Comment by Heather Spoonheim on March 24, 2011 at 2:56pm

I've always been disgusted by the fact that Christian churches (the ones that I've attended) openly tell parishioners that when they've wronged somebody they should ask for God's forgiveness in Jesus' name.  What about the person they fucking wronged?  It's easy to see why Christianity is a catchy lyric - it literally means never having to say you're sorry.

Comment by Sean Fraser on March 24, 2011 at 3:49pm

Wow. That guy is a moron. He has virtually no grasp on natural selection, the concept of free will, or moral ethics.

 

"The average atheist makes certain basic assumptions about reality: that we all exist as a result of blind and purposeless happenstance, that free will is illusory, that there is no conscious "self" and that there is no objective right or wrong." <---Just because existence happened without someone guiding it doesn't make it blind and purposeless. Purpose is subjective. Free will is a choice. I could kill someone or I could not. We are all governed by our conscience, which is our innate sense of self preservation and sense of the preservation of the species. Killing someone would eliminate a member of my species as well as produce negative consequences for me, therefore I won't kill someone. People who do not have this innate sense are sociopaths.

 

"The case he tries to make is that morality is somehow scientifically built into reality and when done correctly results in what he calls "human thriving."" <---Yeah. Duh. If humans listen to our conscience and refrain from doing things that will negatively affect ourselves as well as our species, we will thrive.

 

"But surely the objective listener must recognize that the notion of "thriving" itself is utterly subjective. The Taliban might very well believe that they are the pinnacle of human civilization and there has never been any shortage of cultures who's depravities were considered (by them) to be perfectly wonderful things to do. Are we really arrogant enough to suggest that we're so different?" <---Yes, because the Taliban is chock full of people who do NOT listen to their conscience, but obey a system of indoctrination, a religion. Religion prevents humans from listening to their natural sense of morality and replaces it with a heavily biased sense of righteousness. 

 

"Furthermore, if there is no such thing as free will, then what sense does it make to blame anyone for any action whatsoever? "I felt like it" or "I couldn't help myself" should be considered perfectly reasonable defenses to any "wrong-doing." In fact, the most sensible and logically consistent outgrowth of the atheist worldview should be permission to get for one's self whatever one's heart desires at any moment (assuming that you can get away with it)."<---Humans have free will to do whatever they choose. They can choose to listen to their conscience, or they can choose to ignore it. People have different reasons for ignoring their conscience, like self preservation and immediate pleasure. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be exempt from the consequences of that choice. I am hungry and have no money for food, so I steal food. Even though I was simply acting in self preservation, I still stole and am subject to the law. People who practice free will under the assumption that they are above the consequences are mentally ill. Apparently this guy thinks all atheists are psychopathic sociopaths. 

 

"Christopher Hitchens gave an oxymoronically entitled talk called "The Moral Necessity of Atheism." In it, he argued that racism was illogical due to our common "relationship to ground worms and other creatures." An original case for equality to be sure. In as much as we're all like earthworms we really ought to treat each other well. Strange. Is not Hitchens an ardent supporter of the tenets of Neo-Darwinism that necessitates the perpetual death struggle within all species at all times? Shouldn't he in fact believe the precise opposite of what he claims? Survival of the fittest does not suggest social harmony. Furthermore, doesn't Darwinism suggest that certain groups within a given population will develop beneficial mutations, essentially making them "better" than other groups? It would seem that racism would again be a natural conclusion of this worldview -- quite unlike the theistic approach which would suggest that people have intrinsic value do to their creation in the "image of God."<---Racism is a product of social issues and institutions of indoctrination, not "survival of the fittest". We as humans, regardless of race, are all members of the same species, so we naturally would want our species to thrive. It is the actions of a largely Christian government, various racial groups, and religion that separates us into "groups". I'd go out on a limb and say that atheists are largely in favor of a level of equality for all races in the interest of gaining and sharing knowledge and species survival.

 

"Through my private conversations with atheists, most of whom I would describe as very good people, I am becoming convinced that they don't really buy the party line when it comes to ethics. Like it or not, they seem to have an objective sense that certain things are "just wrong" and it's almost as if those things are built into the fabric of reality. Objective morality requires an absolute standard by which to judge it. The alternative is amorality. As Dr. Joel Marks said, "the long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality..."<---The problem is, there is no such thing as "objective morality". Morality is based on the values of the individual and their willingness to listen to their conscience. The only things I can think of that are 100% objective morally are murder, dishonesty and stealing. Everything else is relative. Atheism doesn't imply amorality, it implies choice between morality and amorality. Choose to be moral and benefit your species and yourself, or choose to be immoral and suffer the consequences. That is the true nature of free will.

Comment