David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
- Thread starter سيف الله
- Start date
- Replies 70
- Views 42K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Salaam
Like to share.
The End Of Atheism
If you are over the age of 40, perhaps a bit older, you have lived long enough to see a great fad get going, peak and then fade away completely. Lots of fads run their course in a few months, obviously, but social movements tend to build slowly and then stick around for a while, before disappearing down the memory hole. One of those fads is atheism, which had a good run in the 80’s and 90’s. It started to peter out in the 90’s, had a brief revival in the aughts, but now seems to be headed to oblivion.
The so-called “new atheists” are not ready to throw in the towel on their reason to exist, as it were, but that’s to be expected. Harris and Dennett moved all their chips into the middle of the table with the atheism stuff. It got them the attention they desired, so as a gambler will wear a diamond pinky ring to recall his one big score, these guys still proudly wear their atheism. All of them have moved onto other things, but they will expound upon their hatred of religion if the crowd demands it.
Of course, anytime the word “new” gets attached to something old, it means that old thing is now dead. It also means that old thing had some serious internal defect that eventually killed it. The “new right” made an appearance when it was clear Conservative Inc. was just a ruthless money racket. The previous iteration of “new right” appeared in the 70’s when everyone agreed the old right was dead. The reason “new atheism” got going is everyone agreed that regular old atheism was creepy and weird.
The central defect of atheism, old and new, is it is an entirely negative western identity and entirely dependent on Christianity. Specifically, it requires people of some status to defend Christianity and the Christian belief in the super natural. Atheism has always been the oxpecker of mass movements. Everything about it relies on its host both tolerating it and thriving on its own. It’s why atheism has had its spasms of success when Christianity in America has had a revival, as in the 80’s and the 2000’s.
Atheists will deny this, of course. They will argue, as Dennett often does, that the steep decline of Christianity is proof their arguments were superior. The reason they no longer talk about their thing is they won and their enemy is dead. The fact that there are plenty of Muslims and crackpot feminist airheads around spouting magical oogily-boogily never seems to get their attention for some reason. The only guy to venture into this area was Dawkins, but the Prog quickly reminded him who pays his bills.
That’s always been the tell with atheism. Belief in something as insane as male privilege or implicit whiteness should get their attention. After all, these are not just beliefs in the supernatural, they are primitive beliefs in the supernatural. Men of the classical period had more plausible and complex beliefs than people like Amy Harmon. She is a click away from demanding human sacrifice. Yet, the new atheists were never much interest in those magical beliefs. They were too busy hounding the last Christians.
That’s another tell. Atheism has always been a popular pose on the Left, because it was a useful signal. The bad whites loved their boom sticks and sky gods. The good whites rejected all those crazy beliefs. It’s why atheists tended to focus on the mainstream of Christianity, like Catholics and mainline Protestant churches. Mormons were always an easy target. They avoided the Jews and black Baptists. Sure, once in while a zinger against the tribe would be tossed in, but the enemy was always white Christians.
The decline on atheism is a good example of the perils of negative identity. When you define yourself as being in opposition to someone or something, you inevitably become a slave to it. Your very existence depends on it. As the main Christian churches collapse in scandal and bizarre attempts to move Left, the enemies for atheists to attack are getting more difficult to find. Attacking Christians is like beating up a puppy. Only the severely mentally disturbed think Christians have any power today.
The other thing working against atheism is it has been mostly male. That’s an interesting thing, given that the American Atheists was created by a woman in the 60’s. Then again, Madalyn Murray O’Hair was just a cat’s paw for the usual suspects. Her role was to be the point the spear in the war to decouple Christianity from American civic and cultural life. Since then, atheism has been a male thing. Given the declining status of males on the Left, particularly white males, it is no surprise that atheism is dying.
Given the state of affairs in the West and the crippling decline in the Christian churches, it is hard to see atheism having another revival. Christianity appears to morphing into a private, bespoke thing in order to survive outside the Progressive orthodoxy. That makes it a worthless enemy for atheists. You can never know, of course, but it looks like public Christianity is done for. That means atheism is done for as well, unless it moves onto Judaism or Progressivism and that will never be allowed.
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=16520
Like to share.
The End Of Atheism
If you are over the age of 40, perhaps a bit older, you have lived long enough to see a great fad get going, peak and then fade away completely. Lots of fads run their course in a few months, obviously, but social movements tend to build slowly and then stick around for a while, before disappearing down the memory hole. One of those fads is atheism, which had a good run in the 80’s and 90’s. It started to peter out in the 90’s, had a brief revival in the aughts, but now seems to be headed to oblivion.
The so-called “new atheists” are not ready to throw in the towel on their reason to exist, as it were, but that’s to be expected. Harris and Dennett moved all their chips into the middle of the table with the atheism stuff. It got them the attention they desired, so as a gambler will wear a diamond pinky ring to recall his one big score, these guys still proudly wear their atheism. All of them have moved onto other things, but they will expound upon their hatred of religion if the crowd demands it.
Of course, anytime the word “new” gets attached to something old, it means that old thing is now dead. It also means that old thing had some serious internal defect that eventually killed it. The “new right” made an appearance when it was clear Conservative Inc. was just a ruthless money racket. The previous iteration of “new right” appeared in the 70’s when everyone agreed the old right was dead. The reason “new atheism” got going is everyone agreed that regular old atheism was creepy and weird.
The central defect of atheism, old and new, is it is an entirely negative western identity and entirely dependent on Christianity. Specifically, it requires people of some status to defend Christianity and the Christian belief in the super natural. Atheism has always been the oxpecker of mass movements. Everything about it relies on its host both tolerating it and thriving on its own. It’s why atheism has had its spasms of success when Christianity in America has had a revival, as in the 80’s and the 2000’s.
Atheists will deny this, of course. They will argue, as Dennett often does, that the steep decline of Christianity is proof their arguments were superior. The reason they no longer talk about their thing is they won and their enemy is dead. The fact that there are plenty of Muslims and crackpot feminist airheads around spouting magical oogily-boogily never seems to get their attention for some reason. The only guy to venture into this area was Dawkins, but the Prog quickly reminded him who pays his bills.
That’s always been the tell with atheism. Belief in something as insane as male privilege or implicit whiteness should get their attention. After all, these are not just beliefs in the supernatural, they are primitive beliefs in the supernatural. Men of the classical period had more plausible and complex beliefs than people like Amy Harmon. She is a click away from demanding human sacrifice. Yet, the new atheists were never much interest in those magical beliefs. They were too busy hounding the last Christians.
That’s another tell. Atheism has always been a popular pose on the Left, because it was a useful signal. The bad whites loved their boom sticks and sky gods. The good whites rejected all those crazy beliefs. It’s why atheists tended to focus on the mainstream of Christianity, like Catholics and mainline Protestant churches. Mormons were always an easy target. They avoided the Jews and black Baptists. Sure, once in while a zinger against the tribe would be tossed in, but the enemy was always white Christians.
The decline on atheism is a good example of the perils of negative identity. When you define yourself as being in opposition to someone or something, you inevitably become a slave to it. Your very existence depends on it. As the main Christian churches collapse in scandal and bizarre attempts to move Left, the enemies for atheists to attack are getting more difficult to find. Attacking Christians is like beating up a puppy. Only the severely mentally disturbed think Christians have any power today.
The other thing working against atheism is it has been mostly male. That’s an interesting thing, given that the American Atheists was created by a woman in the 60’s. Then again, Madalyn Murray O’Hair was just a cat’s paw for the usual suspects. Her role was to be the point the spear in the war to decouple Christianity from American civic and cultural life. Since then, atheism has been a male thing. Given the declining status of males on the Left, particularly white males, it is no surprise that atheism is dying.
Given the state of affairs in the West and the crippling decline in the Christian churches, it is hard to see atheism having another revival. Christianity appears to morphing into a private, bespoke thing in order to survive outside the Progressive orthodoxy. That makes it a worthless enemy for atheists. You can never know, of course, but it looks like public Christianity is done for. That means atheism is done for as well, unless it moves onto Judaism or Progressivism and that will never be allowed.
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=16520
Zafran
IB Expert
- Messages
- 2,737
- Reaction score
- 276
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
sounds like a whiny Christian who hates Islam, feminist and atheists. He also seems to only talk about "new atheists" but forgets that atheists have plenty of different philosophies and have been destroying western Christendom since modernity because Christians failed to keep them at bay.
Salaam
Its been around since ancient times, Plato didnt approve of them.
Currently and in the recent past though, yes its primary animus has been towards Christianity.
Edit - Vox makes the case against freedom of speech. He argues that the one of its purposes of freedom of speech was to undermine the Christian basis of (western) society.
Freedom of speech is not a right
From an Islamic perspective.
They understand.
Wow, really? It kind of makes sense but for atheism to specifically come about as a reaction against Christianity is kind of staggering, no?
eace:
Its been around since ancient times, Plato didnt approve of them.
Currently and in the recent past though, yes its primary animus has been towards Christianity.
Edit - Vox makes the case against freedom of speech. He argues that the one of its purposes of freedom of speech was to undermine the Christian basis of (western) society.
Freedom of speech is not a right
From an Islamic perspective.
They understand.
Last edited:
^^ Kind of an example of why I prefer Plato entirely over Aristotle. Plato understood that this material world was a fragment of what there is, whereas Aristotle (and this acquaintances) put themselves in a similar dogmatic mentality of 'material is all' that serves in the current age as a vehicle for Paganism and the ancient mystery religions to resurface (via Darwinism, Atheism, the Occult and New Age all seeping into mainstream worldviews) - it's all just a prepping for one world government. Atheists are what are termed "useful idiots", often synonymous with the "modern political Left". Destroy everything of Western and Eastern culture, create chaos and then offer a solution as something brave, inspiring, "progressive" and "universal"
Salaam
Yes he should go easy on casting stones, mind you Christians have borne the brunt of the attack by the modernists, now that its failing they are turning their attention on to us.
I didnt expect this from John Locke (one of the founders of liberalism).
Some book recommendations. there quite controversial (reviews are mixed), but worth a read for a different point of view.
A basic introduction to modern atheism.
Blurb
Atheism is one of the most important movements in modern Western culture. For the last two hundred years, it seemed to be on the verge of eliminating religion as an outmoded and dangerous superstition. Recent years, however, have witnessed the decline of disbelief and a rise in religious/spiritual devotion throughout the world. In this highly readable book, the distinguished historian and theologian, Alister McGrath examines what went wrong with the atheist dream and explains why religion and faith are destined to play a central role in the twenty-first century.
A former atheist who is now one of Christianity's foremost scholars, McGrath traces the history of atheism from its emergence in eighteenth-century Europe as a revolutionary worldview that offered liberation from the rigidity of traditional Christianity and the oppression of tyrannical monarchs, to its golden age in the first half of the twentieth century.
Blending thoughtful, authoritative historical analysis with incisive portraits of such leading and influential atheists as Sigmund Freud, Marx and Richard Dawkins, McGrath exposes the flaws at the heart of atheism and argues that the renewal of faith is a natural, inevitable and necessary response to its failures.
Blurb
On one side of the argument is a collection of godless academics with doctorates from the finest universities in England, France, and the United States. On the other is Irrational Atheist author Vox Day, armed with nothing more than historical and statistical facts. Presenting a compelling argument (but not for the side one might expect), Day strips away the pseudo-scientific pretentions of New Atheism with his intelligent application of logic, history, military science, political economy, and well-documented research. The arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michel Onfray are all methodically exposed and discredited as Day provides extensive evidence proving, among other things, that:
More than 93 percent of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion
The Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over professing Jews, Muslims, or atheists, and executed fewer people on an annual basis than the state of Texas
Atheists are 3.84 times more likely to be imprisoned than Christians
“Red” state crime is primarily in “blue” counties
Sexually abused girls are 55 times more likely to commit suicide than girls raised Catholic
In the twentieth century, atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined. The Irrational Atheist provides the rational thinker with empirical proof that atheism’s claims against religion are unfounded in logic, fact, and science.
(Ive posted this a while back but Ill repost it here ) a great book on the origins of secularism.
Blurb
A dazzling examination of the politics of religion and the religion of politics by one of Europes greatest modern historians.
From the French Revolution to the first World War, the philosophes of the Enlightenment to the psuedo-relgious 'high priests' of Marxism, never before has the complicated interaction between the Church and the modern politcal state been so lucidly described.
As Michael Burleigh shows through characters as diverse as Charles Fourier, a proto Communist who denounced capitalism and looked forward to a day when the ocenas would be filled with lemonade, to Voltaire and his fervent desire to stamp out fantatcism, the champions of change have often displayed a distinctly relgious zeal in their quest, harnessing mankinds spirtual longing to bolster their own vision of secular society. the result has been the emergence of a new and often terrifying secularism which has replaced the idols of religion with the idols of nationalism.
Yes he should go easy on casting stones, mind you Christians have borne the brunt of the attack by the modernists, now that its failing they are turning their attention on to us.
I didnt expect this from John Locke (one of the founders of liberalism).
Some book recommendations. there quite controversial (reviews are mixed), but worth a read for a different point of view.
A basic introduction to modern atheism.
Blurb
Atheism is one of the most important movements in modern Western culture. For the last two hundred years, it seemed to be on the verge of eliminating religion as an outmoded and dangerous superstition. Recent years, however, have witnessed the decline of disbelief and a rise in religious/spiritual devotion throughout the world. In this highly readable book, the distinguished historian and theologian, Alister McGrath examines what went wrong with the atheist dream and explains why religion and faith are destined to play a central role in the twenty-first century.
A former atheist who is now one of Christianity's foremost scholars, McGrath traces the history of atheism from its emergence in eighteenth-century Europe as a revolutionary worldview that offered liberation from the rigidity of traditional Christianity and the oppression of tyrannical monarchs, to its golden age in the first half of the twentieth century.
Blending thoughtful, authoritative historical analysis with incisive portraits of such leading and influential atheists as Sigmund Freud, Marx and Richard Dawkins, McGrath exposes the flaws at the heart of atheism and argues that the renewal of faith is a natural, inevitable and necessary response to its failures.
Blurb
On one side of the argument is a collection of godless academics with doctorates from the finest universities in England, France, and the United States. On the other is Irrational Atheist author Vox Day, armed with nothing more than historical and statistical facts. Presenting a compelling argument (but not for the side one might expect), Day strips away the pseudo-scientific pretentions of New Atheism with his intelligent application of logic, history, military science, political economy, and well-documented research. The arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michel Onfray are all methodically exposed and discredited as Day provides extensive evidence proving, among other things, that:
More than 93 percent of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion
The Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over professing Jews, Muslims, or atheists, and executed fewer people on an annual basis than the state of Texas
Atheists are 3.84 times more likely to be imprisoned than Christians
“Red” state crime is primarily in “blue” counties
Sexually abused girls are 55 times more likely to commit suicide than girls raised Catholic
In the twentieth century, atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined. The Irrational Atheist provides the rational thinker with empirical proof that atheism’s claims against religion are unfounded in logic, fact, and science.
(Ive posted this a while back but Ill repost it here ) a great book on the origins of secularism.
Blurb
A dazzling examination of the politics of religion and the religion of politics by one of Europes greatest modern historians.
From the French Revolution to the first World War, the philosophes of the Enlightenment to the psuedo-relgious 'high priests' of Marxism, never before has the complicated interaction between the Church and the modern politcal state been so lucidly described.
As Michael Burleigh shows through characters as diverse as Charles Fourier, a proto Communist who denounced capitalism and looked forward to a day when the ocenas would be filled with lemonade, to Voltaire and his fervent desire to stamp out fantatcism, the champions of change have often displayed a distinctly relgious zeal in their quest, harnessing mankinds spirtual longing to bolster their own vision of secular society. the result has been the emergence of a new and often terrifying secularism which has replaced the idols of religion with the idols of nationalism.
Last edited:
Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of theism.
It is a mistake to conflate it with anything else .
I’m not convinced that gods are real, therefore I am atheist.
Atheism in not a claim , it is the rejection of a claim ( the claim being some god exists)
It is a mistake to conflate it with anything else .
I’m not convinced that gods are real, therefore I am atheist.
Atheism in not a claim , it is the rejection of a claim ( the claim being some god exists)
It's very illogical and unscientific to believe this intelligently designed universe could have come about by chance; you have been lied to and duped by the evolutionists; see https://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
Physicist
Elite Member
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 17
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
That is rather an example of misleading conflation of evolutionism and atheism.
Theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with Islam and argument lays rather in details about mechanics of Creation.
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD]https://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
I will quote my friend Abdurrahman who couldn't have said it any better:
Anyone who believes God created life, then there isn't even a reason to try set out to prove life came about by step by step micro or macro evolution, as God could have created all creatures in their full forms. It's only those who wish to deny God that attempts to designate life to a process of cause and effect so people can think life or universe doesn't need God. This is another reason why Muslims should naturally find evolution theory suspect.
Last edited:
My atheism is not dependent on either theory.
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD]https://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
No matter what moral beliefs we may have, all people have felt guilt in their life. Every person including the atheist has felt that they have done wrong in their life and may have felt guilt or remorse or depression as a result.
The question however is: How do you as an atheist deal with guilt and sin in their life? What do you do to remove guilt or sin in your hearts?
It is a known fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than theists. Depression, anxiety and lack of happiness are common issues with atheists. This is due to the fact that the atheist belief system does not adequately account for purpose or meaning of life. Hence in the perception of the atheist life is not only temporary but it lacks no definitive meaning.
God created us to glorify Him. Glorifying God means that we acknowledge His existence and He is the object of our faith and worship. It also means that we live in order to please and serve our Creator.
Without God, the issue of guilt and sin cannot be properly or adequately dealt with.
- - - Updated - - -
It is debatable. You need to first know what atheists claim using the theory of evolution. Human beings are definitely not the evolution stage of Apes. Quran is very clear on this. I have seen some Muslims who like to use some verses from Quran to prove the theory of evolution is compatible with Islam but I don't agree with them. Theory of evolution is a theory only, scientists have never found any fossils showing the intermediate stages of evolution from apes to humans. We don't need to prove Quran with every theory out there in the science world. Theories are theories and these change, Quran does not change and I is fully compatible with ESTABLISHED scientific facts but it may not be compatible with theories.
- - - Updated - - -
It is debatable. You need to first know what atheists claim using the theory of evolution. Human beings are definitely not the evolution stage of Apes. Quran is very clear on this. I have seen some Muslims who like to use some verses from Quran to prove the theory of evolution is compatible with Islam but I don't agree with them. Theory of evolution is a theory only, scientists have never found any fossils showing the intermediate stages of evolution from apes to humans. We don't need to prove Quran with every theory out there in the science world. Theories are theories and these change, Quran does not change and I is fully compatible with ESTABLISHED scientific facts but it may not be compatible with theories.
- - - Updated - - -
It is debatable. You need to first know what atheists claim using the theory of evolution. Human beings are definitely not the evolution stage of Apes. Quran is very clear on this. I have seen some Muslims who like to use some verses from Quran to prove the theory of evolution is compatible with Islam but I don't agree with them. Theory of evolution is a theory only, scientists have never found any fossils showing the intermediate stages of evolution from apes to humans. We don't need to prove Quran with every theory out there in the science world. Theories are theories and these change, Quran does not change and I is fully compatible with ESTABLISHED scientific facts but it may not be compatible with theories.
- - - Updated - - -
I clearly need to know how to edit my posts. Please ignore the three updates shown on post #14 these were meant to be response to some other post but I am not sure how these all end up in here.
The question however is: How do you as an atheist deal with guilt and sin in their life? What do you do to remove guilt or sin in your hearts?
It is a known fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than theists. Depression, anxiety and lack of happiness are common issues with atheists. This is due to the fact that the atheist belief system does not adequately account for purpose or meaning of life. Hence in the perception of the atheist life is not only temporary but it lacks no definitive meaning.
God created us to glorify Him. Glorifying God means that we acknowledge His existence and He is the object of our faith and worship. It also means that we live in order to please and serve our Creator.
Without God, the issue of guilt and sin cannot be properly or adequately dealt with.
- - - Updated - - -
It is debatable. You need to first know what atheists claim using the theory of evolution. Human beings are definitely not the evolution stage of Apes. Quran is very clear on this. I have seen some Muslims who like to use some verses from Quran to prove the theory of evolution is compatible with Islam but I don't agree with them. Theory of evolution is a theory only, scientists have never found any fossils showing the intermediate stages of evolution from apes to humans. We don't need to prove Quran with every theory out there in the science world. Theories are theories and these change, Quran does not change and I is fully compatible with ESTABLISHED scientific facts but it may not be compatible with theories.
- - - Updated - - -
It is debatable. You need to first know what atheists claim using the theory of evolution. Human beings are definitely not the evolution stage of Apes. Quran is very clear on this. I have seen some Muslims who like to use some verses from Quran to prove the theory of evolution is compatible with Islam but I don't agree with them. Theory of evolution is a theory only, scientists have never found any fossils showing the intermediate stages of evolution from apes to humans. We don't need to prove Quran with every theory out there in the science world. Theories are theories and these change, Quran does not change and I is fully compatible with ESTABLISHED scientific facts but it may not be compatible with theories.
- - - Updated - - -
It is debatable. You need to first know what atheists claim using the theory of evolution. Human beings are definitely not the evolution stage of Apes. Quran is very clear on this. I have seen some Muslims who like to use some verses from Quran to prove the theory of evolution is compatible with Islam but I don't agree with them. Theory of evolution is a theory only, scientists have never found any fossils showing the intermediate stages of evolution from apes to humans. We don't need to prove Quran with every theory out there in the science world. Theories are theories and these change, Quran does not change and I is fully compatible with ESTABLISHED scientific facts but it may not be compatible with theories.
- - - Updated - - -
I clearly need to know how to edit my posts. Please ignore the three updates shown on post #14 these were meant to be response to some other post but I am not sure how these all end up in here.
Salaam
I have to apologise about Platos qoute, its been misattributed.
Misattributed to Plato in Laws by Conservapedia. Actual source: William Fleming, as quoted in Prose Quotations from Socrates to Macaulay by Samuel Austin Allibone, 1816–1889.
Doesn't detract from the power of the qoute.
To make up for my faux pas Ill recommend another book that gives far darker insights into the nature of atheism.
Some reviews.
Aquinas
A brilliant analysis of key 19th century thinkers who paved the way for aggressive neo-atheism
De Lubac's anlaysis of Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Comte and Marx illusrates that "where there is no God, there is no Man either" and that postitivism, marxism and variant philosophies, in seeking to model a new man, agressively independent of God, result in a nihilistic tyranny of man over man.
Its De Lubac's sympathetic handling of these lunatic ideas and their exponents, Nietzsche,in particular (who de Lubac sees as haunted by Christ), which gives the book balance. If you wish to understand why we are living in an age where atheism has become more militant and aggressve, then De Lubac's book make you realise that what we are experiencing now is the culmination of many centuries of alienation of western thought from the Logos, who unites all things in himself. His treatment of Dostoevsky (a counterbalance to the other thinkers) is particularly illuminating.
An internet athiest being evasive, slippery and shifting goals posts, colour me shocked.
Too bad for you nobodys buying.
I have to apologise about Platos qoute, its been misattributed.
Misattributed to Plato in Laws by Conservapedia. Actual source: William Fleming, as quoted in Prose Quotations from Socrates to Macaulay by Samuel Austin Allibone, 1816–1889.
Doesn't detract from the power of the qoute.
To make up for my faux pas Ill recommend another book that gives far darker insights into the nature of atheism.
Some reviews.
Aquinas
A brilliant analysis of key 19th century thinkers who paved the way for aggressive neo-atheism
De Lubac's anlaysis of Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Comte and Marx illusrates that "where there is no God, there is no Man either" and that postitivism, marxism and variant philosophies, in seeking to model a new man, agressively independent of God, result in a nihilistic tyranny of man over man.
Its De Lubac's sympathetic handling of these lunatic ideas and their exponents, Nietzsche,in particular (who de Lubac sees as haunted by Christ), which gives the book balance. If you wish to understand why we are living in an age where atheism has become more militant and aggressve, then De Lubac's book make you realise that what we are experiencing now is the culmination of many centuries of alienation of western thought from the Logos, who unites all things in himself. His treatment of Dostoevsky (a counterbalance to the other thinkers) is particularly illuminating.
An internet athiest being evasive, slippery and shifting goals posts, colour me shocked.
Too bad for you nobodys buying.
First of all , you should not conflate atheism with evolution,
Even if I did not accept evolution I’d still be an atheist .
How do I deal with sin , there is no such thing as sin , sin is a religious concept .
There is immoral behaviour , I recognise that if my actions or words hurt or offend someone , then it is my duty as a humanist to make amends , so I will apologise to the person I hurt and ask for forgiveness.
I do not believe there is a celestial judge that I will answer to.
Human being normally want to do things which benefit them. If we remove the concept of hell and paradise, then you can never prove to me that stealing for example is bad. You may say that there are laws and I may get caught and get punished. What if I am the most power person and law enforcement agencies work for me? You may say that it hurts the society and I should not do it. But it benefits me and why should I care about others if it benefits me?
You can never convince anyone until the person who are trying to convince have belief in hereafter and knows this life is test and we have to answer what we did in this life to a higher being.
You can never convince anyone until the person who are trying to convince have belief in hereafter and knows this life is test and we have to answer what we did in this life to a higher being.
I have to say , what you are saying concerns me deeply.
In essence what you are saying is that
If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that paradise or hell do not exist .... then you would have no problems going around robbing people or worse?
If religion is the only thing stopping you from being immoral then it’s best you are religious
Don’t you care about other people ?
There are billions of people that believe in judgement in the afterlife , it does not stop them from being immoral.
Being religious , believing in god , or paradise or hell is no guarantee of morality.
Being atheist is no guarantee of morality either .
True believers always try to follow Divine guidance which tells us what is right and what wrong. For example, abortion is now considered as right in many western countries but Islam teaches that abortion is wrong with some exception such as if mother’s health is in danger. Islam also says drinking alcohol is prohibited, does every Muslim stay away from drinking alcohol? No really. what I am trying to say is that there are many Muslims in the world and not everyone follows what Islam teaches. For true practicing Muslims, the guidance for right and wrong is Quran and the teachings of prophet Muhammad PBUH. These teaching do not change with time.
On the other hand, if you don’t have any Divine guidance then your concept of right and wrong will be pretty much dependable on the laws which society may have imposed on you or on your cultural belief system or on your own interpretations. We all know man made law keep changing and it always is ambiguous so rich in society can hire lawyers to benefit the rich for any laws they make. We also know that often what we believe to be right in a particular culture, is not necessarily considered right in another culture. Our own life time is too small to learn and develops our own understanding of what is good and what is bad. As I said in my previous post that most human being do anything to benefit themselves. If I am kind to others, it is because I am concerned with my life hereafter and I want to make sure I don’t earn the anger of my Lord. If you work, you work to get paid. If you are so powerful that no one can punish you then you will do all bad things which our politicians are known for. It is just that fact.
Now we all also also have certain desires built in us. We all want to live longer, we all want big houses or property, we all want happiness, and we all want justice. These wants also prove that there is paradise in which our desires will be fulfilled. Since this life is a test to determine who does well to go to paradise; it is impossible to get true happiness, true justice, and eternal life in this world.
I really appreciate all the good questions from you and hope my answers help you. One advise I do want to give you is that be sincere to yourself and even if you don’t believe in God, pray in your heart with sincerity and ask God to guide you to truth if He exists. This is because guidance comes from God. He is one who can change the condition of your heart and help you to find the truth.
All the best. It time for me to go to bed and I will definitely check your posts tomorrow and answers any furthers questions you may have.
Peace!
On the other hand, if you don’t have any Divine guidance then your concept of right and wrong will be pretty much dependable on the laws which society may have imposed on you or on your cultural belief system or on your own interpretations. We all know man made law keep changing and it always is ambiguous so rich in society can hire lawyers to benefit the rich for any laws they make. We also know that often what we believe to be right in a particular culture, is not necessarily considered right in another culture. Our own life time is too small to learn and develops our own understanding of what is good and what is bad. As I said in my previous post that most human being do anything to benefit themselves. If I am kind to others, it is because I am concerned with my life hereafter and I want to make sure I don’t earn the anger of my Lord. If you work, you work to get paid. If you are so powerful that no one can punish you then you will do all bad things which our politicians are known for. It is just that fact.
Now we all also also have certain desires built in us. We all want to live longer, we all want big houses or property, we all want happiness, and we all want justice. These wants also prove that there is paradise in which our desires will be fulfilled. Since this life is a test to determine who does well to go to paradise; it is impossible to get true happiness, true justice, and eternal life in this world.
I really appreciate all the good questions from you and hope my answers help you. One advise I do want to give you is that be sincere to yourself and even if you don’t believe in God, pray in your heart with sincerity and ask God to guide you to truth if He exists. This is because guidance comes from God. He is one who can change the condition of your heart and help you to find the truth.
All the best. It time for me to go to bed and I will definitely check your posts tomorrow and answers any furthers questions you may have.
Peace!
“ true believers “
Who decides who is a true believer and who is not ?
My morality is based on rational thought , I’m s secular humanist , I would imagine we share much of the same morality
I think it’s wrong to steal , cheat, lie, murder, etc
I think it’s wrong because I recognise the harm it’s does to other people , and to my own self esteem.
Do you think it’s wrong because it has been decreed by a god ?
What if that god had said those things were not wrong ... would you then rob, cheat , murder ?
Like it or not , you decide what is moral and what is not .