Atheism?

This is such a worthy area of thought. I know that I will have to devote several posts to this issue. A caveat is warranted. Any opinions submitted from this point on are not intended to attack anyone unless they become a troll. As long as you stick to the issues and avoid ad hominem attacks, you will be permitted to argue on this thread.

I suggest you go and read the complete text of the Imperial Firearms Advisor’s post, before you comment here. I choose to deal with certain portions of Kim’s post, but you should be fully informed before considering my opinion.

Du Toit:
“But Kim, you ask, you're a devout atheist. How can you preach religion as a code of behavior? And doesn't observance of religious behavior lead to a theocracy?”

Comment: "devout atheist" I find that funny, and only definition 3 saves Kim from embarrassment.

1. Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations. See Synonyms at religious.
2. Displaying reverence or piety.
3. Sincere; earnest: devout wishes for their success.

But never mind all that. The question is, which society would we rather live in? Do you want to live in a world where people all around you believe that there is no higher power that they will ever have to answer to, or do you want the people all around you to believe that whatever they do is going to be judged and that they ought to keep this in mind when dealing with others around them?

We've seen the kind of society that results from men like Mao Tse Dong, and Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin. That is the logical result of atheism. Geoffrey Dahmer is the result of atheism. But is this enough to argue for a deity? No. Not at all. What might happen or has happened due to a lack of belief is not enough to convince or coerce the rest of society to agree that we need a god.

It should. You would think that people who want the best for themselves and their families would have enough sense to recognize that a world without a supreme being who will both reward and punish behavior is an extremely beneficial thing, but some people want to ignore the fact that there is a definate line between liberty and license.

Du Toit:
1. Religion. I don't care whether you are a Catholic or a Buddhist, most religions have at their core a set of behavioral restrictions that are remarkably similar to the Jewish Ten Commandments (which were themselves predated by Hammurabi's Code, incidentally). These restrictions make good sense: don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't be envious of others, respect your elders, don't fuck someone else's wife or husband. If you think about it, these are the lubricants of a well-ordered society. It is impossible for society to exist without trust and respect for others' persons or property. Suspicion, theft and envy are the hallmarks of a society which will ultimately fail. Obedience to these restrictions is paramount, and the definitions are broad, by design. "Don't lie" means just that-- there's no wiggle room for definitions of "is" and other such weasel tactics

My Comment:
But Kim, there have been so many very successful liars. And who are you to say that anyone should not lie if they are good at it? You see, the question is, from what basis or authority do you sit there and pontificate about why anyone should not lie? From where comes your authority? Truly honest atheists acknowledge that without a supreme being, creator, authority; it is every man for himself. Thomas Huxley made this very clear in a letter to a friend:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a menaing; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned esclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political pwer and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . for myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."

There you go.

I think that ants and grasshoppers and cows and even my own dogs do not ponder their own existence, let alone God's, but humans are uniquely different. We are beyond the mere definition of sentient. We explore epistimological questions. Why do we know what we know? Where did we come from? Why do we exist?

Animals simply respond to stimuli based on the programming in their DNA. Which begs the question: where did DNA come from? If you respond with "It evolved." You are incredibly stupid.

First of all, that would require some mechanism that defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Any scientist who could demonstrate such a mechanism would make Einstein look like a moron. DeoxyriboNucleic Acid is an extremely complex code, a language. It is a set of instructions that "tells" molecules and atoms how to construct themselves into useful protiens and organelles so as to support cells and organs and all sorts of life.

If I were to tell you that if you simply wired enough microchips together, in no particular order, and plugged the whole thing into a 110 volt power supply, that eventually, the whole mess would begin reorganizing itself into something useful, you would laugh at me and call me an idiot.

But the very same person that would think I'm an idiot for suggesting such a thing wants me to believe that long ago in a cesspool, some byproducts of animal waste, (CO2, CH4, H2) somehow decided to combine themselves into racemic (dextrorotary) molecules to form amino acids and protiens that cannot survive in an unprotected state.

I'm going to move on to the law later. Just chew on the above for a while

Du Toit:
3. The law. The law is the final resort-- what you employ when religion and manners have failed, and only then. This is why law is so precise-- it covers very specific transgressions, and lays out very specific procedures and penalties to deal with them. The law assumes that religion and manners have taken care of most of the problems, and what's left is very specific.

When religious adherence is taken too far, to its extreme if you will, is what causes a theocracy. The Muslim Sha'ria is a prime example of this. But the basic tenets of religious precept are critical to the proper functioning of society-- it's why I as an atheist send my son to a parochial private school, and why the two homeschooled kids are held to rigorous standards of behavior. Children have to be drilled in the basic concepts of behavioral restriction-- theft is wrong, killing is wrong, etc.-- and the instruction is easier to do with religion, but not impossible without it.

Ditto manners. Our kids are all constantly drilled on manners and need for such. Rudeness and other such manifestations of poor behavior are punished on the spot. This doesn't mean that our kids are shrinking violets [pause for derisive laughter], but it does mean that they get on extremely well with almost everybody, and are popular both with other kids and with their parents.

Where we have screwed up as a society, is in the lapse of both religious precept and manners-- which results in ever-expanding laws to deal with all the exigencies which were once covered by religious and mannered proscription-- and which is also why more lawyers graduate from college each year than the year before.

My own consultant's contract, for instance, is one of the shortest in the industry, and I prefer to work on the basis of a handshake -- and when I'm asked why, my reply is simple: "There's no small print in a handshake."

Of course I won't divulge a client's secrets; you don't need to threaten me with legal injunctions. Of course I won't bill for time not spent working on their project; of course I won't break the law when I work on their behalf; and of course the work I do on their behalf belongs to them. To do otherwise in all the above would be a profound breach of trust. Yes, it's true that my business would be impossible to conduct if I were to breach the trust, but that's not why I won't do it.

Which brings me, finally, to Enron (and to all the others who have been caught playing accounting reindeer games).

It might be legal to book certain expenses as capital expenditure, but it's inherently dishonest to do so when you know that they aren't really that.

And so on. The penalty for all these shenanigans is going to be evermore-burdensome and restrictive laws, which means that everyone in business is going to suffer. But there is a better way.

Comments

[david]

We've seen the kind of society that results from men like Mao Tse Dong, and Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin. That is the logical result of atheism. Geoffrey Dahmer is the result of atheism.

No, they are not the "result" of atheism...they are the result of pure evil. Atheism in this context is irrelevant. For instance, I am an atheist, and one of the most kind-hearted people you could ever hope to meet...and one with very high standards and values.

[Mike]

Your flawed understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the Law prevents an embryo from growing into a full human being.