Dan Goldfinch writes:
Atheists think that if they just wish God away they can live however they want, with no ultimate accountability. In other words, there is no ultimate justice in the minds of the atheist. Life just goes on as it will: we’re born, we live, we die. That’s it.
Dan Goldfinch is simply using a different way of expressing the bigoted notion that atheism is incompatible with morality. It's also just as false, both because it's incorrect that atheism is incompatible with morality and because it's incorrect that atheists shun accountability.
The only correct statement in the above passage is that atheists — or at least secular atheists in the West — don't believe in any sort of cosmic, supernatural "ultimate justice." Dan Goldfinch seems to regard this as a bad thing, as do many other religious theists, but I have trouble seeing that as much more than a product of fear.
Who really knows what is right and wrong in the atheist’s system? Who will hold us accountable in the atheist’s system? (One another? OJ proves that notion is laughable.) How will justice be finally ‘worked out’ in the atheist’s system? Worse, where is grace in the atheist’s system? Where is life in the atheist’s system? Are we really to believe that death is the great equilizer?
The absence of "ultimate justice" means that the only justice that exists will be that justice which we create. If we fail, then justice will not be done. If OJ was indeed guilty of murder, then justice was not done and we failed. That's a reason to work to fix the flaws in our justice system so that the same mistakes aren't made again, or at least have reduced consequences. It is certainly no reason to pretend that there exists some "ultimate justice" that will clean up our mistakes for us.
Religious theists might pretend that failure on our part will be made up for by some deity in an after life; at best that merely provides some false comfort under the shadow of our mistakes, but at worst if provides an excuse for not doing our best here and now. The absence of any "ultimate justice" should spur us to do more and better in this life because we can't count on anyone coming along to clean up our mess or fix our mistakes.
The OJ trial is proof God exists. Clearly, God ordered OJ to kill. Just as clearly, the hand of God reached down to cause the jury in the criminal trial to find him not guilty. God then forced the jury in the civil case to find OJ at fault for causing the deaths in order to cover up God’s involvement. Oh that God, he’s a crafty one.
That’s a rather odd argument on their part. If anyone if abdicating accountability, it would be people who feel no need to better themselves and their lives because they believe a god already gives them some kind of hidden meaning, or who justify narcissistic attitudes and ideas with the claim that they are god’s people and are behaving in a godly manner.
>Atheists think that if they just wish God away they can live however they want, with no ultimate accountability.
Of course, because we all know that anarchy reigns, and if you only stop believing in god, you can rape, murder and pillage–and nobody will hold you accountable. This probably explains the high incidence of criminal behavior among atheists (which, in fact, is lower than in groups that express belief in god).
>Who really knows what is right and wrong in the atheist’s system?
Who knows what is right and wrong in the theist system? Earlier this month, on this very site, I posted comments to a Xian who basically stated that when god sent Israel to kill all the infants and children of the Amalekites (recorded in Samuel), that the Amalekites _deserved_ it for being a “scourge” on Israel. So, in the Xian system, mass infantacide is justifiable. If another nation pisses you off enough, just slaughter their children–it’s “legal” in that case.
Likewise, Hebrews praises Samson, who mass murdered while he committed suicide, by bringing down a tower–I mean, building. And, according to the tale, Yahweh gave him the strength to do it.
Also, Jephthah offered his daughter as a human sacrifice to Yahweh. He promised Yahweh “whatever” was the first thing out of his house when he came home–Yahweh picked his first-born daughter. And, again, in Hebrews, the New Testament praises him as a man of great faith and says that the world isn’t worthy of such men.
Also, these same religious believers accept as “good” that god supposedly sent a flood to kill every child and animal on the planet (of course, they were just collateral damage–he was really aiming for the misbehaving adults…but all mighty god can’t come up with a plan to punish the “bad” without slaughtering a planet of innocents, right?).
When a religion can praise infantacide/genocide, planetary destruction, excuses suicide mass killing (praises it, even), and holds a man who sacrificed his own child to their god as an icon…I have to wonder, again, “Who knows what is right and wrong in the theist system?”
These same people turn right around and tell me theirs is a religion of love. They pretty much write off all of the above as being “right” at the time. WTF? Right at the time? Infantacide is “right” sometimes? Human sacrifice is praiseworthy sometimes?
Seriously–when someone can say things like that, and feel justified, it seems to me that it’s the theist who is seeking absolution from responsibility. God said “Kill all the children,” so, it must be right to do so…Ours is not to question why.”
Thinking for yourself means stopping and ASKING YOURSELF before you go out and mass slaughter infants–”Hey, is this really a good thing to be doing? Is this really OK with me?” To say that absolutely any atrocity is “OK” so long as god says so; doesn’t that sort of take away the mantle of “responsibility” from the theist? When my motto is “I just do what I’m told,” how is that “responsible”?
“Atheists think that if they just wish God away they can live however they want”.
Atheists can live any way they want without the necessity for wishing “god” away. The speaker, in effect, asserts that atheists actually do believe in “god” and only pretend that they don’t – a startling obvious projection of his own intellectual chicanery.
Theists spend most of their time frantically pretending that all the overwhelming evidence against their grand delusion is of no significance. And, when finally cornered in argument, they usually claim to believe what they believe for no other reason than that they have made a decision to believe it – something they call “faith”.
Contrastingly, atheists usually seem to lack the doublethink skills necessary to successfully pretend that a consequence they secretly know to be inevitable will not take place. For this kind of self-sabotage, religious training seems a sine qua non.
But, Tracie, don’t forget. God loves you!
Yes, and if I don’t come to the conclusion “god exists” in my lifetime, I’ll burn in Hell for eternity–because that’s the loving thing for god to do.
It is rather ironic that the Christians would assert escaping “ultimate justice” is a bad thing. After all, this is the core idea of Christianity itself!
According to the usual tenets:
* No one is deserving of heaven; we all deserve hell.
* Jesus offers an *undeserved* salvation, if you “believe in him” and “repent”.
The whole point of the Christian religion is *escaping* ultimate justice.
So, to take OJ for example, the usual Christian (but perhaps not Universalist or Calvinist) dogma states that OJ can accept Jesus and repent and, thereby, also not be punished in some afterlife.
It is to laugh.
What I wonder from the comment above is if Samson was the world’s first suicide bomber? Or if there were suicide bombers before him acting on God’s behalf?
“Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.” (Judges 16:30)
Samson brought down a building, killing himself and 3,000 infidels (in this instance, Philistines).
Interesting that (all) Muslims are condemned by Christians for the individual Muslim’s self-sacrificial mass-murder of God’s enemies, but when an Israelite did exactly the same thing, it was praiseworthy.
A little scene…(as is my wont)…
[Theists waiting for orders from...erm...their imaginary 'god'.]:
“OK, OK…who’s getting a message now? Samuel?…Hmmm?…Nothing?
Mordekai? What!…You too?…Nada?
The Beaver?…
Et tu, Beaver?
Now wait just a pillaging minute! I got my sword all unsheathed…spit polished…and razor sharp; and you guys aren’t hearing any voices?
OY VEY! So va-do-ve do now?
Ask the women?
What are you…nuts?
And I was all set to kill some babies.
Now I’m SO depressed!
hello world:
I don’t know if that’s the first recorded instance of a suicide-mass murder. Definitely it’s the first I’m aware of. I discussed this topic on television, and called out exactly what you point out: how hypocritical it is to claim Muslims praise such behavior (as a condemnation of Islam), while holding to a book that praises the same behavior. But theirs is the “real” god–and to them, that makes all the difference. They don’t get that to the Muslim, “theirs” is the “real” god, and THAT makes all the difference. (And I don’t mean to imply all Muslims praise such acts, they certainly do not).
At the forum for the Connecticut Valley Atheists, there is a Xian woman who posted a passage from the Koran about killing infidels. Someone else posted a passage from the Bible that instructs god’s people to slaughter infidels. She responded immediately that it was taken out of context (again, as I point out above–”sometimes” it’s apparently OK to slaughter people who don’t worship your god); I didn’t respond to her, but my initial thought was this: I’ve dialogued before with a Muslim. Muslim’s who don’t support that sort of behavior use the SAME response argument: That was a specific time/place/situation, and doesn’t apply to us today.
What I found interesting was the Xian’s quick response to point out how the Bible verse was contextual; but she obviously never considered that the Koran passage might also be contextual; and, in fact, if she were to take the minute it would take her to actually ASK a Muslim, she would have found out that they’re “defense” of such a vulgar passage is no different than her own. Would that make it OK with her, I wonder?
I find my self accountable for my actions. I do not need a higher force to inform me of my responsibilities to myself or mankind. Being an atheist I have control over my life, without an unknowable source deity that sets up standards by which I should live. I am not a child of doom, rather one of optimism in my world. By taking on personal responsibility and accountability for my actions I then become my own person. I therefore do not have to become part of the ignorance of the sheep in the coral of life, which is in fact based on the dogma of man made religious views.
and besides, don’t 98 percent of the prisoners in the US consider themselves Christians?
i’m having a fun chat with the writer of the article. Feel free to join in.
It always amazes me how many people carry G-d like a flask in their pocket. Organized religion is an idolatrous blasphemy through and through.
Some of you seemed to have overlooked an important detail in the narration about Samson in particular, which also applies to the Bible in general. The Bible very seldom underlines things; it often only describes them. In Samson’s case, God did not command him to slaughter the 3000 Philistines or even commend him for duing so. The Bible merely describes what happened. The Israeli-Philistine conflict took place in a time in Israel’s history when Israel practically ignored God’s laws. It would help to study the historical context before jumping to conclusions.
Can atheists be moral? Sure they can –provived they borrow Christian morality. After all, it is the Bible that teaches us to love our neighbour (even the atheist) like ourselves.
Sorry for the typos in the above post. “Provived” should be “provided” and doing spelled with an “o”.
“Atheists can be moral if they borrow Christian morality.” Christian morality is the only morality there is?
“Can atheists be moral? Sure they can –provived they borrow Christian morality. After all, it is the Bible that teaches us to love our neighbour (even the atheist) like ourselves.”
That remark is sooo ignorant, does a Buddhist have to have christian morality, how about a Hindu, or a Muslim?
NOpe, but were talking about atheists’ morality. In the west with its long tradition of Christianity,atheists have come to accept Christian concepts of right and wrong.
I used the small case c for christian because I was raised as one of those ignorant people and now no longer a part of the sect. Don’t try to preach me from the bible, I have read it and been disgusted by the biblegods ways, he sounds like a vicious blood thirsty tyrant.
I am sincerely happy that belief system no longer holds me back to a narrow minded thinking ways.
Bible situational Ethics
ethics on killing, stealing, lying, adultery, honoring parents, covet, love, abortion, sabbath, images
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/morality/Bbl/ethics.html#Killing
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
I don’t know if you have this on your site or if it’s correct, but I just thought you should know the religious/oil bush war costs this much, more or less.
It would help to study the historical context before jumping to conclusions. — Comment by Joel Kontinen — January 5, 2008
How much historical context did you study before jumping to the conclusion that Christianity antedates atheism?
Of your quaint notion that Christians invented morality, let us not even speak.