Posted on 12/18/2014 7:35:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I don't necessarily see any difference between any of those things in a naturalistic construct. Behaviorists, in fact, teach just that - that even "logic and reason" are just conditioned responses based on chemically predetermined instinctual activity.
…atheism isn't exempt from analysis or critique of its real world consequences. Atheism is a metaphysical stance -- there are no gods and no God, there is no intrinsic purpose to existence, there is no natural moral law, there is no accountability in an afterlife. Those are quite explicit and consequential assertions, just as the negation of those assertions -- that there is a God, that there is a purpose to existence... -- is an explicit and consequential assertion. Atheism lacks liturgy. It does not lack beliefs and consequences. It lacks belief in God; it does not lack belief in the intrinsic consequences of God's non-existence. As Nietzsche emphatically noted, if God is dead, everything changes....atheism is to sin as alcoholism is to angst. Stupor-- metaphysical or medicinal-- is a denial of reality and a denial of consequences, which feels good for an evening or a weekend.
- Michael Egnor
“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.”
- William J Murray
If I recall correctly, an atheist named Ayn Rand didn’t have any use for altruism.
I am so sick of these trouble makers that I think the best thing to be done with them is to force them to offend Muslims so that they can get some serious hurt put back on them for not minding their own business.
Militant Atheism only attacks Christianity, it never attacks Islam, and I think we need to FORCE THEM to attack Islam so that they get a better understanding of what the consequences will be if they ever succeed in driving out Christianity.
These fools think they can live in a religion free society, and this is completely false. They will never get the choice of Christianity or Non Religion, they will get the Choice of Christianity or ISlAM. There is no "no religion" choice.
Attacking Christianity just strengthens Islam, it doesn't advance their stupid goal of a non-religious society at all. That goal is impossible.
You need to get into this discussion. These people are exactly like you. They are social termites trying to degrade and destroy an existing structure without having any understanding of what the consequences will be if they somehow manage to be successful.
What they are trying to do with religion, your group is trying to do with drugs. You will end up achieving the same results as the militant atheists; Social Collapse and Violent Backlash.
And your group won't see it coming either.
I debate this topic as often as I see it. I keep telling these people that the current existing atheists are polluted with Christian doctrine and Ideas because they grew up in a Christianity based society.
What they think is enlightened based altruism is in fact just habits sown by ubiquitous Christian teachings and ideas. That they think the one can exist without the other is a false notion.
Modern Atheists only exist because Christian society is the only sort of society which will tolerate them. If they tried advocating Atheism in a Muslim society, they would quickly be killed. Others would then decide it wasn't healthy to entertain such thoughts or discuss such ideas.
We have some history of Atheist societies. Soviet Russia murdered ~50 million people, and Communist China may have murdered as many as 100 million people. The Khmer Rouge only managed to get a paltry two million, and the fact that none of these atheist societies seem overly concerned with this enlightened altruism business ought to be sufficient proof that these ideas are utter nonsense.
These people are dangerous fools tampering with social structures that they do not understand, and they will break down another "Chesterton Fence" all to discover that they have loosed much destruction on themselves and society.
They are very much like drug legalizers in this regard.
Hence, 150 million people murdered by Atheists in the last Century.
And this is it in a nutshell. Lot of that going around nowadays.
And they get handed ammunition every time a Christian claims that it's proper to use the force of government to mandate Christian standards of non-rights-violating behavior such as (supposedly) not smoking pot.
“What they are trying to do with religion, your group is trying to do with drugs.”
You want to talk about drugs, do it on the drug thread. Following people to other threads to continue arguments is against FR forum rules.
Why is kindness desirable? If there is no God, why should we prefer to favor "kindness"? What is wrong with vicious brutality? Why should we not favor that which makes our own lives easier?
We've seen Atheist based standards of behavior. It was called "Eugenics" and it postulates that inferior people should be eliminated for the benefit of people possessing superior traits.
Apart from arguments based on spirituality, I see no rebuttal for the Atheist notion that the inferior needs to be destroyed.
They will not like the world that they think they want to create.
I chuckle when I read these signs, over the inherent futility of exhorting someone NOT to believe in something. At the very least, it’s poor salesmanship.
They are very much like drug legalizers in this regard.
"Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood."
The 'reasoning' behind the existing pot criminalization is that unemployed Prohibitionists whipped up a frenzy about crazy Mexicans and white-woman-seducing Negro jazz listeners - a 'problem' every bit as bogus as globull warming, and manufactured for the same reason: more power.
This is exactly true. From the font of "wisdom" that is Atheism comes no ideas of tolerance and equality, rather they are more philosophically consistent when explaining why the "fittest" ought to survive and why the "unfit" should not.
They only advocate Judeo-Christian ethics because they are unaware that such things are fed from a spiritual root. They think they can still get the flower once they cut off the stem that feeds it, because they have a fundamental lack of understanding regarding from whence come such ideas as they claim to advocate.
They don't want to see anything which shows them to be wrong. They don't want to be wrong, they want to be right because they believe themselves to be. Evidence to the contrary will be rejected.
“I don’t necessarily see any difference between any of those things in a naturalistic construct.”
Really? No difference between conscious thought, conditioned responses, instincts, or some other part of our nature?
If that is true, then we are no different than animals. Yet, we can see that is not the case, because we possess attributes that animals cannot. So something must make us different, and that thing must not be possessed by creatures which are nearly biologically identical to us.
>His point is to what, replace all other religions with his religion?
Isn’t that the goal of most all religions?
By people like you who falsely or ignorantly make such charges. Yes, you people are all functioning as one big team to destroy this benign society we had, all to replace it with a vile, sick and disgusting collection of hedonistic indolents.
Legalizing Drugs is just another front for attack from the forces of evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.