Where do atheists get morality?

October 21, 2009

I read an interesting article today about the sources of atheist morality. The foundation of the author’s argument was that

the principle of morality is empathy.

I’m no philosopher, but even I could see that lame statement for what it was. Empathy (or the human conscience) is what helps us to know morality. It is not the source of it. That would be like saying the principle of suffering is the nervous system.

Empathy is an inherently subjective emotion.

Therefore, a morality based on empathy is relative to the subjective emotions of the individual.

And then he mentions “enlightened self-interest.” In other words, selfishness that has the secondary effect of benefiting others.

He also brings up the “Golden Rule.” Never mind that this is originally found in RELIGIONS. He calls this rule “essentially satisfying.” I suppose it is, unless one has a fondness for abuse…..Sadomasochism comes to mind.

Now, I did find the Categorical Imperative to be an interesting idea. This is especially useful if you want to prove that abortion or homosexual relationships are wrong: Imagine if everyone practiced homosexuality or if everyone aborted their babies?

And then there’s humanism–Humanity is God, in other words. It’s all about humans trying to figure out what is best for humans. If humanists are smart, they’d be traditional conservatives.

Seriously, what the heck is the point of humanism except ensuring the survival of the human race as a species? We humans randomly evolved from a purposeless puddle of muck, and now all of a sudden we have to have a purpose?

Humanism is a religion with humans as its God. It is made-up, flawed, and inherently shallow. Humanism involves humans trying to fight man’s inherently selfish, wicked nature with…man’s inherently selfish, wicked nature. Yeah, we’ll see how long humanity survives on that one.

The author concludes with the following “profound” statement:

No matter what your reasons for choosing a particular moral stand, you should always remember that no morals are absolute, and that you always have a choice.

Well, what if I choose shari’a law?

All this article has done is to further the argument that atheism promotes moral relativism.


Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live: A Little Knowledge in the Hands of Fools

October 19, 2009

As evidenced by reports of tortured and murdered children in Nigeria, it looks like a medieval witch-hunt is taking place in the name of Christianity.

Taking a passage (likely from the KJV) of the Torah, evangelical pastors are condeming vulnerable children of witchcraft and demon possession, and then they encourage (or participate in) horrific methods of exorcision and/or execution, many times charging exhorbitant fees for the “service.”

The sheer stupidity and evil perpetuating this practice is enough to make one weep in horror and frustration. For one thing, Biblical accounts of exorcisms never involved pouring acid down a child’s throat or drilling holes in someone’s skull. Secondly, pastors do not have the legal authority to condemn someone of witchcraft or demon possession and then attempt an exorcism or execution. Thirdly, violating God’s law is NEVER permitted even if a Christian sincerely believes someone is a witch.

Love your neighbor as yourself…

Do unto others as you would have done to you.

Ring a bell?

Sorcery and necromancy are condemned in several places in the Bible. Foolishness and lawlessness (sin), however, are condemned all over the place and often times far more vehemently. Such pastors who “find and exorcise” faux demons are wolves in sheep’s clothing, senseless shepherds, and the blind leading the blind.

Boobs and Burkhas

October 19, 2009

I read an interesting article this morning.  Our pious, modest Muslim friends in Somalia are feeling morally obligated to police the busts of female Somalis.  This hypocrisy would be funny if it weren’t so terribly oppressive and downright stupid.

After forcing women to fully veil themselves for modesty’s sake, these gun-toting morons are patrolling the streets in search of busts that appear too firm.  Forcing the women to remove their bras and then shake their breasts, the Islamists then whip the women whose boobs talked the talk but failed to walk the walk.

Dear environmental atheists,

October 19, 2009

Seeing as how we humans are simply randomly, and therefore purposelessly, evolved parasites from an equally random and purposeless puddle of primordial goo, I can’t help but be baffled at those humans who suffer from the irrational, illogical nonsense known as guilt for subsequent destruction and havoc wreaked upon the earth by our parasitic tendencies.

Where does this arrogant moral sense of obligation come from anyway?

I suppose we could argue that it is yet another randomly evolved trait stemming from our innate, primitive drive for survival which urges us to take up the task of saving the earth from ourselves. But why drag in the intangible such as guilt and ethics and morals, and above all, obligation? And who ever heard of a parasite “saving” its host? Sure, it probably doesn’t seek to suck all the life out of its environment, but a parasite never has its host’s best interest at heart.

Although far from agreeing with them, I find it a refreshing change sometimes  to hear the intellectually honest views of nihilists and anarchists. At least they do not try to make me feel guilty for being a tapeworm.

Anurag A. Agrawal, in an article for Earth Day, writes:

Humans are parasites, and parasitism is an integral part of nature. There is nothing dirty, evil, or intrinsically negative about parasites. Remember, though, that the best parasites keep their hosts alive: a parasite without a host is a predator with no more food. Curiously, humans seem bent on destroying the Earth, our host. Do we simply exploit our host out of need?

I’m blaming it on the earth for “giving birth” to us in the first place. But then again, that was random, so let’s blame all this stupidity on randomness.

We are but one of the millions of evolutionarily fine-tuned works of random biotic art, and I will argue that what distinguishes us from other species is not that we are unnatural in our destructive tendencies, but that as a species we are falling prey to unguided freedom.

Oh, wait. We are on this earth thanks to the unguided freedom of nature (random, purposeless evolution, after all), and yet now we are “falling prey” to unguided freedom.  Makes perfect sense.

And the grand finale:

Human extinction in the next 1,000 years will not be due to fate. Plainly, we will have overexploited to our own demise. At this point nature can no longer fine-tune us (read, evolve us) to be any better, more responsible nectar-robbers — that is up to the inventors, engineers, and educators.

And now we have to fight the evolutionary processes that made us the way we are in order to continue our purposeless existence. Because….why?  From this point of view, it appears that the only driving motive for taking care of the environment is to further the survival of the parasite itself.  Woo-hoo.  Real motivating.

Oh well.  Maybe something will randomly evolve to challenge our existence and “put us in our place” (whatever that may be).