s children forced on western culture by the Biblical worldview. Other animals eat their young, why should YOU not do so if we are merely animals as Atheism claims?
Also, your love for each other is merely chemical brain states, such as being hungry. When you tell your children you love them, then if they were REALLY atheists, they ought to respond, “Oh, you are?”
Here’s my point- if you love your family and know that loving them is BETTER than killing and eating them, then you have already rejected Atheism. I believe you do love your family. I just want you to see that you are already rejecting atheism. After that, you may see that you have a heavenly father who loves you, and is waiting for you to come home.
Also, I refuse to accept the idea that “Atheist and Catholics tied for the lowest divorce rates.” Perhaps only because atheists are reluctant to get married in the first place. But please send me a reference if this is true, I am open to learning when I am wrong.
And, as always, thanks for reading and commenting. #JesusLovesYou
Atheist don’t kill and eat their young, and for the most part hold all others in higher regard than Christians. Funny, the basis of your arguments are bogey man atheists and it couldn’t be farther from the truth. Just a small stat I ran into. .07% to .2% of US prisoners are atheist. Interesting. As far as caring for your young and other creatures Christians are the ones interested in dominating everything and subduing it. All the elements and organisms and life forms have an inherent struggle, a hope if you will to survive, to carry on another day. This includes propagating each species. It is a natural phenomenon that does not need a bible and a god to direct. I’ve read the accounts of Christians bullying their way all over the historical world forcing conversion or death. It is a system that breeds misery and guilt upon all who cross its path.
Jim, you seem to be missing the point. I didn’t SAY that all atheists kill and eat their young. But answer me this: WHY NOT? Would it be EVIL?
The basis of my arguments are not some “bogey man atheists” as you claim here. The basis of my arguments are philosophical distinctions. I am making a philosophical argument ABOUT ATHEISM, not describing what I think ATHEISTS Are like. If you read more carefully I think you would see this to be the case. You are arguing against points I NEVER made. That’s called a Straw-man Fallacy.
Once again you claim a stat with no reference, which once again I reject without a resource to substantiate it, and once again I point out that it has NOTHING to do with the point I am making even if it was a substantiated fact. Read my posts again and you will never see me saying “People who claim to be Christians are BETTER PEOPLE and end up in jail LESS than people who claim to be Atheists.” And does your stat really show anything different than the population in general? Atheists are a tiny minority, and that is reflected in jail stats. OK. So what? Does this magically give Atheism an objective moral code? No, it does not. So I don’t know why you would bother bringing it up.
Also, you have NOT “read the accounts of Christians bullying their way all over the historical world forcing conversion or death” because this is what ISLAM does, not Christianity. The Christian church has always grown under persecution. When it becomes established, and is given time to be rich and comfortable, it wilts, as its doing in Europe right now. What you have read is either the popular trend of blaming the church for what Islam does under the ridiculous idea that ALL religions are the same, and so the sins of one is the sins of ALL- or you have been reading internet fiction. And this: “Christians are the ones interested in dominating everything and subduing it” is mindless name calling which is not worth correcting. Don’t waste my time building arguments on bogey man Christians when you know it couldn’t be farther from the truth.
(That’s called a “Call Back.” See, because you said something like that above, and then you DID the very thing you accused me (Falsely) of, and then I quoted you back to you, only… well, you get it. Call back.)
But back to my point, from the worldview of atheism, were I to force you to profess faith in the church or be beheaded, would that be EVIL?
Can an atheist claim ANYTHING is evil?
No. Atheism does not allow good or evil.
DO atheists call things good and evil?
YES, because they are not stupid enough to actually BE atheists.
My argument is based on the assumption that atheists are smarter and more moral than atheism.
Please read what I actually said before you go reacting to how you feel about what I said. It will make for a much better conversation.
This is ridiculously narrow. In the name of god your people slaughtered millions of indigenous people in the americas. Read those accounts before you cast a stone at Islam which is a brother religion to you Abrahamic
Jim, jim, jim…
1. False. In the search for GOLD, Europeans killed people- people who were themselves practicing human sacrifices on a regular basis. Find me a bible verse or a doctrine of the Church which commands Christians to kill for gold. It does not exist. Who is wearing blinders, Jim?
Your example is revisionist history built on an ignorance of what Christianity even is. Where the true church was involved, it brought civilization and education. Where the politicians were involved, I will not be accused of their crimes.
2. Only a very ignorant person will blame Christianity for EVERY sin ever committed by Europeans or people claiming the name “Christian.” Compare their deeds to the commands of Jesus- if a Christian fails to do as Christ commanded, how do you turn around and blame CHRISTIANITY for those who act UNCHRISTIAN? Christians are not perfect people, we are forgiven people. When we sin, we are proving that we needed to be forgiven. It is absurd for you to pretend that Christians sinning proves Christianity is evil, or somehow on the level of atheism, which has no basis on which to judge between evil and good.
3. And while very popular, it is just as ignorant to divorce Islam from Mohammed and his example and teaching. I have read enough Islamic sources about their founder and his writings, teaching, and example to know that when Islam spreads through the sword, it is doing as it was always commanded. Mohammed told his followers (and it is in the Koran) to subjugate unbelievers, convert them, or kill them. Jesus commanded his followers to pray for those who persecute them and to turn the other cheek. Who is wearing blinders here, Jim? You cannot link Islam to Christianity is any but the most superficial ways. Once again, your argument is based on ignorance and not truth.
4. Starting with the foundation of atheism, make the case that, even if it were true, “my people” “slaughtering millions of indigenous people in the americas” was WRONG- EVIL.
Because that is the whole point of the blog post you are responding to, and the arguments I have made, and the questions you have seemingly ignored.
Jim- is it wrong to slaughter millions of innocent people merely because they refuse to convert to your religion of choice? Is it EVIL?
HOW on Atheism could you condemn it- or anything- as EVIL?
Please stop trying to change the subject into some silly debate over evils committed in the name of the church, when my whole point is, YOU have no basis on which to call ANYTHING EVIL.
Once you can be an atheist and judge between objective good and evil, then you can be an atheist who condemns the church for her evils. Until then,
Jim- is it wrong to slaughter millions of innocent people merely because they refuse to convert to your religion of choice? Is it EVIL?
HOW on Atheism could you condemn it- or anything- as EVIL?
Can an atheist claim ANYTHING is evil?
No. Atheism does not allow good or evil.
DO atheists call things good and evil?
YES, because they are not stupid enough to actually BE atheists.
My argument is based on the assumption that atheists are smarter and more moral than atheism.
If you intend to defend atheism, then do so. Thus far you have not even tried.
By the way. I don’t have to prove anything. You do however have the burden of proof. I say their is nothing. You say their is something. Show me something tangeble to prove your myth and I will believe it. You have nothing but philosophical wordsmithing and hairsplitting elastic justification for your religions poor track record
Nope, if you reject the obvious truth of the Bible, then you are making the ridiculous claims and must offer extraordinary evidence.
I have all of science, history, and philosophy on my side. Atheism has… well, literally nothing.
Lol. You are funny. You claim there is a god. The burden is yours to prove it. I don’t have to prove there is nothing that I, you, they, we, or anybody can’t see. You can reason your way into the argument, but in the end you have nothing to show. You don’t know one thing. You have chosen to believe. Nothing more
Thanks Jim. I’m glad I can make you laugh, but, hey- looks aren’t everything.
And actually, you DO have the burden of proof. You are the one making the ridiculous claims.
YOU are claiming the universe made itself, life made itself, information can write itself with no author, and that the laws of physics and chemistry which cause an increase in ENTROPY actually cause an increase in COMPLEXITY and INFORMATION. That’s beyond absurd, so you have the burden of proof. You have to argue against ALL of established scientific laws. That’s a big burden of proof.
You are claiming to be a self, one unified, self aware mind, capable of logic and reason and discerning between good and evil- yet none of those things CAN be true if atheism were true, so you are making a ridiculous claim and you have the burden of proof. You have to argue against ALL know laws of logic. That’s a big burden of proof.
And I am asserting that you already know that God exists. You have already acknowledged much of a Biblical worldview and rejected much of an atheistic worldview. Which means, you have to argue against your own religious professions of faith. That’s a big burden of proof.
Or you can stop trying to defend the impossible, stop trying to avoid thinking about your own worldview, and just ask more good questions. I sincerely believe that you are not stupid enough to be an atheist. You need to believe that too.
Thanks for writing in. Let me know if you have questions. I’m here to help.
I get your point, but all you have for your proof is a book that claims itself true which is a nonsensical argument. It is also filled with things that are not true. Which ones are you selecting? I have no burden of proof whatsoever. The universe just is, and if I can’t explain in detail how that happened it doesn’t make you right based on a book that claims it’s right. The Quran does the same thing. And I don’t believe that either, but it would be just as valid if I did.
With all due respect Jim, you really should be asking questions and not making arguments if this is your level of understanding. I’m not trying to put you down, but you CLEARLY do not know the first thing about Biblical apologetics. I mean, “all you have for your proof is a book that claims itself true”? This is either a sorry Straw Man or you REALLY know NOTHING of the 2,000 years of answers given by the church- answers which go well beyond Biblical criticism and into history, archaeology, philosophy, and every branch of science. It was the church which gave birth to science and philosophy in the west for more than a thousand years, much of which is still accepted today even by secular scientists.
Its absolutely NOT true that having a book we claim to be true is ALL WE HAVE. And frankly, it’s not a bad starting place. What could you even claim was its weak point? That its written in book form or that we think it’s true?
But I suggest you stop by my homework resource site for a little taste of some of the answers we have to support and prove and defend the Biblical worldview. It’s here: https://abitoforangeacademy.wordpress.com/
Its a work in progress, but it covers a lot of different topics and is all material I have found useful in the past.
Yes, other religions claim to be true. Some people claim the earth is flat. Does the fact that we have two different models of the earth’s shape, both defended passionately by those who believe, prove that the earth HAS no shape? Or that there is no earth at all? Obviously not. Where two ideas conflict, either one is wrong or both are (depending on the argument). Claiming something is true does not make it valid. Refusing to believe it does not make it untrue. You must weigh the evidence for each and see if they stand or fall. Once again, I believe you are smart enough to do this, or I should not bother replying when you leave comments.
Check out the Academy and let me know if you have questions on any of the topics you discover. I am here to help.
And I will add, that no matter what you say, I know that nothing in religion ever worked. Prayer was never answered although we certainly did some hairsplitting to try and justify it, and the ambiguous conjecture never ends with faith. Every one else it’s doing it wrong. I know everyone on the planet could pray for a year, and not grow a limb on any amputees, or feed Burundi, or change the will of a “perfect god” that already knows your needs but fails to help, and that if he existed is a cruel god, capricious and uncaring that is going to destroy everyone that doesn’t bow down and worship him. He is the ultimate example of vanity.
1. You are wrong.
2. This is an emotional outburst which is not worth replying to.
3. Go do some homework.
4. Let me know what you learn.
Bartolome De Las Casas “A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies” and then get back to me. He was there. You wear blinders!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Atheists have no reason to get married? How discriminatory & frankly ignorant. It should be a crime to indoctrinate children into that sick [swear words]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greetings again, Amanda. You have told me how you FEEL, but do you have any REASON for your comments? If I am wrong, I’m open to learning.
And as always, thanks for reading and commenting.
I told you what I think actually. And yeah, my reason is common sense and decency haha. Only a theist would make such ridiculous discriminatory comments and actually expect to be taken seriously
LikeLiked by 3 people
You are not going to believe this, but I looked up “Hypocrisy” at Dictionary.com and I found this example statement: “Only a theist would make such ridiculous discriminatory comments.”
What are the odds? Here YOU are bashing “theists” – discriminating against all theists as being “ridiculous and discriminatory” and “lacking common sense and decency”, and there, in the dictionary… Well, I was surprised.
Sarcasm aside, you DO know that you didn’t explain, defend, or prove anything, right? You started off with name calling and when asked to defend your position you have stooped to MORE name calling.
You can see that, right?
What you said was, “Atheists have no reason to get married? How discriminatory & frankly ignorant. It should be a crime to indoctrinate children into that sick [swear words]” which offers NO defense of your position or even an attempt to debunk mine, and now you are doing more name calling.
You really have not told me what you think, you have only expressed how you FEEL. Please, if I am wrong, then explain HOW I am wrong. Point out my error so that I can learn. Show the fault in my logic and reason, or my dependence on false assumptions. But if all you can do is call me names, then you must realize at some level that you may hate what I said, but you also agree with me.
At least let that make you think.
You cant seriously be trying to defend the statement “atheists have no reason to get married”, that’s insanely absurd.
Marriage has existed for far longer than Christianity has.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, marriage predates Christianity, but NOT a relationship with the one true God. It was GOD who invented marriage back in Genesis. Marriage did not EVOLVE.
But then, neither did we.
And what I am defending is the idea that, if atheism is true, then marriage is meaningless, and if you REALLY believed Atheism, then you would have no reason to get married.
Feel free to make a case if you think I am wrong, by which I mean give logical reasons leading to a conclusion, not merely your emotional response to my statements.
There are religious marriage ceremonies, and there are all the other legal religious ceremonies.
Religious marriages are no less valid than atheist marriages. Marriage is a legal binding of finances and assets; When people are married they can visit each other in critical condition in the hospital, which unmarried couples cant do.
Religions have nothing to do with marriage until the couple introduces them to their marriage.
I would disagree. Atheism offers NO basis for objective morality of any kind. Thus, when two atheists make “vows” in an atheist marriage ceremony, neither of them has the slightest reason to even TRY to keep those vows. Its an empty and baseless gesture where in they pretend they have (and hope strongly that their intended has) Christian morality. But where the Bible says Do not lie, do not make promises in vain, do not commit adultery, atheism says NONE of those things. Of what value is a ceremony where two people pretend to make promises they have no reason to keep? What is an ATHEIST MARRIAGE but a lie two people share which the government pretends is valid- until they get divorced of course. Because it is almost easier to break those vows legally that to make them in the first place.
Also, if your definition of marriage, “Marriage is a legal binding of finances and assets” were true, then atheists would not have a ceremony with a white dress to celebrate what is essentially a business merger- and I would remind you that “married” couples can and often do have separate finances, legal rights to certain assets, checking and savings accounts, ownership of large items, etc. Do you suggest that no married woman can own a car which is not legally ALSO owned by her husband? You know this definition is a lie.
And the idea that marriage should be perverted so two people can see each other in the hospital is absurd. First, because it destroys a sacred institution, and second because I think anyone with half a brain could realize that your problem is not with the definition of marriage as instituted by God, but with hospitals being strangely restrictive. If this is truly a concern, then why not change the hospital policies? Its a ridiculous red herring to claim that this validates the perversion of marriage.
Marriage is a sacred institution designed by God to join one man to one woman for a lifetime of becoming one- as we were made in his image, we do not complete the image until we are joined in marriage. It is not merely a state recognized legal condition. But as an atheist, you have no basis for anything to have meaning and value, so the best you can do is have a powerful and heavily armed organization like a government force other people to pretend that your imagined definitions and values are real under threat of punishment. An atheist marriage is a lie the government forces ME to pretend is true at the point of a gun.
And while I could go further into detail about these matters, I would like you to consider the fact that you have failed to actually address the content of the article you are leaving a comment under. I would suggest, in the future, you try to stay on topic. Just a suggestion, but one I find a lot of content creators appreciate.
thanks again for stopping by.
Atheism and religions have nothing to do with morality.
Morality is something we conceptualized and live by, religious or not.
So, you think morality is a self inflicted delusion? And yet you feel justified in condemning people for killing and eating animals? Aren’t you saying, “MY Imagination is RIGHT and you should live according to MY pretend world!”? I feel you are dodging the issue and not addressing it. Please try explaining your position in a full paragraph so I can understand it instead of in these emotional bumper stickers. You aren’t communicating anything of substance here, and I really would like to understand your worldview because, in all honesty, right now I simply do not.
People have conceptualized morality for millions of years and as we have evolved our ideas of morality have evolved with us.
Different societies evolve at different paces, which is why the laws are different in different countries.
People vote on laws based on their own concept of morality, which the general public agrees on and the law continues to be updated over time to reflect this.
Greetings again Amanda, thanks for trying to answer my questions.
I do need to delve further though-
1. Even accepting evolution, which I do not, the human race is only one or two hundred thousand years old. How do you propose that we “have conceptualized morality for millions of years” when we have not EXISTED for millions of years?
2. If morals “evolve” then they change. This means they are not objective, but exist only for a while and then become something else. So why then do you think it Morally wrong to kill and eat animals, or to treat them cruelly, or anything else, when your own morality is merely a fleeting and unpopular piece of a constantly changing ethic? Why is YOUR morality right when not only do others exist, but ALL morality is evolving? Even if EVERYONE accepted YOUR morality today, in the future they would all believe something totally different, if you are right. If everyone accepted your morals and became kind to animals tomorrow, but over time our children and grandchildren grew to love causing animals pain merely for sport, would they be moving away from TRUE goodness, or merely evolving a new “goodness”?
3. If laws determine what is good, then you would agree that owning black people was “good” a hundred and fifty years ago. And of course, killing and eating animals is legal in every country on earth with few exceptions. And in Islamic nations, the law treats women as second class citizens who, in some places, are not allowed to leave the house without the permission of father or husband, and are not allowed to legally own property, and if they are raped, they- the women victims- are punished under those laws. Do you agree that these practices are all “good” because they are supported by legislation and enforced by governments? If your grandchildren passed laws making it legal to cause animals pain for sport, would this be “Good”?
I think if you really consider all of the facts, you will see that some things- rape, murder, slavery- are actually evil and bad no matter what laws or opinions support them. And some things- kindness, generosity, freedom- are really good no matter what laws go against them. I think you will see that this is a fact of the universe which you know firsthand, and would agree too unless you are debating some matter of ethics or policy.
But given the fact of real objective good and evil, you must also see that evolution and atheism offer no basis for their existence. REAL morality cannot evolve, or it is not real morality. Rape and murder do not BECOME evil over time and cannot become GOOD over time, just as kindness and compassion did not become good over time and cannot become gradually more and more evil over time. God has given us a sense of goodness because we are made in his image. Without God, there is no GOOD, just as in a universe with no light there is no YELLOW or BLUE.
God commands us to care for his creation- meaning to be kind to our animals and care for the environment. Evolution does not. Survival of the fittest does not command us to be kind to puppies. It tells us to kill them before they can kill us.
I really don’t have time or patience to debate with people who dont understand how cringey and autistic it is to deny evolution and claim the human race is 2 thousand yrs old.
That’s mega cringe, you might want to go look for that gradeschool education you misplaced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You wouldn’t be the first person to lose patients with me. And apparently you also don’t have the time to look up the evolutionary timeline which says we evolved from chimps between 1 and 2 hundred thousand years ago. Or the Biblical timeline which says God created around 6,000 years ago.
If you going to tell someone they’re an idiot, it could be worth a Google.
And frankly, I don’t appreciate you hating on the autistic like that. Autistic people are different, but they are not a synonym for STUPID. I would respectfully ask that you merely call me an idiot like other atheists do.
But maybe we can both be thankful that you stopped by my blog to educate me. Surely if I am starting at a grade school level, then you must have MUCH to teach me. I would ask that you start by answering the questions I have already asked you about your worldview. I am very much interested in your responses. This may be the first time I have had the opportunity to discuss matters with an animal rights believer, and there is much I have always wanted to know. I really do consider this a great opportunity. So, if you could overlook the cringe, and please go back and answer the questions I have sent already, I would appreciate it.
Let me know if I need to clarify any of my questions. I’m here to help.
Marriage has existed far longer than Christianity and all the other Abrahamic religions.
Marriage is a legal thing that some people choose to include religion in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is true. I know this because God creates marriage in Genesis chapters 1-3. But this doesn’t answer any of my questions or defend any of your points.
I am making a philosophical argument ABOUT ATHEISM, not describing what I think ATHEISTS Are like
I read these philosophical arguments a lot. Though they are almost never prefaced as such, so I wonder whether they’re not intended as atheist-bait (or bash?) instead 😛
I’m sorry, but even if I take the philosophy bait, the question I haven’t gotten a reasonable answer to yet remains.
If this is what atheists should act like, why don’t they?
If these are the tenets of their worldview, why are their actions in such contrast?
Elephants should trample people and houses and anything in their way on a regular basis, because they can, and because there’s no compelling reason for them not to. Sometimes they even have good reasons.
But they don’t.
Sure, we could argue philosophically about elephants being able to flatten villages galore. Might be fun,
Or we could examine what elephants are actually like.
Also fun, and much more interesting.
Not bashing ATHEISTS, my friend. Atheism. It is the ISM which is stupid, not the people who have been fooled into thinking it acceptable. At least, not exclusively. I think we all have our stupid, and maybe every one of us on any given day, but I have never said Atheists are all EVIL or STUPID. Mainly, I think they are lazy agnostics who need to do more homework. Arguments about morality are NOT based on the idea that Christians are more moral, but only that all of us have the same basic understanding of morality, the knowledge that good and evil exist. However, ATHEISM does not even ALLOW for morality to exist, and thus no atheist is actually foolish enough to be an atheist. They are already borrowing from the Biblical worldivew, they simply don’t realize it. My aim is to help them see that they are NOT atheists- they are not stupid and evil enough to be atheists.
And if I may confess something- I think watching elephants flatten a village would be fun to watch. This is due to my imagination being its own cartoon network, and also because, like every one else, part of me is evil and uncaring. But that’s how we know we need to be saved from our sins. That’s how we know we need Jesus.
To see more on an examination of atheism (and maybe elephants) please see the Atheism playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9H1r9fw21g5hEYJfyxxHm4-yGhpyFc9_
and thanks for reading.
(A-)- lack of.
Theism- belief in god(s).
Atheism- lack of belief in god(s).
Atheism means nothing more or less. It’s not any more of a choice than anything else you may believe in.
While most atheists are areligious, there are some who are religious. While most atheists do not believe in absolute morals, the majority of them are capable of compassion, just like any Christian. There are several arbitrary traditions that most areligious atheists still engage in despite their roots in religion, such as marriage.
Some atheists don’t think of themselves as such! Some atheists were just never made to adopt a religion or god growing up and never felt the need to do so.
Not every theistic person is religious, either, nor does every religious person share the same values as Christians.
Your entire assessment of atheists relies on a misunderstanding about what atheism is.
For the sake of the following argument, let’s assume that you had irrefutable proof that no gods exist and that religious were absolute truths. How would you behave?
Would you suddenly stop valuing the lives of the people around you? Would you stop loving the people you claimed to love when you were still religious and theistic? Would you lose the ability to empathize?
If not, why don’t you provide atheists with the same benefit of the doubt? In that scenario, you’d be an areligious atheist by definition and you would have proven that you don’t need a god nor objective morality to care about others and think critically about why you do the things you do. Everything you do and feel will be according to your own values, which aren’t going to just change at the drop of a hat simply because it’d net you some sort of benefit.
If you would suddenly stop caring about the life of other humans, then it’s not because you became an atheist, it’s because you were already an inconsiderate person at best or a malicious sociopath at worst, who was being kept in check by their fear of what God would do to you if you didn’t follow his rules.
We’re not a bunch of dumb animals that need to be constantly told what to do or how to feel.
Thank you for your comment.
In short, I have never asserted the idea that atheists are all murderous racists. The point I make is that ATHEISM is a stupid religion with no basis for morality, and I make this point to show that NO ONE is stupid enough to be an atheist, as I have confidence that you know murder is evil, rape is evil, lies are evil, etc. The entire argument hinges on the idea that self-professing “Atheists” are NOT actually atheists because they know better. But because they know better, they are already rejecting atheism and embracing a Biblical worldview- they just don’t realize it yet. That is what I am trying to help you see.
To learn what atheism is in detail, what its orthodoxy is, and why it is actually too stupid for anyone to believe, as well as several detailed explanations as to why your definition of “atheism” fails, please see the Atheism playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9H1r9fw21g5hEYJfyxxHm4-yGhpyFc9_
And thanks for watching!
Explain how atheism is a religion. You just state things like they are facts, you never back them up.
Hey Dude Spew,
I already did a long sarcastic reply about how you’re just proving yourself to be lazy, ignorant and impatient, so this time I’m just going to show you how easy it is to find me actually backing up the things I say when you venture outside of the one article you decided to read for four whole minutes:
There’s a book called “Answering Atheism” with a whole section called “The Religion of Atheism.”
It’s free. Enjoy.
And, again, maybe take a minute to look around before you criticize me for not backing up my position. You might find I’ve written a whole book about it which I’ve made available for free on this very website, at the top of EVERY SINGLE PAGE, under “Free Books”.
It is always wondrous to note that “atheists” (particularly ‘internet “atheists”‘) STILL (choose to) miss the point when the moral argument is forwarded and perpetuate the same old strawmen and red herrings in lieu of addressing said argument.
I wonder this myself- I wonder it about a great many things. Because it REALLY seems like some people must be forcing themselves to not understand an argument sometimes, doesn’t it? Many people suggest the problem goes beyond intellectual and into something more demonic. They allow the evil to cloud their eyes so they CAN’T see the truth because they REFUSE to see it.
All we can do it speak the truth in love and pray for them.
And occasionally make fun of dumb.
thanks for your comments!
Hi, A Bit of Orange. Your post was incredibly off the mark. Please spend some time actually listening to atheists sometime. I’d be more than happy to answer your questions. But maybe some conversation starters? Atheists have more reason to be good than the religious. Fundamental Christians get divorced more than atheists. The “bible belt” is also known as the abortion belt, teen pregnancy belt, HIV belt, STD belt, welfare belt, and gay porn belt. Therefore, statistically fundamentally Christian communities are doing a worse job at raising their kids than the less religious communities. And countries that are over 80% atheists have the best societal health scores including low teen pregnancies, low abortions, higher education, higher income, and access to health care. Pick whichever.
Greetings Spartan Atheist!
First, thanks for sending me your thoughts.
Second, I disagree with all of your proposed statistics. If you are trying to claim that there is some correlation between normative Christianity and an increase in abortion, STDs, divorce, etc, then you are NOT using actual facts, but what is now known as “Fake News.”
3rd, and most important as pertains to the article to which you are responding, none of that matters. EVEN IF your fake stats were TRUE stats, it would not matter at all to the point I am making. The point of the article is NOT that Atheists are bad parents and fail at marriage and Christians are better at both.
The point is that ATHEISM is a religion which offers NO objective standards of morality, and thus ANYTHING is permissible. The kind of behavior which is necessary to be a good husband and father is demanded by scripture- love my wife, do not cheat on her, be kind but firm to my children and teach them to do what is right. Atheism offers no reason to make ANY vows, let alone to KEEP those vows. Why would an atheist NOT cheat on his wife? Or watch gay porn? Or do drugs or kill his neighbor and eat him with a white wine sauce and side of steamed vegetables? Whatever reasons an atheist has to love his wife and kids and NOT kill his neighbor are reasons NOT offered by atheism.
I actually say all of this in the article. Perhaps you should just read it again- a little more carefully this time- and then give me your thoughts.
But the point you have inadvertently made is that atheism is too stupid to be believed. It MATTERS TO YOU that lies, murder, infidelity, and other abuses are wrong. You know that keeping vows is right and being unfaithful is wrong. You know that loving your neighbor is clearly right and killing and eating him is clearly wrong. YOU already know that these points of Christian/Biblical morality are right- not just a preferred flavor of the month, but actually true and good. What you have failed to see, or perhaps what you choose not to see, is that Atheism offers NO support for these things you know to be true. But Biblical Christianity does. You have already made a great argument for the existence of the true God. Otherwise, it would be MEANINGLESS to claim that “Christian communities are doing a worse job at raising their kids than the less religious communities,” because there would be no better or worse! Without a standard, there is no good or bad, and nothing can be better or worse. without GOD there is no good, just as in a universe without light there is no red, blue or green. Because you know some things ARE better and other things worse, you have already rejected Atheism.
Now, be brave enough to follow the logic where it leads you. You will find yourself walking down a well trodden path where many former atheists have already walked back to Jesus.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Interesting concept. So, first, a little correction. Atheism is not a religion, it is not having a religion. It means I don’t think there is a God. There is absolutely nothing else to atheism.
So you’re right that atheism doesn’t tell me to be good or bad or what those mean, because atheism is not a religion, a worldview, a set of principles, nothing. Atheism has nothing.
If you’re expecting atheism to give you a reason to be good, that explains why you’re so confused.
Maybe you’d be interested in why we actually are good. I’ll be happy to share.
Greetings again SPARTAN!
I understand your position, but I happen to know it is mistaken. Don’t feel bad- it is a very common mistake. I clarify your religion for you here in this helpful video: https://youtu.be/3nPUUbQlji0
Of course, you will probably answer that, you don’t personally embrace all of the Core Tenets of orthodox atheism, and I would not expect you to. Atheism is a religion too stupid for most people to believe, and that is why they cherry pick the little parts they like and then pretend that those beliefs are isolated and have no resultant, logical demands. For instance, you say, “Maybe you’d be interested in why we actually are good.” But Atheism offers you no ability to even DEFINE “Good.” Like a universe with no light doesn’t have YELLOW, a universe without the God of the Bible has no GOOD. It’s nonsense. Saying you are GOOD is like saying you have more unicorns than I have, when we both know you don’t believe unicorns exist. It’s absurd and meaningless.
What I suspect you are doing is rejecting what you call Religion- meaning a set of beliefs which accepts the existence of the God of the Bible- but maintaining the obvious moral law we all know to designate good from evil. But like I said, saying you know good from evil in a universe without God is like saying you would recognize Yellow in a universe without light. But of course you DO know good from evil. I don’t doubt that at all. What you need to see is that, in recognizing the truth that there really IS good and evil, you have already begun rejecting Atheism. This means you are, by most definitions, an Agnostic. Now you need to make the effort to find out who God is.
I can save you a lot of time and tell you he is the God of the Bible- Jesus Christ. Or you can go on the search yourself.
I suggest starting here: https://abitoforangeacademy.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/the-existence-of-god/
And let me know if I can be of any help.
Orange, you’re killing me here. Tell me, what do people that don’t believe in Bigfoot have to guide their morality?
Belief in Bigfoot has nothing to do with morality. You are changing the subject rather drastically here. I mean, aside from a few blurry photos, I can see that belief in Big foot is like belief in Atheism, because they are both emotionally important to people but have no solid evidence or reason to defend that faith, but even if there was evidence for Atheism or Bigfoot, that would not make murder wrong, which you know it is. Once again, the point is that you KNOW things which are incompatible with Atheism. You have already rejected Atheism. In the words of a recent Disney princess/Jr Sith Lord, “Let it go.”
I don’t mean to be killing anyone my dear SPARTAN. I just like to stay focused on the point, and the point is YOU know that evil and good are real things, and you can see the difference between them. I am not forced to prove that to you. But you must see that Atheism cannot account for objective right and wrong, just as a universe with no light cannot account for YELLOW. If you admit YELLOW, then your hypothesis that light does not exist is already wrong.
That’s all I am trying to say.
No, you completely missed my point. If I do NOT believe in bigfoot, what can you determine about my morality?
Your point is, so it seems, to avoid all of my main points. Well, two can play at that game. So, I shall also drastically change the subject as well.
YOU my Spartan friend, have completely missed the point of Pascal’s wager. John Branyan posted some of your comments from a recent dialogue you had with him (sort of) and I don’t know what you are thinking of, but it’s not Pascal’s Wager. First of all, because the wager is NOT an example of a classic argument for the existence of God. It isn’t intended to be an argument for the existence of God at all. Its meant to show the rationality of examining Christian theism and for rejecting Atheism. That’s why its called Pascal’s WAGER and not Pascals ARGUMENT. Also, You call it a false dichotomy, which means you are thinking of something else, as Pascal actually offers FOUR options, thus making it IMPOSSIBLE for it to be a false dichotomy. Mathematically speaking.
I explain it here: https://rentafriend2000.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/pascals-duck-in-a-box-wager/
Also, I think it would do you good to go back and read not only your exchange with JB but also your exchange with me and subsequent avoiding of my main points. I think you may start to see that you are dodging the issues at hand and forcing yourself into DEBATE MODE, meaning you are more interested in winning a point where you can than accepting the truth. Your comment about “we don’t know what NOTHING may be capable of doing” is more than example enough of that.
I would suggest that- first, you change your fake internet name. When you have the word “atheist” in your name, you already have stuck yourself into a corner with no way out, and besides that you lower the expectations others have of you in terms of rational discourse. I’m not trying to be rude, but when I see a fake internet name with the word “Atheist” in it, I tend to think I am going to face a pile of logical fallacies and all of the swears because in the past that is exactly what I have experienced. And I feel like you HAVE to do that, because if you really follow the logic where it leads, you will be forced to change your fake name anyway once you see how asinine and indefensible Atheism actually is. I say, save yourself the time and trouble and give yourself the breathing room to really allow yourself to think critically by changing your name to something less on the nose- maybe something like a color or a fruit… I’m sure not all of the good ones are taken.
and if you wish to respond to anything I have said of substance in our previous dialogue and not go changing the subject every time it seems as if I have said something, I would be happy to pick it up where I left off. But if you’re going to be the kind of atheist who claims there is no evidence for God’s existence by VIOLENTLY changing the subject every time evidence is presented, then to be honest, I am not all that interested. On the internet, that kind of atheist is a dime a dozen and most of them have the word “Atheist” in their fake internet name. This is the voice of experience talking.
Let me know what you decide.
No, I was trying to keep the conversation from getting overly confusing, which happens when one side brings up 47 different points. I was trying to stick to one.
I don’t believe in God. From that statement alone, you know nothing at all about where I get my moral compass. You know nothing at all what I believe. And you have absolutely no idea if I’m the kind of person that keeps my commitments, and why. Atheism has one tenant and one tenant alone- we don’t believe in God.
Everything you say after about what we believe or do or how we make decisions is therefore made up in your head, and as your article demonstrates, not in line with reality.
That is my point.
In terms of dodging the issues I brought up:
1. I shared with you a link to a video I made which shows the 15 Core tenets of Orthodox Atheism. If you can argue that I am mistaken, I am open to hearing how, but until then You have been told what Atheism is. It is nonsense to say you have only ONE tenet when I have proven that your one Tenet necessarily is followed LOGICALLY by 14 others. Merely pretending it is not so does not make it go away. But I suppose I could say the same for the one tenet we agree on, but I digress.
2. We have agreed that you have a moral compass- you know right from wrong. And thus I have argued along the lines of the classic “Moral Argument for God’s existence” that you already are rejecting Atheism and accepting the existence of the God of the Bible, without whom there can BE no morals. You wanted to talk instead about bigfoot. So, this is where you will remember you tried to tell John Branyan that there are no arguments/evidence for the existence of God. This is where I claim that, having been given some evidence which you yourself have first hand experience, you shout “LOOK OVER THERE! Is that Big Foot? Let’s talk about that!” And then you continue saying that there is no evidence for God’s existence. Or at least that is what it looks like from here.
3. You claim not to believe in God. I may not know YOUR moral compass from that statement, but I know a few things. I know atheism leads, logically, to other necessary tenets of faith, many of which I believe you are smart enough to reject. I know that Atheism has NO foundation for morality, where as you know right and wrong to be real things. Thus, I know you are in error to call yourself an atheist. You are a better and smarter person than that.
4. If you are going to claim that everything I say is merely in my head and does not line up with reality, you have the onus of proof, and I am willing to be taught. Show me my errors and I shall recant.
But if we’re going to talk about Bigfoot, I am going to have some indication that it has SOMETHING to do with the arguments I have already made, because, as I stated before, it looks like yet another person with “atheist” in his made up internet name suddenly shouting “Look over there!” and heading for an escape hatch so he can avoid acknowledging actual evidence for the existence of God so that he can continue saying things like, “There is no evidence for the existence of God.” And I say this because of years of experience. Don’t take it personally. Merely take it as an indication of what my experience has been and also an opportunity to self examine. Its healthy to do every now and then.
Wow, and I just watched your video. You have some severe logical gaps there. I’ll wait on that until we get through this other stuff.
Well, don’t bother leaving any comments on my YouTube channel. I haven’t waded through those in months.
Send them here, or send me an email. If you really think I have erred in logic, I would like to hear about it.
I’d love to discuss this, but let’s stick to one at a time. I commented on the morality thread, we’ll start there.
Argh. One topic at a time please. We’re already typing over each other. Your pick. Which one of your amaze-balls arguments would you like to discuss.
Confining a discussion is a wise move. The topic you initially addressed and I replied to was about morality.
You said, “Maybe you’d be interested in why we (atheists) actually are good.” But Atheism offers you no ability to even DEFINE “Good.” Like a universe with no light doesn’t have YELLOW, a universe without the God of the Bible has no GOOD. It’s nonsense. Saying you are GOOD is like saying you have more unicorns than I have, when we both know you don’t believe unicorns exist. It’s absurd and meaningless.
What I suspect you are doing is rejecting what you call Religion- meaning a set of beliefs which accepts the existence of the God of the Bible- but maintaining the obvious moral law we all know to differentiate good from evil. But like I said, saying you know good from evil in a universe without God is like saying you would recognize Yellow in a universe without light.
But of course you DO know good from evil. I don’t doubt that at all. What you need to see is that, in recognizing the truth that there really IS good and evil, you have already begun rejecting Atheism. This means you are, by most definitions, an Agnostic. You know God may exist. Now you need to make the effort to find out who God is.
Spoiler: He is Jesus Christ.
Whoa, Orange! Slow your roll, please, sir. I offered to discuss with you. If I wanted a lengthy sermon, I would go to church. If you are interested, a very simple yes will suffice. If you are only interested in preaching, this conversation will steer in a totally different and useless direction. What say you, kind sir?
Orange, since you seem adamant to move on before we have any agreement on the first point, I’m willing, begrudgingly to post this second comment in a row. I am not skipping the first point, but you did ask for me to address your points, and I will try.
I don’t get my morality from God. Good does not come from God. And as you have pointed out, good does not come from atheism, since atheism is not a belief system or list of tenants or anything but a disbelief in God.
Where, then, do I get my morality? Well, lets do a thought experiment. I dont believe in god so I know my answer. IF, you found out tomorrow that there was no god beyond a doubt, and it was completely evident, would you turn around and kill your children? (I’m assuming. If you dont have children, please substitute with someone close to you)
Of course my answer is no and I assume yours would be as well. Because I love my children, I would never harm them.
God somehow infused that in me, you say? Then why do birds also protect their children from harm? Why do rats? Why do dolphins? Did God also fuse morality in to chickens?
If I’m wrong, correct me, but I’ll assume no souls in chickens.
So animals so varying degrees of moral metrics. Sympathy, compassion, empathy. Hell, rats will starve themselves if another rat can’t eat. That’s a friend! And yet, I assume, you don’t think we would have morality without a god somehow specially informing us of said morality. I submit that we are more mentally developed than rats and chickens.
Greetings again SPARTAN!
(I think SPARTAN is a word which deserves to be in all caps.)
I understand where you are coming from, and of course it makes sense to acknowledge the various innate behaviors which we share with animals that, when done by humans, we call GOOD. Yes, we have a herd instinct which makes us want to protect our young, and even other members of our kind. I don’t deny that we have some innate motivation such as these, but what I am arguing is that such behaviors are not, on Atheism, actually GOOD, just as, on Atheism, you would not say hammer head sharks are EVIL for not raising their young. They are not wicked deadbeats who we look down on because they leave their young to fend for themselves. They are merely dancing to their DNA.
And I do not doubt that you love your children, but if it is merely your DNA directing your actions, then loving your children is no more GOOD than the sharks abandonment of their children is EVIL. On atheism, you love your children for the same reason your hair and eyes are a particular color- because your DNA has made it so. It is not because your children have an innate value which you recognize, nor that your parenting is of a high value and is directed by some authority above you. You are not a loving father made in the image of a loving father- you are an animal whose DNA has a herd instinct built in. You love your children just as you may have a taste for a well cooked steak. You care for your children merely for the same reason bees build hives and make honey. Not because it is good, but because they have to. Just as your computer screen shows you these words because it has to.
In fact, on atheism what is love? It is a particular chemical brain state which is no more true or valuable than any other, even if it results in a survival value for the species as a whole. Love is a feeling caused by chemicals, just as any feeling is. You feel love for the same reason your toaster toasts a pop tart- because given the right external stimuli, you had no choice. Your machinery is more complex than a toaster, but the result is the same. No free will, no choices, only action and reaction according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Can any action of a toaster be considered GOOD or EVIL? Why not? And if not, why can yours?
So, if I were to become an atheist tomorrow, would I kill my children? No, of course not. But I might kill someone. Why should I not? Famous rapist/murderer/cannibal Jeffery Dahmer made the same argument which is made by popular atheists all of the time- because he believed that there was no God- no authority, no moral law- then ANYTHING was permissible. And so he acted out on his feelings, just as you act out on yours. Your feelings direct you to care for your children, his directed him to rape, kill, and eat other young men. Why was HIS behavior EVIL? What basis does Atheism have for calling ANY act EVIL? Why are SOME feelings and actions GOOD and others EVIL? Where is the moral law that differentiates between good and evil, and who is the law giver if not God?
If we are merely animals, then yes we have a heard instinct, but we are evolving. Friedrich Nietzsche believed we would evolve OUT of morality and become a species who could act on will alone, unrestrained by conscience or ethics or even law. If we have evolved FROM such creatures, as Atheism tend to teach, then why could we not evolve INTO such men? And if we did, would loving and caring for your children still be GOOD even if you did not FEEL it was? Even if no one on earth did?
Chickens have no souls. Chickens also will eat other chickens if they are hungry. Rats will eat other rats. If I kill and eat your children, would that be EVIL? Of course it would be. But WHY? Clearly it would show that I lack Sympathy, compassion, empathy. But I’m also nearsighted. My brother doesn’t have a functioning pancreas and my wife has no spleen. Why does the lack of ONE normal feature- normal only in this tiny part of our evolutionary journey I may add- get labeled as EVIL when others do not? And why does the normal presence of Sympathy, compassion, empathy make them GOOD? Are they not also determined by our DNA just as our eye color is? Why are behavioral norms GOOD when normal physical features are not GOOD or EVIL? Or do you think a race of man is EVIL because it is in the minority? I should suspect not- but then why behaviors such as cannibalism? Chickens eat Chickens. Why should we not eat each other if we are just animals?
And aside from the herd instinct that tells us to care for others, we have instincts for self preservation. But who do we hold up as heroes but those people who CHOOSE the one over the other? In fact, don’t we value that ONE choice over the other? When someone lets others die to keep himself alive, we don’t merely say, “His instinct for self preservation is clearly stronger than his herd instinct.” We call him a coward. We say he was selfish. But if we have competing instincts, then the choice to pick one over the other cannot BE one of the two competing instincts. And it is not merely the winning of the stronger instinct over the weaker, as we often have to make ourselves IGNORE the stronger one on purpose so that we can follow the weaker. I would run into a burning building to save my daughter, not because I lack a self preservation instinct, but because I would choose to ignore my self preservation. It is because we can CHOOSE between instincts and know right from wrong that HUMANS can do good or bad when animals cannot. Chickens are nor evil murderers when they eat other chickens. They are merely following the strongest instinct they have at the moment. They can do no other. We can, and not only CAN, but SHOULD. But that SHOULD cannot come from within us. It comes from ABOVE us.
In short, you know Good from Evil, not merely because God issued commands telling you not to kill and steal, but because he has made you in his image. He says he has written his law on our hearts. Without a law maker, there are no laws. Without a moral law, there is nothing outside of our individual selves to differentiate between good and evil. But we Do know good from evil. Thus, there must be a moral law on the basis of which to judge. And thus there must be a law maker, and only God could be that Law maker. You DO get your morality from God, and Good MUST come from God, or it is nothing. Pretending you have invented your own moral framework is like pretending you had no parents from which to inherit your eye color. Saying certain acts are good or evil with no divine authority to give us moral law is like arguing that certain words are spelled wrong where there is no dictionary. It is absurd and meaningless. It becomes a hallow word game. But we know better. We know that loving our children really IS good. And thus, Atheism must be false, and the Bible true.
I hope I have made my position clear and not muddied the waters. Let me know if you require any clarification, and of course, feel free to explain your position further.
Lol! THIS. IS. SPARTA! I like it in all caps.
Basically, for the most part of your reply, we seem to have a common agreement. Yes, animals can be generally good or bad, and if there is no god and we get our morals from a more developed brain, we would still have some morals, but no conclusive definition of good or bad. Or good and evil. Did I get that right?
Uh… It’s been a few weeks here, but I have to say No. I am NOT saying that animals can be good or bad. I am saying that animals do not choose between actions. Animals are, in a simple sense, machines following their programming. If God does not exist, then we are just another animal and we also do not really choose between options available to us but are machines obeying our programming just as your toaster does.
One toaster is set low and makes warm bread. Another is set high and makes charcoal briquettes. One man is set to compassion and helps the poor. Another is set to racist and murders a bunch of people for having a higher concentration of melanin than he does. Calling one man good and the other evil is just as absurd as calling one toaster “good” and the other “evil” if God does not exist.
What we would have, on atheism, is trends. Statistically, more people are opposed to rape and murder than are in favor of them (At least in the west). Similarly, more people are in favor of Marvel movies than Adam Sandler films. More people are in favor of eating chickens than are in favor of eating worms, roaches, or other people.
I hate cats. I hate radishes. If I could get enough people to agree with me, would owning a cat or eating radishes become “Evil”? Is there a number, or a percentage of the population which you would accept as enough to make MY feelings about cats and radishes MORALITY? If not then why do we consider a prohibition against murder to be a MORAL issue? Why would ANY issues be MORAL issues?
Without God we have feelings for or against certain things, including behaviors. Without God we cannot have objective morals. Morals need a standard outside of ourselves. With no God as the standard of righteousness, we have 7 billion people arguing about what flavors of ice cream are the GOOD ones and which are the BAD ones. But its meaningless unless God exists.
And this comes back to the argument- you and I both know that good and evil DO EXIST. There is objective morality. There is a standard above us and outside of us. Therefore, we agree that the God of the Bible is real and has put his law on our hearts, even though we choose to rebel against it.
So that’s the argument from toasters, radishes and ice cream for God’s existence. An old one, but I think it still works.
Cats are evil. Thats just an objective fact and I concur.
Lets try it this way. Chickens and rats show empathy. They aren’t just toasters with a binary function. Their brains are advanced computers. Even though they don’t do poetry, their brains are making millions of calculations all the time. Comparing a chicken to a toaster is just wrong, and I think you’re intentionally trying to downplay the mental capabilities of other species. Birds make millions of adjustment in flight that we were only able to reproduce by computers in my lifetime. Plus their eyes are vastly superior to ours, and they require massive cognitive processing to identify, strategize, close on, and kill prey. And I can’t underestimate rats enough. A rat will starve itself to death…. To DEATH…. if another rat is starving and not allowed to eat.
I’m not saying animals can write comic tragedies, but to pretend they’re just stupid machines is to completely turn a blind eye to the wonder of nature. They are fantastically amazing in their ability, usually abilities we have no hope of matching.
So are animals good or bad? If good means anything at all, it is processing information and choosing actions beneficial to the group. Chickens do this. They make a decision. It is a simple decision, but it’s a decision.
So, again, trying to keep these short, it does us no good to move on unless we can agree. I say animals choose moral behavior that can be called good. And also bad. But that metric is there in a primitive fashion. This is demonstrably correct, so I hope we can concur on this point before we move forward.
Not much to add here but this:
1. Mythbusters accidentally proved that hungry rats will eat each other. Chickens will too. (I can’t help picturing one of them suddenly popping up mid cannibalism and declaring, “ErmaGRESH! We taste like CHICKEN!”)
2. On atheism, allowing ones self to starve to death so others can live is not “good”- because there is no good. It is a behavior influenced by DNA which, in an evolutionary sense, makes an individual less fit and likely to be weeded out by natural selection. This will lead to the extinction of your genetic kind as the rat eating rats take over. You try to define GOOD by saying “it is processing information and choosing actions beneficial to the group.” But WHY? Why, if atheism is true, does the group matter so that serving them even with self sacrifice is GOOD? Certainly that is a Biblical concept which I and all of Western culture agree with, but on atheism is seems indefensible. Why should I not sacrifice MILLIONS so that I may live, just as I do when I take an antibiotic? Or as humans do when we eat chickens? Because we are the same species? On atheism, bacteria and chickens and humans are all the same accidental byproduct of nature with no value or purpose. The difference between us is the unguided evolutionary path our ancestors took- so why should I allow myself to die for you and a million others when I am willing to kill billions of bacteria so I have less pressure in my sinuses? On atheism, self sacrifice is no more good or bad than cannibalism where by I feed my tribe by killing yours. And yet, you know that self sacrifice for the greater good IS GOOD. It is heroic and brave. But to admit that is to reject atheism.
3. Either way, behavior is just that. On atheism there is no free will by which to choose, and no absolute standard by which to judge behaviors as right or wrong. I can say the rat who allows himself to starve is evil because he (Or rather the DNA which makes him behave that way) will cause the extinction of members of his species who make the same choice. After all, the rat who chooses to starve (And never again to reproduce) is leaving behind a rat who chooses to eat and allow him to starve. On that, we can argue that people who rape are good because they increase their chances of spreading their genes, which is the purpose of evolution. Why would an action which allows YOU to live at MY expense be GOOD when an action which allows YOU to die for MY benefit be BAD? An atheistic worldview CANNOT give you a basis for this fact. Only the Biblical worldview can make sense of this fact which we all recognize.
4. Once again, if atheism is true, animals do not make any decisions and neither do we. Atheism has NO BASIS for free will. We are machines for propagating out DNA. If you believe you CAN make choices and some of those choices are REALLY god or evil, then you are rejecting atheism and embracing the Biblical worldview.
But at this point I am very much repeating myself. At the end of the day, I think we can find common ground in acknowledging that we both know that there is a transcendent standard of good and evil, and by that standard, CATS ARE EVIL.
Long live SPARTA!
And thanks for stopping by.
Orange, you’re completely ignoring reality.
Yes, rats sometimes also will eat each other, proving even they can be as bad as lawyers.
Other than by assertion, you have never demonstrated in any way how we can get our morals from god.
Yes, group identity is so strong, so drawing, so absolutely influential on us, that people have continued to believe in fake gods that are demonstrably false for millennia. If you can agree that Islam is wrong, then I have completely and totally demonstrated to you that our group identity is important and absolutely able to maintain a moral code. If Islam is wrong, then I am right about morality in groups.
Hi, just wondered if we were continuing this conversation? Thanks. TSA
Not in quick succession. I thought summer would give me more free time for things like this, but it has not. Just the opposite. I haven’t had time for anything but work.
And Frankly, I may have said all I have to say. If you don’t understand the argument by now, then maybe you best go ask someone else to explain it. Once I get past cats and radishes, I’m kind of out of material.
Thanks for stopping by, and if I ever find time to write more posts, thanks for reading those.
Pingback: Anthony Bourdain is the Atheist Father of the Year! | A Bit of Orange
Pingback: Bogey-Man Atheists | Feedback Friday! | A Bit of Orange
Pingback: An Atheist with more to say on Marriage | Feedback Friday! | A Bit of Orange
Do you actually believe the moronic drivel that comes out of your mouth?
What? No, of course not. I can’t imagine ANYONE believing this nonsense.
Pingback: The Definition of Hypocrisy | Feedback Friday | A Bit of Orange
Pingback: Painting Atheists with a Broad Brush | Feedback Friday! | A Bit of Orange
America was NOT founded as a Christian nation. It was founded as a secular nation.
I can tell by your clever self applied screen name that you are a person of reason. (That was sarcasm)
So let me hit you with a few facts that you maybe forgot to learn in school:
“In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Do you see the two references to God in the opening of the Declaration of Independence? Not Secular, is it?
The Constitution was intentionally left without reference to the church or the Christian faith because the men who wrote it wanted to give the government NO ability to pretend that the church was under the authority of the government, as was the case in England.
To a person, the Founders were committed to protecting religious liberty. This conviction was usually based upon the theological principle that humans have a duty to worship God as their consciences dictate. A good illustration of this is George Mason’s 1776 draft of Article XVI of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights. It reads:
“That as Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be governed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence; and therefore that all Men shou’d enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the Magistrate….”
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in which he famously suggested that the First Amendment created a “wall of separation between Church & State.” While stupid people on the internet have tried to twist this to mean that the government is supposed to be free from involvement from the Christian faith, the exact opposite is true. The Baptists didn’t want a government like in England which gave itself authority over the church, and Jefferson was assuring them that the laws were designed to protect the church from the government, NOT the other way around.
Finally, From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
It mentions “Nature’s God”, not any specific mention of Bible God, although I’ve heard some people say it was a hybrid of the two. And yes, it is secular. It says “all men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator”. The key word is “their”. It means that anyone emigrating to America or living there, would still be equal no matter what THEIR religion was. The only way to have freedom of religion is to have freedom from religion, when it comes to governing a country. As soon as you show favoritism to one religion over any other, that’s when people start getting persecuted, arrested and tortured.
That’s a brilliant ad-hoc explanation you’ve thought of, though, saying they intentionally didn’t mention Christianity. It’s true, though, of the 7,591 words that compose the Constitution and its amendments, not one of them is “God” or “Christianity” or “Bible.” Secular nation. Secular. Not Christian. And I didn’t forget to learn about this stuff in school, I live in Texas where republican conservative christian politicians warped the cirriculum of my school to make sure I didn’t learn about politics or evolution or science.
Well, my Duderonomy,
At least you know why you don’t know anything about politics or evolution or science. (And I appreciate you distinguishing between evolution and science). Good thing you stumbled onto A Bit of Orange! Soon you’ll know EVERYTHING!
Answer me this: WHO did early Americans’ think was “Nature’s God?” Was there a significant Muslim, Mormon, or Jewish population among the writers and signers of the declaration and constitution? That’s a big NO. All you need to do is look into the CONTEXT of those quotes and you will see that no one on earth would have had to ask. It has NOTHING to do with people immigrating here from pagan nations. I don’t know where you got that idea, but that, my Dude, is the very definition of Ad-Hoc.
Have you noticed that every time you accuse me of a logical fallacy, I can show that it’s actually YOU who has done so?
Maybe you should stop making accusations and just ask more questions. I’m just saying. Anyway…
“all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (Note: NO mention of immigrants)
“Their” refers to MEN (as in humanity). The issue of the common value of all humans was brought up because one of the chief complaints that the founding fathers had with England was their desire to abolish slavery. They had petitioned King George multiple times to end slavery in America, and he essentially said, “England has slaves, and you are England.” So they said, “Then we are no longer England.” This has NOTHING to do with immigrants who might show up with other gods, but the fact that the Bible is incompatible with slavery (unlike the Koran, which was the foundation of the Arab/African slave trade that founded the African slave trade in the first place). Christian men opposed an evil practice, which they knew to be evil because they were Christian men.
And in case you every get time to reply to our previous dialogue, think about this as you do: prove to me on Atheism that Slavery is evil. Show me that evolution can be the foundation of a moral system that says all men should be free and no men should be slaves.
But I digress…
The fact is, those American Fathers DID mention Christianity and the Bible a LOT, but, similar to how I don’t defend EVERY POSITION I HAVE in EVERY ARTICLE I WRITE, they also didn’t feel the need to clarify what God they were talking about when they as Christian Men writing to other Christian men talked about God. But don’t take MY word for it. Let’s let them speak for themselves:
“Benjamin Franklin, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to Yale president Ezra Stiles, “I think the system of morals and [Jesus’] religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see” (Works of Benjamin Franklin, John Bigelow, ed., New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904, p. 185).
1st U.S. President
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” –The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
–Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
–History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution
“And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace.”
–As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.
John Quincy Adams
6th U.S. President
“The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made ‘bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God’ (Isaiah 52:10).”
–Life of John Quincy Adams, p. 248.
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution
“I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him…
“I believe that God having elected some of mankind to eternal life, did send his own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the gospel offer: also by his special grace and spirit, to regenerate, sanctify and enable to persevere in holiness, all who shall be saved; and to procure in consequence of their repentance and faith in himself their justification by virtue of his atonement as the only meritorious cause…
–The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution
“The gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations!”
–The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, pp. 165-166.
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution
“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor.”
–Famous American Statesmen, p. 126.
1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the American Bible Society
“In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible.”
–American Statesman Series, p. 360.
Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
–The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.
I could continue, but I trust I have proved my point? You let me know what you think.
And again, just a suggestion, maybe ask questions in place of accusations? I am here to help.
Pingback: America’s Christian Foundation | Feedback Friday | A Bit of Orange