Anthony Bourdain is the Atheist Father of the Year!

In early June of 2018 popular “As-Seen-On-TV” personality Anthony Bourdain committed suicide, leaving behind an 11 year old daughter. In the wake of this untimely death is a rather strange silence from the atheist community. I assumed that they would immediately declare Anthony Bourdain the “Atheist Father of the Year!”

After all, didn’t he really show the kind of commitment to self over biological offspring that Atheism permits? 

Perhaps you aren’t following my reasoning. Let me remind you that earlier this year I wrote an article about why parenting and atheism conflict, because parenting requires selfless acts of love and self sacrifice, and the treating of others as greater than ones self, just as the Bible instructs us to treat everyone.
What I said in that article was this:

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.

And is that not what popular “As-Seen-On-TV” personality Anthony Bourdain has done? Just as you may tire of playing “Disney Princesses” on the livingroom floor and choose to walk away even when your child is begging “PLEASE daddy, let’s play a little more?” Anthony tired of this life and with no thought to his 11 year old daughter, ended his life so that she could know what it was like to bury a parent before the end of middle school.

SURE he could have stuck it out, gotten therapy, or merely considered her well being as more important than even the end of his own unhappiness, but as an avowed atheist HE DID NOT! His own feelings were more important to him than some Biblically enforced responsibility to those offspring who you leave behind! THE SELF is the only god an atheist need worship, and so THE SELF is the only human being on the planet an atheist needs care about!*

Despite Anthony setting a GREAT example of what it means to be an atheist parent, people keep kicking around words like “Tragedy.” Did he not do what every tv show and movie in post modern America preaches is our highest value? Did he not FOLLOW HIS OWN HEART and do what he felt would have made HIM happy? Even so, atheist hypocrites keep talking about his suicide as if it is something he should NOT have done! As if there are absolute morals, and as if, somehow, life is valuable and should not be snuffed out for any avoidable reason! But as an atheist, he believed that life was a temporary accident, and that death is a magic portal to nowhere. Oblivion is all that an atheist professes to believe exists beyond this life- no memories, no consciousness, and no hell for the MANY sins they know they carry from one footstep to the next.

So I suggest the atheists of this nation all stop being such hypocrites and name Anthony Bourdain the Atheist Father of the Year!

Or, maybe… just maybe… they should open their eyes and see that atheism is a selfish and evil worldview built on stupid and nothing more which is killing people every day at their own hand.

Jesus said “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10)

If you are considering suicide, please don’t. Find someone wise to talk to, and remember, #JesusLovesYou

 

*I know some of you are going to whine that there ARE selfless atheists who consider others as more important than themselves, and who love their children, blah blah blah, but those people are hypocrites, and barely worthy of being called Atheists at all. At best they are heretical psudo-atheists who are still allowing themselves to be controlled by the religious traditions of America’s Christian past. They may as well be Catholic if they’re going to have children- NOT kill them in the womb- and then go on to love them selflessly. That sort of thing is certainly incompatible with TRUE atheism.

This entry was posted in SocioPolitico and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Anthony Bourdain is the Atheist Father of the Year!

  1. John Branyan says:

    Another astute observation. I would quibble that anyone who commits suicide should at least be inducted into the atheist hall of fame. Even those professing some kind of supernatural belief have a “form of religion” but deny it’s power. Christians don’t murder people, even themselves.

    Like

    • Thanks JB! I once had a co worker who was volunteering for one of those suicide prevention hotlines, and I thought- if she is an atheist, WHAT DOES SHE TELL PEOPLE? In all sincerity I cannot imagine how an atheist would talk someone out of suicide- or even WHY if they are a consistent atheist.

      Like

  2. joel says:

    I saw an ad for abdomen weight loss in the middle of this article and it is by far the most interesting part.

    Like

  3. Dude Spewed says:

    When someone is suicidal, they often know exactly how much pain they are going to cause the loved ones they’re going to leave behind. You think he just didn’t care that his 11 year old daughter would bury her dad before middle school? Are you that callous?

    They know. But they are going through so much torturous emotional suffering that they don’t see any other option. It’s like when 9/11 happened and people had to choose between burning to death or jumping out of the 80th story – which would you pick?

    You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here. None.

    Like

    • Hey Dude, you ALMOST entirely missed the point of my article. Allow me to clarify:
      Anthony was an atheist. Doing something selfish, like taking his daughter’s father away from her, is clearly a horrible act, but on atheism, there is no moral foundation on which to criticize it because atheism has no moral foundation. Thus my sarcastically declaring him to be the Atheist father of the year. Because Atheism has a moral vacuum, so why wouldn’t it celebrate suicide and selfishness? There’s a lot of overlap there with “survival of the fittest.”
      And as someone who has NOT taken his daughter’s father away from her because I selfishly thought it would be better for ME, I don’t think I am the callous one. I know what it’s like to suffer with depression and want to die because all of life seems like a cloud of hopeless bleak despair. But in my darkest moments I knew that leaving my daughter without a father would be a horrible act of selfishness. Because I’m not an atheist. I have a moral foundation which condemns selfishness and murder. I know it would be better to spend the rest of my life wishing I was dead than killing my daughter’s father and leaving her to wonder why.
      So, no, it’s NOT like the people forced to jump out a window by the faithful followers of Islam. They had literally no choice. It was die or die. Anthony had the choice to live. He chose the selfish way out, and even if he couldn’t SEE another way, he knew there was another way. There is always another way. Sometimes you grope in the dark for years looking for the light at the end of the tunnel, but even when you can’t see it, you know it’s there.
      So, yes. I think he just didn’t care. Or he at least cared more about himself in the moment than about his daughter for the rest of her life. That’s not callous. It’s an honest and fair assessment.
      Thank you for your question.

      Like

      • Dude Spewed says:

        You claim atheists have no moral foundation, can you demonstrate that?

        Christians have a moral foundation that condemns selfishness and murder. But mega church preachers by private jets and Christians still murder, they’ve murdered a whole lot throughout history often they murder each other because they have different versions of Christianity. Just look at the Quakers and the Protestants in early America. Crusades, inquisition, kkk, Anders Brevik, etc etc. I’m not saying that Christianity directly caused these killings, or that Christians are bad because some Christians do that,. Because I think it’s fallacious to do that when someone could just turn around and point out atheists who had killed people, which apologists love to do. I’m just saying that they had the same moral foundation and still did it.

        If atheists don’t have a moral foundation that stops them from murdering, then how come I’ve never murdered anyone anyone?

        And you I’ve shown that you have no empathy or understanding for mental health issues or suicidality, you are very callous, and coldly indifferent, it’s quite shocking.
        You took an opportunity when somebody tragically hung themself, to try and score some cheap points by, you pretend to care about the daughter? nah. You’re really petty. It’s

        Like

      • Wow Dude, you keep adding content at this rate and I’m going to have to hire you as one of our writers.
        It’s not as exciting as it sounds. We don’t get paid.

        But, yes. Yes I can demonstrate that atheists have no moral foundation. Let’s take your accusations against me: “you have no empathy or understanding for mental health issues or suicidality, you are very callous, and coldly indifferent”
        OK, let’s assume that everything you have said here is true. I lack empathy, understanding, I’m callous, cold, etc. Let’s assume that you are COMPLETELY right about me.

        Now, assuming that atheism is true and the human race has evolved through a process of competition where in nature, red in tooth and claw, has killed to live and eaten to avoid being eaten, how do you declare as ABSOLUTE TRUTH that the entire human race not only does agree with you that having empathy for/understanding for mental health issues is GOOD, but SHOULD agree with you?

        How do you declare on a godless survival of the fittest that the evolutionary path which made YOU feel some empathy for a person who kills himself, leaving his daughter to fend for herself is GOOD, and my evolutionary path which leads me to empathize for his daughter instead of him is BAD? On what grounds can you decide your accidental, unguided natural evolutionary path is morally superior to mine when neither has a transcendent moral code above survival and passing on our genes to offspring? (Which, admittedly, is not a moral code as much as a driving force, but it’s the best evolution has when it comes to non-physical judgement)

        How do you decide that you are somehow morally superior, when I might be the next step in human evolution? Maybe the way YOU feel is an evolutionary leftover from the primitive emotions of our ape ancestors who depended on a group dynamic for survival, and MINE is the more evolved future of the ubermensch who needs no one but the self? In fact, I could EASILY argue that my selfish, cold, indifference to others is an evolutionary advantage. Would not then your criticism of me not be as the criticism of an ape against his fellow ape for leaving the tree and learning to walk upright? Your tight grasp on that tree isn’t superior to my upright walking into the FUTURE. No matter how many monkeys in your tree agree with you. I can walk tall without your approval. (<-That's a SWEET evolutionary metaphor!)

        But then, if our morals are our own subjective response to the world around us, which is every bit as much a result of evolution as the color of our eyes, then it is absolutely NOT a constant standard of right and wrong, but a constantly changing thing, as everything that evolves CHANGES- for to evolve MEANS to CHANGE. Thus, you have no absolute morality anymore than you have the absolute hair color or eye color. You have what you inherited from your parents according to your shared evolutionary lineage. But that's no more an objective moral compass than your preference for one flavor of ice cream over another is an objective moral law. You can't derive an objective moral standard from the constant process of change that is evolution.

        You ask, "If atheists don’t have a moral foundation that stops them from murdering, then how come I’ve never murdered anyone anyone?" Well, why haven't you? If one living thing killing another living thing was evil, then you would have stopped eating. But even a vegetarian is killing something when he eats.

        The answer is, you know murder is EVIL. Killing other humans is evil because it is destroying something far more sacred and valuable than a cabbage or a chicken. Not just ILLEGAL, nor even UNPOPULAR, but OBJECTIVELY WRONG. You know right and wrong are real as much as I do. You know right and wrong are a FACT. The question you have forgotten to ask is, "If objective morals are REAL, where do they come from? WHY are they real?"

        But I didn't say Atheists have no morals. My claim is that ATHEISM has no foundation for morality, and thus, to CLAIM atheism is to CLAIM a system which has no basis for morals, just as claiming that light doesn't exist leaves you no ability to explain yellow, red and blue. But you know REAL good and evil exist, and so you actually reject atheism and you KNOW to be true these facts which can ONLY be explained by the fact that we were made by the God of the Bible as Genesis describes. Let me break it down:

        1. You know good and evil exist- a fact that CANNOT be explained by godless, pitiless nature.
        2. If good and evil exist, then there is a moral law by which to differentiate between good and evil, just as there is a law by which to differentiate between driving at an acceptable speed and driving TOO FAST. You cannot speed on the moon because there is no speed limit, because there is no law governing driving on the moon, because there is no government which is in authority on the moon. Here on earth, each country has a ruling government which makes laws determining how fast is too fast. Similarly, there is a moral law that says kindness is GOOD and murder is EVIL. All of us know these laws, even if we sometimes find it inconvenient to admit that we know them.
        3. If a moral law exists, then there must be a moral law giver.
        4. If the law is objective and not evolving such that tomorrow slavery and murder might be good, then the moral law giver must be unchanging.
        5. If the moral law is over us as well, then the law giver would have not only the right but the authority to govern us, as a father, or a creator would.
        6. thus, because the moral law is real, there is a moral law giver, and because the moral law giver must be our unchanging creator, ONLY the God of the Bible is sufficient explanation why all of us know that murder is wrong.
        7. thus, because you know that murder is evil, and understanding and empathy are good, you know the God of the Bible must exist and be our creator, just as you admit that light exists when you admit the color blue is real.

        I realize that you mainly intended to tell me that I'm an idiot, but you actually asked a proper and insightful question here. So, I hope my answer helps.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s