Richard Dawkins and the “Nothing Butters”

American Vision ^ | Nov 24, 2009 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

The “Nothing Butters” are rampant in the world of atheism. Philosopher Daniel Dennett presupposes that “the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon.” Dawkins assures us that the universe is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Crick tops it off with we’re “nothing but a pack of neurons.” If we are all “nothing butters,” why is it wrong for white “nothing butters” to own and sell black "nothing butters"?

[Right Brother]

[Grut]

Well, as I keep pointing out, if we work the way the world works then the world works the way we work. And since we work by will (we know this more surely than we can know any ‘objective’ evidence to the contrary) then the world works by will. In other words, deism is the default position of materialism, not atheism.

[Secret Agent Man]

The short end of it is if the material world is all there is, there is no right and wrong, morality is just mere preferences that have no justification other than “I want to” or “I don’t want to” and Dawkins’ views are no more valid than (aka as equally valid as) anyone else’s about ANYTHING including what kind of underwear, if any, they want to wear. No right and wrong, anything the material brain atoms can think up is valid. Any thought or desire is valid just by being thought. “There is no God” is just as valid and real as “There is a God”. It becomes a matter of preference, and nobody’s preference can be viewed as wrong, just a choice.

That’s where the material view fails to convince, and it also winds up disproving itself.

[hellbender]

I see. The late quartets of Beethoven, the plays of Shakespeare, Handel’s Messiah, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and the Gospel were all created by “packs of neurons” created by random mutations selected by the “survival of the fittest.” /s

[Blood of Tyrants]

In a world with no God, there is no right and wrong because there are no absolutes. When an atheist is pressed about WHY something is wrong, especially when it is something like rape or murder, they cannot come up with a definite answer other than “because”.

[Right Brother]

So, if I beat this smarmy pack of neurons identified as Richard Dawkins to a bloody pulp, am I wrong?

[Sherman Logan]

Hitler: The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.

Actully quite true. In its discussion of the origin of these ideologies, not their moral value.

Marx was (racially, the important thing to Hitler) a Jew.

Marxism is an attempt to bring the moral consolation of future salvation to people who have rejected God.

[Tax-chick]

“Nothing butter” made me think of the peculiar glop with no natural ingredients that my husband puts on toast ;-).

[Felis_irritable]

This drives lefties nuts as a result of the exact example you use. If there is no higher power, there is no reason (in their opinion...) for morality and the perfectablility or evolution of mankind is an illusion.

I believe the expression is “Hoisted on their own petard.”

[Blood of Tyrants]

Not if YOU don’t think it’s wrong.

[mjp]

Crick tops it off with we’re “nothing but a pack of neurons.

"Ethics," say Michael Ruse and Edward O. Wilson, "is an illusion lobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate"

[hellbender]

I recommend reading Marx and Satan by Richard Wurmbrand. In his youth, Marx wrote eloquently in defense of Christianity. Apparently he then came under the influence of Satanists. His writings about socialism show little evidence of idealism or altruism toward the working class; rather, they are full of Satanic nihilism and lust for violence and destruction.

[MNDude]

ha! I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hellbender]

The Mongol hordes, the plundering Muslim warlords, and the Communists showed plenty of cooperation in seeking their very worldly objectives (wealth, power, sex), but had nothing like the ethics of Christianity. Sorry, materialistic atheists. You can’t explain Mother Teresa (let alone Jesus of Nazareth) with your reductionist drivel.

[muawiyah]

The Mongol hordes were made up of Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, Zorastrians (if any still existed by that time), and adherents of Zen.

The Mongols were quite ecumenical. What they didn't tolerate were attempts to avoid foreign trade or pay taxes. Made 'em angry. Burned down whole cities for that kind of nonsense.

[hellbender]

I suspect that in those days, as today, "free trade" was just a cover for a small minority to amass huge wealth. The Mongols (and many other nomadic imperialists before and since) wanted to control all the major trade routes between the civilized nations and skim off taxes from all the parties. The top dogs in all these imperialistic schemes were usually satisfied with having the vassals pay tribute (which is just another word for taxes).

A few of the Mongols were nominal Christians, and the leadership used Muslims, sophisticated Chinese, and other more cultured minorities when it suited their needs, but the military core was ethnically and culturally Mongol.

Eventually the Turko-Tartaric tribes went over to Islam, because it is the perfect cover for imperialistic, plundering warriors.

[muawiyah]

Sure, they all went over to Islam except those who are today Christians and Buddhists and Hindus.

And those foreigners? Many of them were incorporated by marriage. And as far as nomadic is concerned, they got pretty UN-nomadic as soon as they had a regular and dependable supply of food (like after conquering Northern China, then Central Asia, then the Middle East, then India).

[Nosterrex]

“Without God, all things are permissible.” Dawkins and other Atheists of his ilk believe that morality or morals is an illusion or delusion. Morality does not exist in nature. What often appears as morality is the affects of our genes wanting to survive. Since there is no such thing as morality, there can be no immorality. Owning slaves may be bad manners, but it is not wrong or immoral. I would say that if owning slaves helps my genes to survive and propagate, slavery would be a good thing for me. Animals, such as ants, enslave other ants as a means to survive. It is not immoral for an ant to enslave another ant, why would it be wrong for humans? Assuming that there is such a things a wrong.

[slimemold]

If we are all “nothing butters,” why is it wrong for white “nothing butters” to own and sell black "nothing butters"?

Where in the Bible is slavery condemned as immoral?