Worldviews in view reviewed: Atheism, Theology, Occult, UFOs, Cultural Commentary, etc.
1. There is no God.
Islam’s dogmatic statement: There is no God but Allah…
Atheism’s dogmatic statement: There is no God.
2. There is no supernatural: no God, no miracles, no soul, no afterlife.
3. The overwhelming majority of the entire planet’s population, regardless of chronology, geography, or theology, have been absolutely wrong about that which mattered to them the most: their belief in God and their relationship with Him.
Definitions
In this segment we will consider the self-definition of Atheism, Brights, Freethinkers, Humanism, Naturalism, Rationalism, Skepticism, Philosophical, Skepticism and Universism.
“An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities…We are not a ‘religion.’ The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them.”1 [this quotation is from a group known as American Atheists]
Let us consider the statement, “An Atheist has no specific belief system.” Obviously, this is a very specific belief; if for no other reason than the negation of it would appear to disqualify one form American Atheists dogmatic definition of what it is to be an atheist.
For instance, American Atheist’s webmaster authoritatively declares:
“Atheists are NOT ‘secular humanists’, ‘freethinkers’, ‘rationalists’ or ‘ethical culturalists’…Often, people who are Atheists find it useful to masquerade behind such labels.”2
It appears that The Freedom From Religion Foundation (whom I wrote about here) is, at least in this case, more tolerant, in stating:
“Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.”3
The Glossary of Religion & Philosophy agrees:
“Most freethinkers are also atheists.”4
Let us consider the fallacy in the very statement in which we find out that “An Atheist has no specific belief system.” We are told that “An Atheist has no religious belief…We are not a ‘religion,'” also, “We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable,” and since supernatural concepts are unverifiable, “we do not accept them.” These are very specific and rigid beliefs for an organization that claims to hold “no specific belief system.”
It is interesting, and useful, to note that some atheists are more accepting of diversity than American Atheists in considering the various sects of atheism. Some point out “…the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.”5 This is also an important point to make, particularly in counter distinction to American Atheists fundamentalism, since there are atheists who claim that atheism is a religion. Such a claim was made by the famous anti-one nation under God atheist activist Michael Newdow on the television show The Pulse (July 12, 2002).
Brights dogmatically hold to a naturalistic worldview and reject all others. A Brights is a person:
“possessing a worldview that is naturalistic…whose perspective, values, ethics, and conduct derive from a naturalistic worldview, free of any supernatural sorts of entities or forces.”6
A Freethinker:
“forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief…No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.”7
“The concept of freethought refers to the process of making decisions and arriving at beliefs without relying solely upon tradition, dogma, or the opinions of authorities…In place of tradition or dogma, freethinkers insist upon using reason, logic, and evidence as the bases for forming reasonable and justified beliefs.”8
We must ask: what would happen if, as has often happened, it is precisely upon a basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief that a person comes to the conclusion that conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah are reasonable beliefs and that revelation and faith are credible? If they do not allow this they are suppressing the search for truth by which the evidence is followed to the logical conclusion. Or is it a case in which Freethinkers would instantly discredit a person who believed that following the evidence leads to the Bible, etc. This is strict authoritarianism and is not free-thought. It is as if they are saying, “A person ought to follow their reason so long as they do not end up believing anything with which we disagree.” Moreover, the definition of freethough appears to deny that a bible, creed, a messiah’s credentials, tradition, or dogma could be based upon reason and evidence. Perhaps 2+2=4 could be called a tradition, a dogma, or authoritarianism, but it is, nonetheless reasonable and evidentially substantiated. I have written on the Barkerian sect (named after Dan Barker) of Freethough here and here.
“…being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead. Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”9
Part of the given definition appears to be based on the fallacy which states that only atheists have pure motives (which is a concept based on a myriad of faulty assumptions):
“Humanists believe we must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we’ll have – that, therefore, we must make the most of it for ourselves, each other, and our world…living a happy and productive life based on reason and compassion.”10
This statement appears to be based on another fallacy, which is the concept that religious people do not live full, or fulfilled, lives because they believe in an afterlife. But the truth is that, in some ways, this is a subjective argument: you may say that I do not have any fun because I do not get drunk and I would say that I do not consider drunkenness to be fun. The fact is that religious people live this life on the basis that it is a gift – and that we, therefore, must make the most of it for ourselves, each other, and our world…living a happy and productive life based on reason and compassion. C. S. Lewis wrote, “Aim at heaven, and you will get earth thrown in; aim at earth, and you will get neither.” Secularists may be astonished to find out that it is God who urges reason, “‘Let us reason together,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18). Jesus taught that one of the first and greatest commandments is “Lord your God…with all your mind” (Matthew 22:35-37) (in this essay I seek to correct misconceptions of this nature).Moreover, it is another fallacy that religious people do not do anything and just sit there waiting for God to move them with His marionette strings.
“Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs…Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.”11
Again, we find an authoritarian rejection of authoritarianism. If you cannot be a humanist unless you abide by their definition of what it means to be a humanist then you would be cast out of their authoritarian system-deemed a secular heretic.
Moreover, note that it is very popular to besmirch Judeo-Christianity for its belief in expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead. However, with no such system in place the only justice to be had is at the hands of the temporal courts of earth. For one, this means that if the criminal can escape these, then there is no justice to be had. For another, if this anti-supernatural dogma is correct, then at the end of their lives Mother Theresa and Hitler ended up the same way-annihilated. In fact, it may be argued that Hitler lived a more fulfilling life than Mother Theresa since he lived his later years in luxury, enjoying his power and being adored by thousands. Mother Theresa lived a humble life amongst the outcast and disease ridden people that the Hindu system had simply discarded. No punishment for Hitler and no reward for Mother Theresa! When Hitler decided to, quite literally, end his life he did so. Is this justice? Is this moral? Is this reasonable? We will deal with the qualifier the greater good of humanity in part 3 in the ethics/morals section (I have written about the issue of reward, punishment and finite versus infinite life here and here).
“Naturalism is a metaphysical theory which holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast machine or organism, devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires.”12
It is very refreshing to have it openly admitted that naturalism is a metaphysical contention, a point that I will revisit in part 4 regarding science.Also, note something else that is being openly admitted, namely, naturalism leads to ultimate despair as it claims that the universe is devoid of general purpose and indifferent.Nobel Laureate, Dr. Steven Weinberg agrees:
“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”13
TIME magazine states the following with regards to the universe’s final entropy:
“humanity, and perhaps even biology, will long since have vanished. Yet it’s conceivable that consciousness will survive, perhaps in the form of a disembodied digital intelligence. If so, then someone may still be around to note that the universe, once ablaze with the light of uncountable stars, has become an unimaginably vast, cold, dark and profoundly lonely place.”14
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA structure, wrote:
“The astonishing hypothesis is that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it, ‘You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.'”15
Sam Harris (whom I wrote about here):
“We live in a world where all things, good and bad, are finally destroyed by change. Parents lose their children and children their parents. Husbands and wives are separated in an instant, never to meet again. Friends part company in haste, without knowing that it will be for the last time. This life, when surveyed with a broad glance, presents little more than a vast spectacle of loss…Only the atheist realizes…how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all…many human beings suffer needlessly while alive.”16
Professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett wrote (whom I wrote about here):
“along comes Darwin, who simply shows how all of that design work, all of that creation, can be done by a process that has no purpose, no intelligence and no foresight. It is a very strange inversion of reasoning and it’s very upsetting to people to see that something that seems so obvious is being denied. Darwin does away with the reason for believing in a divine creator. This doesn’t prove there is no divine creator, but if there is one, it – he – need not have gone to all that trouble because natural selection on its own would have created all the biological diversity we see.”17
Professor Richard Dawkins (whom I wrote about here), Is Science a Religion?
“we know from the second law of thermodynamics that all complexity, all life, all laughter, all sorrow, is hell-bent on leveling itself out into cold nothingness in the end. They – and we – can never be more than temporary, local buckings of the great universal slide into the abyss of uniformity.”
Incidentally, a famous person once state, “When understanding of the universe has become widespread…Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity”-see my essay Cosmology, Part I to see who the famous person was.Lastly, we run across a fallacy in the form of a hypocritical argument:
“…belief in the supernatural has lead to a great deal of misery for humanity and needs to be rejected and replaced with critical inquiry, accountability, and science.”18
We may begin by asking precisely what critical inquiry has proved that naturalism is absolutely true. We may ask, as has already been stated above, what ultimate accountability is there if there is no supernatural? Yet, the hypocrisy is in isolating the supernatural as the cause of misery. After all, secularism of all sorts, especially atheism, have caused tremendous amounts of misery and have done so in the name of politics, territory, material goods/resources, racism, sexism, wealth and poverty, science, atheism, etc., etc., etc.
“The mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience, independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority.”19
“The doctrine of rationalism holds that the source of knowledge is reason and logic. This is usually contrasted with the idea that faith, revelation and religion are also valid sources of knowledge and verification.”20
It is fascinating to note that they give away the fallacy in their position. The first thing that comes to mind (pun intended) is what we conclude if we accept the premise that our minds are nothing but the product, or byproduct, of random evolution (or blind-non-chance-natural selection). In that case, there would be no reason to believe that a random mixture of chemicals in our brains could be trusted to produce any of the things that are sought by rationalists. Evolution is not interested in fact and truth but only in survival and reproduction. The giveaway is the use of the term mental attitude, which would be precisely what it is if their view is correct. But then we would not know if our conclusions are correct. Moreover, since a person with a differing chemical makeup may disagree, we could not condemn them for their particular bio-chemical makeup.
It is refreshing to note that skepticism is skeptical of skepticism in stating that their knowledge is tentative, at best:
“A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims…we can provisionally conclude that they are false.”21
One point of interest is that they claim that creationism, among other concepts, “have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false.”22 The fallacy in this statement will work itself out in part 4 as we deal with science.
“Philosophical Skepticism is a critical attitude which systematically questions the notion that absolute knowledge and certainty are possible, either in general or in particular fields. Philosophical Skepticism is opposed to philosophical dogmatism, which maintains that a certain set of positive statements are authoritative, absolutely certain and true. Philosophical Skepticism should be distinguished from ordinary skepticism [which does] not necessarily doubt that certainty or knowledge is possible. Nor do they doubt these things because of systematic arguments that undermine all knowledge claims.”23
One can instantly see the fallacy to which Philosophical Skepticism is headed, if they are not already firmly ensconced. If absolute knowledge cannot be gained then we would never know absolutely that absolute knowledge cannot be gained. However, if they claim to know absolutely that absolute knowledge cannot be gained, they are actually affirming the reality of absolute knowledge and therefore they defeat their own argument. Moreover, if they are opposed to philosophical dogmatism then they could not condemn claims to authoritative, absolute, certainty, and true knowledge, for to do so would be philosophically dogmatic.
“Universism is the world’s first rational religion…and denies the validity of revelation, faith and dogma.”24
“Your beliefs and your actions are your responsibility alone. Believe what you will, while striving to allow all to believe what they will. Do what you will, while striving to allow all to do what they will…Sociological problems motivated the recent birth of Universism. Chief among them, that civil society is endangered when we see ourselves first as members of ideological groups. Further, priding oneself as part of an ideological group limits individual growth and creativity. In no sphere of life is this phenomenon clearer than religion, where the divisions have spread to fracture our entire planet. Endless situations arise where our ideas and desires clash, and no philosophy will cease this drama. But Universism can help. Universists are people who recognize that ours is not the only way.”25
Here we find the absolute dogma that it is rational to deny revelation, faith and dogma. But we are also told that we ought to believe what we will, while striving to allow all to believe what they will. Apparently we are to let others believe what they will while pointing out just how wrong, just how irrational, they are if they disagree with us. We also encounter a stalled moral system in which we can do what we will, while striving to allow all to do what they will. But what if our will is to hinder others? What if it is the will of others to hinder us?
Also, note that chief among the sociological problems was seeing ourselves first as members of ideological groups and that priding oneself as part of an ideological group limits individual growth and creativity. This comes from the world’s first rational religion that excludes revelation, faith and dogma. But what is the only hope for mankind, who has after all fractured the entire planet? Well, Universism can help but they are not the only way. They are not the only way but neither is revelation, faith or dogma and so what is the way? A pseudo moral system? Pseudo tolerance? If Universism cannot hinder the beliefs and actions of those who fracture our entire planet then they are certainly not the only way and perhaps no way at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Keep in mind that you can use the CTRL+F function to search this post.
Phil Fernandes,
The Infidel Guy radio show, Christianity vs. Atheism
Refuting Arguments for Atheism
Does God Exist?, part 1, part 2
Evidence for God, part 1, part 2
Evil and Human Suffering, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4
Moral Relativism, part 1, part 2
The Cumulative Case for God, part 1, part 2
The Problem of Evil, part 1, part 2
One Nation Under God, part 1, part 2
Communism, part 1, part 2, part 3
Vs. Dan Barker, Does God Exist?, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
Vs. Jeffrey Lowder, Does God Exist?, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
Greg L. Bahnsen,
Vs. Gordon Stein, The Great Debate: Does God Exist? (I had this linked to audio but the page is not longer active thus, this is a video).
Vs. George Smith, The Case For / Against God
Gene Cook, Jr.,
On the Infidel Guy radio show
Vs. Derek Sansone
The Atheist Hour w/ John W. Loftus, part 1, part 2
Matt Slick,
Jason Gastrich,
Vs. Doug Krueger, Atheism vs Christianity, part 1, part 2
Vs. Eddie Tabash, Does God Exist?
Vs. Dan Barker, Theist vs. Atheist
Eric Lounsber vs. Dan Barker, Is Christianity Tenable?
Michael Licona,
John Lennox,
Todd Friel vs. Dan Barker, here
Edgar Andrews et al vs. Richard Dawkins et al, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9
Dennis Prager vs. Christopher Hitchens
Mark Roberts vs. Christopher Hitchens, part 1, part 2, part 3
George Gilder vs. Richard Dawkins
Geoffrey Simmons vs. PZ Meyers
Gary Habermas,
Cliffe Knechtle vs. Michael Newdow, On God’s Existence
Peter Payne vs. Dan Barker, part 1, part 2
Peter Kreeft,
Searching For Truth in the Mind: The Rationality of Belief in GodThe Case For Objective Moral Values
Is Anything Really Right or Wrong?
Thomas Warren vs. Anthony Flew, The existence of God
Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker (on the New Atheism)
Keith Ward on Evolution, God, Dawkins on “Unbelievable” 2008 MP3
Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens, Does God Exist?
David Wood vs. John Loftus, The Problem of Evil
Peter May vs. John Loftus, On Unbelievable
David Aikman, New Atheism
Douglas Groothuis,
Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God part 1
Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God part 2
Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God part 3
Design Arguments for the Existence of God part 1
Design Arguments for the Existence of God part 2
Design Arguments for the Existence of God part 3
Gordon Mathews, Is God a Delusion?
Is There a God ? Various Atheist and Theistic Speakers
Nancy Pearcey,
David Hill, Science: The Orthodox Religion of the New Millennium
Michael Strauss, On the Origin and Design of the Universe
Jay Budziszewski,
Owen Gingerich, Is It God’s Universe?
Michael Behe,
Irreducibly Complex – On the Bacterial Flagellum
Is Intelligent Design Necessary for a Full Explanation for the Molecular Structure of Life?
Dallas Willard, Why Science and Religion Must Conflict, part 1, part 2
Mary Poplin, The Making of a Mind Set Against God: The Intellectual Principles I Was and Wasn’t Taught in College
Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Jesus’ Resurrection: Atheist and Theist Dialogue
Paul Vitz,
JP Moreland,
Atheism, Theism, and the Meaning of Life
Theism, Naturalism, and the Reality of Consciousness
Truth & Philosophy: God, Scientific Naturalism, and the Search for Meaning
Philip Johnson,
Can Science Know the Mind of God? The Case Against Naturalism
Why a Law Professor Took Up Evolution
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy
The Future of the Evolutionary Controversy
The Grand Metaphysical Story of Science
What the Evolution Controversy is Really About
Phillip Johnson et al vs. Kenneth Miller et al
The Wedge of Truth: How Sharp the Edge?
The Evolution Controversy: The Current State
Timothy J. Keller,
A Conversation with Tim Keller: Belief in an Age of Skepticism?
Os Guinness, A Thinkers Guide to an Intelligent Faith
A Thinking Person’s Quest for Meaning
Alvin Plantinga,
Rationality of Christian Belief
Science and Religion: Why Does the Debate Continue?
Against Materialism (for immaterialism)
An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
w/ Richard Gale, The Existence of Evil and the Problem of God
w/ William Lane Craig, Richard Gale and Quentin Smith, Science and Religion
w/ William Lane Craig, Science and Religion in the 21st Century
Francis Collins,
The Language of God: Intellectual Reflections of a Christian Geneticist
Vinoth Ramachandra and Philip Kitcher, People Suffer – Who Cares? A Secular Humanist and Christian Dialogue
Steve Evans, Are There Moral Absolutes?, part 1, part 2
William Dembski,
Is Intelligent Design Creationism? Answers to the Top Three Objections to ID
w/ Robert Shapiro, Does Science Point to Intelligent Design?
Guillermo Gonzalez, Our Privileged Planet, part 1, part 2
H. Fritz Schaefer III, The Big Bang, Stephen Hawking, and God
Erwin McManus, The Fingerprint of God
Walter Bradley,
Scientific Evidence For an Intelligent Creation
Is There Scientific Evidence For An Intelligent Designer?
The Bio-Friendly Universe: By Design?
w/ Michael Behe, H. Fritz Schaefer III, Dean H. Kenyon, Robert C. Newman, Charles Thaxton, Origins and Design
Alfred Wong, Physics and the Six Day Creation
Jed Macosko,
Science and Faith: Belligerent or Brothers?
Life: Chance or Design?
Michael Strauss, On the Origin and Design of the Universe
Ian Hutchinson and Ned Hall, Belligerents or Brothers? Are Science and Christian Faith at Odds?, part 1, part 2
John Lofton, Interview with Edwin F. Kagin (National Legal Director of American Atheists)
J.I. Packer, The Glory of God and the Reviving of Religion
John Whitcomb,
The Absolute Inerrancy of Scripture
The Origin of the Solar System: Biblical Inerrancy and the Double Revelation
Ronald Nash, Will The Real Irrationalist Please Stand Up
Ronald Numbers,
Why is Creationism so popular in the USA?
Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A Historical Perspective
Jonathan Wells,
Darwinian Evolution or Intelligent Design
Are Humans Biological Accidents?
Hugh Ross vs. Victor Stenger, Can science prove whether God is real or imaginary?, part 1, part 2
James Dobson, Walt Ruloff and Ben Stein, Exposing the Truth in the Evolution Debate
Paul Manata and Gene Cook confront some atheists at the Atheist Booth
Richard Weikart vs. Hector Avalos, Were the Nazis creationists or evolutionists?
HTML format of further comments by Richard Weikart
John West, Three Things to Know about Intelligent Design
Casey Luskin Rebuts Michael Shermer on “Expelled”
Justin Brierley vs. Richard Dawkins
Timothy Keller,
Jeff Schloss, Can Biology Explain Religion?
Warren Brown, Reconciling Neuropsychology and Theology
Peter Clarke,
Gareth Jones, Does Biological Enhancement of the Brain Affect our Status as Images of God?
Bill Newsome,
Faith in an Age of Science: The Challenge of the Neurosciences
Andrew Briggs, Nanotechnology – Grey goo or Great God?
Patrick Richmond, Is God Complex?
Richard Swinburne, Simplicity and Complexity – Science, Dawkins and God, Lecture, Discussion
Roger Trigg, Science, Faith and Postmodernism
R.J. Berry, God – Incompetent, Impotent, Interfering or What?
Stuart Judge, Divine Action and the Brain
Ard Louis, Divine Action and the Origin of Life
Alan Padgett, The Role of God in Modern Science: Models for Relating Science and Religion
John Pilbrow, How Does God Act in the World? A Critique of Models of Divine Action
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #deabte, #atheism, #christianapologetics
Facebook: #deabte, #atheism, #christianapologetics
“Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today’s Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler”
—EvilBible.com
Evilbible.com and Charlotte conclude this section thusly:
“Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf
Charlotte’s interpretation,
Here Hitler is admitting that his war against the Jews were so successful because of his strong Christian Spirituality.
Note that Hitler refers to “spiritual conviction” and “spiritual base” but it is Charlotte who decides that this means “Christian Spirituality”; actually, “strong” Christian Spirituality.
In the chapter which Charlotte quoted (Volume One – A Reckoning – Chapter V: The World War) Hitler does not define what he means by “spirituality” and or to which “spirituality” he is referring. I would imagine that 1) it did not matter since the point it to juxtapose one, any, “spirituality” against another and 2) we know what this “spirituality” was by the greater context of Nazi history which would define it as a Christian facade which encased an anti-Christian purpose along with Aryan mythology, Norse mythology, the occult in general, Hinduism and Buddhism (see From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 8 of 13 for evidence of this fact). This may be the generic “spiritual nature of the people” to which Hitler had earlier referred.
Let us consider the context of the quote:
One question came to the fore, however: can spiritual ideas be exterminated by the sword? Can ‘philosophies’ be combated by the use of brute force?…Conceptions and ideas, as well as movements with a definite spiritual foundation…only be broken with technical instruments of power if these physical weapons are at the same time the support of a new kindling thought, idea, or philosophy.
The application of force alone, without the impetus of a basic spiritual idea as a starting point, can never lead to the destruction of an idea and its dissemination, except in the form of a complete extermination of even the very last exponent of the idea and the destruction of the last tradition…
every persecution which occurs without a spiritual basis seems morally unjustified and whips up precisely the more valuable parts of a people in protest, which results in an adoption of the spiritual content of the unjustly persecuted movement…the complete annihilation of the new doctrine can be carried out only through a process of extermination so great and constantly increasing that in the end all the truly valuable blood is drawn out of the people or state in question…
nearly all attempts to exterminate a doctrine and its organizational expression, by force without spiritual foundation, are doomed to failure…as soon as force wavers and alternates with forbearance, not only will the doctrine to be repressed recover again and again, but it will also be in a position to draw new benefit from every persecution, since, after such a wave of pressure has ebbed away, indignation over the suffering induced leads new supporters to the old doctrine, while the old ones will cling to it with greater defiance and deeper hatred than before, and even schismatic heretics, once the danger has subsided, will attempt to return to their old viewpoint.
Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain…The fight against a spiritual power with methods of violence remains defensive, however, until the sword becomes the support, the herald and disseminator, of a new spiritual doctrine…
Any attempt to combat a philosophy with methods of violence will fail in the end, unless the fight takes the form of attack for a new spiritual attitude. Only in the struggle between two philosophies can the weapon of brutal force, persistently and ruthlessly applied lead to a decision for the side it supports. This remained the reason for the failure of the struggle against Marxism. This was why Bismarck’s Socialist legislation finally failed and had to fail, in spite of everything. Lacking was the platform of a new philosophy for whose rise the fight could have been waged. For only the proverbial wisdom of high government officials will succeed in believing that drivel about so-called ‘state authority’ or ‘law and order’ could form a suitable basis for the spiritual impetus of a life-and-death struggle. Since a real spiritual basis for this struggle was lacking, Bismarck had to entrust the execution of his Socialist legislation to the judgment and desires of that institution which itself was a product of Marxist thinking. By entrusting the fate of his war on the Marxists to the well-wishing of bourgeois democracy, the Iron Chancellor set the wolf to mind the sheep.
All this was only the necessary consequence of the absence of a basic new anti-Marxist philosophy endowed with a stormy will to conquer.
Note that, overall, Hitler likens a generic “spirituality” with generic “thought, idea, or philosophy.” This is why I do not believe that he was referring to any one particular “spirituality” since this the purpose of this spirituality/thought/idea/philosophy is only to have something upon which to engage in conceptual battles for power.
The last section in evilbible.com’s ode to Charlotte consists of only one quotation and no interpretation.
Quotes from Other Nazis about Hitler and Religion:
“Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Gobbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.” (Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer page 95-96)
Since Charlotte did not elucidate we can only image what the point may have been. The point of the quotation is quite obvious and makes a point against that which evilbible.com and Charlotte sought to evidence; clearly Hitler and other Nazis remained in churches for the sake of politics, for the appearance, “he had no real attachment to it.”
Thus, what have we learned? What gnosis did Charlotte reveal? What is the point of posting this on evilbible.com?
The premise of the webpage was that Hitler was a Christian. What we learned is that he was raised somewhat “religiously” at least jumping through ritualistic hoops. Hitler’s attention turned towards war in general. Also, his motivations were national and racial.
What we really do learn a lot about is evilbible.com’s and Charlotte’s modus operandi. We encountered illogic. We were made privy to partial and self-serving quotations. We encountered an argument from authority. We uncovered unscholarly lack of historical knowledge. We found clashed between inference and implications. We exampled a basic lack of determining context (even when the very next sentence refuted the supposed point of the previous). And, perhaps most importantly: the entire page was premised upon an argument from outrage as evilbible.com and Charlotte provide no standard whatsoever whereby to condemn Christianity, the Bible, Hitler, Nazism, the Holocaust or anything at all.
What if Hitler really was a Christian? What would that mean? Firstly, his worldview, words and actions do not allow for the conclusion that he was a Christian but: let us grant this impossible conclusion. It would mean that he was a very bad example of a Christian. It would mean that his worldview, words and actions did not possess even the slightest hint of a knowledge of true traditional/biblical Christianity. It would mean that his worldview, words and actions alert us to the fact that he did not possess Christian spiritual maturity so as to act in a manner in keeping with loving one’s neighbors (a teaching, by the way, that Jesus exampled to the Jews via reference to the Samaritans who were of different nationality, “race,” and religion—see Luke 10:25-37).
But what would it say of Christianity itself if Hitler was a Christian. Here we must parse the response in order to take into account two considerations 1) What would it say of traditional/biblical Christianity? 2) What would it say of Christianity as religion, a movement, a clerical hierarchy, etc.
1) In such a case; Hitler’s actions would be compared to the statements in the New Testaments, Jesus’ actions, the actions of the actually followers of Jesus in the New Testament (the Christians, the apostles and disciples) and perhaps even the early church. If Hitler’s worldview, words and actions correspond to these then he could be said to have been a Christian, to have acted in accord of Christian doctrine and thus, Christianity could be blamed for the Holocaust.
2) In such a case; we are dealing with “Christianity” as whatever anyone wants to label as “Christianity” which is no “Christianity” at all. We are indeed, dealing with, as we have seen within this parsed essay, the façade of “Christianity” which thinly veils political ambitions, bids for clerical power, racism, the gaining of territory, etc. If the individual defined “Christianity” then “Christianity” is anything and thus nothing. And yes, defining “Christianity” or who is a “Christian” can lead to deep theological waters but the basic are just that and are not subjective.
Moishe Rosen notes,
The phrase “2,000 years of history leading up to the Holocaust” is more than a reference to past prejudice and persecution. It is an indictment against Christianity that misinterprets Christ’s message and intent. Anyone who gives credence to such an accusation bestows upon Hitler the power to change theology.[1]
Consider the words of Jesus:
You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit…
Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! (Matthew 7:16-23).
Did Hitler produce good fruit? No. Therefore we cannot know him to be a Christian.
“But, but, but Hitler said that he was a Christian and, and, and the belt buckles…”
He could claim whatever he wanted. He could have prophesied. He could have exorcized demons. He could have performed many wonderful works. He could have done it all in the very name of Jesus. Yet, this would still not mean that he was a Christian. Consider that the next time you besmirch Jesus, God, the Bible and Christianity because someone did something in the name of Jesus—from the Crusades to the bouffant haired televangelists.
Note that Jesus states that the deciding factor will be that “I never knew you!” Was Jesus not divine? Did Jesus not possess omniscience? How then does He claim to not have known them?
My friends; this is why Christians state that Christianity is not a “religion” but a “relation” a “relationship”; those doing such things were not in relationship with Jesus. He did not know them on the close and personal basis of a relationship—they never developed a relationship with Jesus but merely used Jesus.
Christianity is no mere claim, no mere proclamation, no mere “religious” ritual system, no merely self-declared profession—it is a development of a relationship with Jesus. I have found no indication that Hitler ever did any such thing.
Let us end by noting that on this view Hitler died and faced a judgment, justice was served and the evil perpetrated by him will someday be redeemed.
If I was an atheist I would not be as worried about Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust as I would be about the fact that I cannot even condemn Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust by appealing to anything beyond my personal preferences.
On the materialist view that the cessation of brain function ends a person’s consciousness; Hitler lived, in a manner of speaking for the sake of argument, a wonderful and enviable life. He had thousands of adoring adherents. He, for some time, enjoyed unchallengeable power. He conquered that which he coveted. And when he, when he himself, found his world crumbling around him he chose to take his own life. Thereafter—nothing.
No judgment. No justice. No anything. Nothing but the sort of perfect peace of annihilation. His victims, their families, friends and world continue suffering and he rests.
Atheism makes evil even worse by not doing anything about it, by guaranteeing that it is unredeemable, and by making evil exist for the benefit of the evildoer who gets to enjoy their evil deeds and then gets away with it. They may end up incarcerated by the judicious systems of this world for some time but ultimately there is an absolute lack of accountability.
The fact of evil and suffering in the world is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism.
[1] Compiled by Eliyah Gould, Rich Robinson and Ruth Rosen, The Y’shua Challenge – Answers for Those Who Say Jews Can’t Believe in Jesus (San Francisco, CA: Purple Pomegranate Productions), p. 21, citing Moishe Rosen, “Am Yisrael Chai,” Issue, 9:4 (1993), p.2
Let us continue directly from the previous post in considering covered heads in noting:
Christians always use the excuse that the above mentioned verse is some how [sic] “metaphorical” yet they take Paul’s maxim that men should pray with their heads uncovered very seriously. I assume this is generally followed because removing one’s hat isn’t particularly inconvenient. “Any man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head_” (1 Corinthians 11:4 RSV). On the other hand, Paul’s tenet that women must keep their heads covered with a veil during prayer is quite inconvenient and, for this reason, has either been rationalized away or ignored, although it is no less binding than any other moral law in the New Testament: “_but any woman who prays or prophecies with her head unveiled dishonors her head_ For if a woman will not veil herself, then we should cut off her hair: but if it be disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil_ Judge for yourself; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?” (1 Corinthians 11:5-13 RSV) The selectivity in which these verses are followed SCREAMS hypocrisy.
C. S. Lewis made a statement to the effect of; a tribal woman in a third world country who spends her life topless, exposing her breasts in public, may be more dignified, more modest, than a Victorian woman who exposes her ankles. The point of the text appears to be that breaking the cultural norms of modesty. Some references may be lost to history and some may refer, historically/culturally, to Old Testament era customs.
Note also that for some odd reason the quoted RSV implies that “if a woman will not veil herself, then we should cut off her hair” but this is not what the original language states. What is being stated is that “if a woman will not veil herself” it is as if her head were shaven.
But what did a woman’s shaven head signify? One example is found in “De Dea Syria” 6 where Lucian of Samosata notes that in devotion to Adonis “They proceed to shave their heads” and that “The women who refuse to be shaved have to submit to the following penalty, viz., to stand for the space of an entire day in readiness to expose their persons for hire. The place of hire is open to none but foreigners, and out of the proceeds of the traffic of these women a sacrifice to Aphrodite is paid” the women could either shave their heads in devotion to Adonis or work as a prostitute for a day in devotion to Aphrodite.
Via a footnote (by Herbert A. Strong and John Garstang) we learn that “A custom of similar character commonly attached itself to the worship of the Great Mother in her various forms_being regarded as an honourable devotion to her service_it was obligatory in Lydia.”
Charlotte’s last serving of beef, entitle, More Commonly Ignored Teachings,” is served along with a tirade of 22 side dishes; let us consider them:
1) “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” (l Corinthians 11:14). How many freaked out long-haired, bible thumping Jesus freaks do you know?…One can not stop and wonder at the absurdity of this.
One can only stop and wonder at the absurdity of not knowing that in Corinth at that time it was the Gentile Pagan male temple prostitutes who wore their hair long and thus, it was shameful. Is that, in fact, what “nature itself” teaches us? Keep in mind that the greater context is Paul’s other works wherein we note that in Romans 1: 26-27 he references nature with regards to sexuality
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
It is also generally understood, biblically, that males should look like males and females like females. A female can wear pantsuits and look like a female.
Charlotte continues thusly,
2) Another tenet clearly prohibits women from being ministers or otherwise speaking in church (“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”— 1 Corinthians 14:34). It’s difficult to see how Paul could support the current movement to ordain women_even I, an ATHEIST WOMAN, has managed to get herself legally ordained.
I also am legally ordained because I sent $5 in the mail and got a certificate, what of it? Notice that the Charlotte, the “ATHEIST WOMAN,” does not bother mentioning what organization legally ordained her-I would bet that it was not a Christian church my certificate was not from a Christian church (although I have written about an atheist pastor of a “Christian” “church” here and atheists in the Unitarian Universalist “church” here).But what if a tenet prohibits women ministers? It would only support that already granted charge of hypocrisy. But what of a tenet that clearly prohibits women from speaking in church? This is another misunderstanding premised, I would suppose, on not reading the text for context.
This very, very common misconception is worth spending some time on for the very reason that while it is very, very common it is a misconception nonetheless.
As the book’s title informs us Corinthians was written to a particular people, at a particular time, in a particular place: the Christians of Corinth some 2,000 years ago. When we consider that time and place, historical / cultural context, we find a complex interactions of cultures and myths such as Gnosticism and the worship of various Greek and Roman goddesses. In that case, Paul apparently seeks to prevent the teaching of un-biblical myths and seeks to ensure that women become well informed. That it was not a universal requirement for women to be silent is made all the clearer by the fact that from the Old to the New Testaments we find women who were Prophetesses and Judges:Miriam, Huldah and others (see Exodus 15:20; 2nd Kings 22:14; 2nd Chronicles 34:22; Isaiah 8:3).In fact, Judges 4:4 tells us of “Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time.”Anna was a prophetess (Luke 2:36) and “Philip the evangelist_had four virgin daughters who prophesied” (Acts 21:7-9).There were women disciples, Acts 9:36 states, “And in Joppa was a certain disciple named Tabitha_this woman was full of good works.”We find Priscilla teaching right along side of her husband Aquila (Acts 18:26). Women were also encouraged (or commanded) to teach the younger women (Titus 2:3-4).
There were women deaconesses “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a deacon [diakonos: deacon, minister, servant] of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also” (Romans 16:1-2).
While Pliny the Younger (Plinius Secundus) was Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor in 112 AD he wrote to Emperor Tarjan in Epistles 10.96, referring to Christians he writes of “two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses.” This demonstrates a continued Christian practice of having women in leadership and teaching roles even if they were not “ministers” in the sense of head pastors.
Based on quite a bit of minutia, it may be that Paul was referencing those with whom he disagrees in a juxtapositional manner. For example in 1st Corinthians 6:12 Paul juxtaposes two positions:
All things are lawful for me,
but all things are not helpful.All things are lawful for me,
but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Such appears to be the case in chapter 14 in the case of those who thought that only women should keep silent. The way this would work within the text is as may be seen by breaking it up into verses:
26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.- – -33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. – – -34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. – – -36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Paul has been addressing the issue of disorder: each has a psalm, teaching, tongue, revelation, interpretation.
Fine, just be sure to do these things for edification.
If one, anyone-male or female-speaks in a tongue and there is no interpreter, they-male or female-are to keep silent in church.When prophesying, judge each other and take turns “all prophesy one by one” and “let the first keep silent.” Keep in mind that prophecy does not necessarily refer to telling the future, but offering encouragement-“all may be encouraged.”
Why this imposition of order? Because “God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”
Next we find that some people offer a simple solution and say, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak_for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”Oh, really?!? “did the word of God come originally from you?”No, rather I (Paul) “write to you_the commandments of the Lord.”Therefore, keep order like I told you, take turns speaking and being silent “all” of you-both men and women.
Thus, Paul does not seem to be stating that “women keep silent in the churches” but reporting that this was presented as a solution but that it does not work since all-male or female-must worship in order.
In the next segment we will begin to parse between her side dished those related to the New Testament and those which are otherwise fallacious as a group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
The James Ossuary:The “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus,” ossuary is mentioned in the documentary:
“Forensic testing of the patina on the Jesus ossuary and that of James conclude that they came from the same tomb seemingly proving the authenticity of the often-questioned James ossuary and further increasing the likelihood that it is the tomb of the holy family.But there is one wrinkle that is not examined in the documentary, one that emerged in a Jerusalem courtroom just weeks ago at the fraud trial of James ossuary owner Oded Golan, charged with forging part of the inscription on the box. Former FBI agent Gerald Richard testified that a photo of the James ossuary, showing it in Golan’s home, was taken in the 1970s, based on tests done by the FBI photo lab. The trial resumes tomorrow.
Jacobovici conceded in an interview that if the ossuary was photographed in the 1970s, it could not then have been found in a tomb in 1980. But while he does not address the conundrum in the documentary, he said in an interview that it’s possible Golan’s photo was printed on old paper in the 1980s.”1
Moreover,
“Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker’s claim that the James Ossuary – the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel – might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box. ‘I don’t think the James Ossuary came from the same cave,’ said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University.
‘If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus.'”2
Furthermore,
“The antiquities dealer (Oded Golan) from which the James ossuary was procured, attests that it came from Silwan, not Talpiot, and had dirt in it matching the soil from that location in Jerusalem, whereas the ossuaries from Talpiot came out of a rock cave from a different place, without such soil in it. ‘To theorize that there was a Jesus family tomb, and yet the one member of Jesus’ family who we know was buried in Jerusalem for a long time did not come out of the ground from that locale contradicts this theory.
Furthermore, Eusebius reports that the tomb marker for James’ burial was close to where James was martyred near the temple mount, indeed near the famous tombs in the Kidron valley such as the so-called tomb of Absalom. Talpiot is nowhere near this locale.”3
The Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) and the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) have declared that the inscription on the James Ossuary is a forgery. They also state, “the ‘letters patina’ of ‘James Ossuary’ reveals that the patina could not have formed under natural climatic conditions (temperature and water composition) that prevailed in the Judea Mountains during the last 2000 years.”4
Most noteworthy is the fact that Kloner was specifically asked,
“What of the assertion that the 10th ossuary disappeared from your care and may be none other than the ‘James’ ossuary?”
He responds thusly,
“Nothing has disappeared. The 10th ossuary was on my list. The measurements were not the same (as the James ossuary). It was plain (without an inscription). We had no room under our roofs for all the ossuaries, so unmarked ones were sometimes kept in the courtyard (of the Rockefeller Museum).”5
Of further archeological interest may be The Jesus Tablet – “L’shloshet Yamin-In Three Days” – “Sar Hasarin-Prince of Princes.
Concluding Musings:
It appears that the documentary is accurate in its depictions of actual findings:
A tomb was, in fact, found.
Ossuaries were, in fact, found.
Legible inscriptions were, in fact, found.
Very common names were, in fact, found.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Perhaps it was a family tomb.
Perhaps someone name Yeshua was married to Mariamne or Mara or Maria.
Perhaps Yehuda was their son.
Perhaps this was even the family tomb of Jesus the Messiah.
Perhaps.
The “facts” are one part of the documentary and the “perhaps” are another. It is the perhaps portions that threaten to discredit an otherwise interesting documentary about ancient history and modern archaeology. The dramatic recreations, being based on perhaps, are unfounded personal interpretations that are only an accurate representation of the filmmaker’s active imaginations.
We find the filmmaker’s irresponsible hype in his claims to have found the ossuaries of “The Virgin Mary, Jesus of Nazareth, Mary Magdalene and Judah, their son,” when, in fact, no such thing was found.
The scientific fact of DNA is less than conclusive. The statistics are questionable, at best. We are left with many unanswered and unasked questions.
Here is the response:
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking in what manner I condemn them as opposed to what justification I’d use for condemning them.
Still, it’s easy. The deaths of innocent children, pain and suffering, (would you want that kind of thing done to you), and then there’s the fact that acts of genocide aren’t really conducive to the human race’s survival.
Your god set up a lot of lousy precedents in the OT which history shows that your fellow believers made use of.
Does an atheist condemn certain actions because they are immoral or are certain actions immoral because an atheist decided to condemn them?
Answered above.Thing is, I can turn that back on you. Is something moral because your god says it is in which case it’s purely subjective or does your god say that something is moral because it intrinsically is moral, in which case “morality” is something that exists outside of your god, and he, like us, just picks out what seems moral to him.
Too bad he’s not consistent though. You know, the so-called “pro-lifers” who worship a being who had pregnant women and babies killed in the OT.
Well, he certainly attempted to turn things around on me. Yet, in seeking to condemn God, the Bible, etc. he is still lacking a justification for his condemnation. This is a typical atheist tactic: when asked for justification for condemnation they will pile another condemnation upon the one you are asking them to justify. In this way they, consciously or not, attempting to get you to start defending God, the Bible, etc. and forget that they have failed to provide a justification in the first place.
Incidentally, I deal with the Euthyphro Dilemma at the very end of my opening statement.
I simply asked for further elucidation:
I do not mean to be difficult but I am interested in understanding your views.
Why are the deaths of innocent children, pain and suffering condemnable?
Also, why should I be the least bit concerned about the human race’s survival?
Here is the erudite response:
Well, so much for the xian claim of atheists having no moral code then. I’ve shown it and you’ve said, in effect, “so what”?
Please don’t deconvert then. You’ve shown yourself to be nothing but a psychopath who’s restrained by a belief that someone is watching him.
In general, atheists view the human race as something worth preserving, for our children’s sake if nothing else. You religious people don’t have even that, I guess.
What you have seems to be “morality” dictated by rewards and threats of punishment. That’s a child’s level of morality and not a morality based on consequences or empathy or even compassion.
There is quite a bit to note here: 1) the atheists (plural; I do not know whence he got the authority to speak for atheists in general but whatever) moral code is the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule, “pain and suffering, (would you want that kind of thing done to you)” and “the human race’s survival.” But this is not a code; this is merely more assertions without foundations. 2) I stated that “I am interested in understanding your views” and he, very, very quickly jumped to an emotive personal besmirchment in referring to me as “nothing but a psychopath.” 3) “atheists” (again, plural; with the qualifier “In general”) “view the human race as something worth preserving, for our children’s sake if nothing else.” But again, this is an assertion and does not state why. “for our children’s sake” but why for their sake? And another emotive personal besmirchment, “You religious people don’t have even that, I guess.” Well, he guessed wrong. 4) The last statement about rewards and punishment is an ubiquitously promulgated well within the box atheist talking point de jour. It is one that I have discredited and showed him was fallacious.
See The Red Light of Punishment and On Morality, Reward, Punishment, and Crowns for some examples of dealing with this issue.
See the next segment for my response.
Christianity ————-
————-
————-
(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-
————-
(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-
(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christianity ————-
————-
————-
(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-
————-
(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-
(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christianity ————-
————-
————-
(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-
————-
(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-
(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~