Tuesday, November 18, 2008

LIFE

In the Declaration of Independence, our Founders’ proclaimed that all men were endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and among them were Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This short essay will address the first: LIFE.

God gives man life. Each man's life is his own, a gift from the Creator that no other man has the right to take.


This is so obvious it might seem silly to say it. But there is a necessary element in this argument that is under assault everywhere in our country that will undermine the very "right to life" of humans: the existence of God. It is under vicious attack by Atheistic "Humanists".


"Humanists" deny God’s existence. Every American atheist was brought up in a Christian country, in which he learned everything he knows about morality. He learned Christian morals by default. It is the moral code that underpins our entire culture, its traditions, and its laws. And having been immersed in Christian morality his entire life, his entire notion of good and evil is informed by the Christian moral code.

But, having decided to deny God, he also rejects Christianity.

But he doesn’t rethink or reinvent his morality. He believes he is a good person, and he calls his moral code: Humanism.

In other words, he rejects Christianity, but because he knows no other, retains Christian morality, but renames it “Humanism”.

Then he compares the clone called "Humanism" with the original, Christianity, and lo! he discovers that his "Humanism" has developed the identical moral code as Christianity. He therefore concludes that God need not exist for people to be moral, nor is religious “superstition” necessary!

As obvious as this is, our "Humanist" doesn't understand what he's just done. He's a Liberal; not a thinker. He doesn't realize that atheism could never arrive at the same moral code as Christianity. Christian morality is based on the existence and belief in God. He's not thought through what an atheist “moral code” would be.


He has not considered that with his idea of man’s brain, his clever, accidental machine that is not the creation of a God of compassion, justice, or reason—might have no access to or understanding of, the concepts of compassion, justice or reason.

Worse, our "Humanist" refuses to follow his own logic. He wants a "moral code" that allows him to do whatever he wants, without consequences, but fails to realize it also authorizes others to do whatever they want to him, without consequences.

The unalienable Right to Life can only exist as a right if endowed by a Creator.


Abortion, so beloved and defended by "Humanists" proves the argument irrefutably: The minute they got rid of God, "Humanists" started murdering babies.

As their “moral code” evolves away from its Christian matrix, we get a glimpse of what a it looks like. The moment they stopped considering a new life as a gift from God, they saw no reason not to kill it if it's “inconvenient”.

Their pretense that "Humanism" results in a moral code equal to Christianity’s is betrayed by the very first thing they embraced once they got ride of God: The Murder of the Inconvenient.

So far it’s just babies in the womb. Who’s next?

The Gunslinger

22 comments:

  1. Great "little" essay! Much as I appreciate Christopher Hitchens' talents,I've wondered why no one has debated him on these points you made so well (Atheists brought up in Christian tradition...)"Ego" is in the mix,of course,but I always suspect "Humanists/Atheists" of a more reflective bent secretly wish to be "converted",or rather convinced,but mealy-mouthed "Religious Figures" offer them no more than easily-knocked-down opponents,tied as they are to corrupt institutions.Straw men.C.S.Lewis would've been formidable debater in this for cut-thru-the-bullshit,but you are here now,and carry on,on this subject.Marvelous!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, here you are talking about strawmen and then saying C. S. Lewis, who said that atheists show their hatred for your god by not believing in him, would be a good debater? I guess you like people like William Lane Craig today? Lmfao....

      No, I and anyone else in the newborn atheist and humanist community feel glad to be rid of delusional religious beliefs and only act occasionally for debate purposes like we want to be convinced in order to show that there is no way to convince us or any rational person of your religious or otherwise supernatural claims.

      The whole "atheist who hates God" is just another ridiculous stereotype perpetuated by religious propaganda.

      Delete
  2. GS,

    Good work. Examples of "true humanism" can be found all over the uncivilized world. The awful state of the "noble savages"... they kill their own children... engage in cannibalism .. they live in their own filth... they procreate with family members... total societal degradation and deprivation is systematic in "non christianized" cultures... there was a good reason our fore fathers called uncivilized tribes savages... Granted there are exceptions but in this case they only serve to prove the "rule"

    Take care and God Bless..

    PS... I owe you an email..

    Bhenry

    ReplyDelete
  3. Humanist are certainly existing on the currency of their Judeo-Christian heritage.

    The altruism of man may be obvious when it comes to issues of murder, but is more difficult to apply when it comes to honesty, integrity, and honor in business and other human relationships. If one can benefit from a lie, why not lie? Certainly, if carried to the obvious conclusion, chaos erupts, i.e. Enron, and the consequences of corruption unfold and fall on the heads of both the good and bad. I would never want to live in a world solely dependent on the altruism of man.

    The other problem, as you stated, that if our rights are not inalienable, then the State can arbitrarily grant them or remove them. The humanist has no good answer to this problem, as the State has no authoritative definition of good or evil. To the humanist, the latter cannot exist (in their minds).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judeo-Christian religion does a piss-poor job of instilling those values you claim, my friend.... Common sense and the realization that those values are better for society require no religion. Often, chaos erupts when people go by the Bible word-for-word, and I don't want that shit anywhere near my kids presented as truth, particularly by my Evangelical parents and other relatives.

      Contrary to popular conservative belief, most liberals and Secular Humanists do strongly believe in unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and Humanism based on this same concept of natural law defines evil as action against another person against his or her will, whether without his or her already initiating unnecessary force or in overkill considering the amount of force given. Hell of a lot better definition than defining morality as what God wants, because it all goes to hell when people realize that your god doesn't exist....

      It's obvious that you don't know what the fuck Humanism is, although this is no surprise given that you're a conservative....

      Delete
  4. OK, I'll take the bait; I love a good fight. You wrote,

    "God gives man life. Each man's life is his own, a gift from the Creator that no other man has the right to take."

    Yet you've advocated killing, specifically Muslims. Why you are so sure Christians are the only group who are moral? Right Now, SHOW ME GOD! Produce God, right this instant. Prove a supreme being, who knows all, feels absolute love, absolute hate, absolute fear, absolute joy and whose wrath is immeasurable, is a Christian. If your proof is a book, written by imperfect, petty, greedy and self absorbed HUMANS. I argue you have FAITH, not proof. Part of what drives people away from conservatives is this type of religious rhetoric. Like so many other religious zealots you've forgotten that politics and religion aren't supposed to mix. Let me remind you of a few crimes Christians are guilty of, slavery, and murder, bearing false witness, incest, genocide and larceny. All were committed in the name of a Christian God.

    BTW, I'm NOT a humanist. I'm also not blinded by my religious convictions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good man (or woman?). I like moderate and liberal religious views, even though I disagree with them strongly, because they don't attempt to claim a monopoly on morality and thus what the definition of morality that should be legislated by the state is. I'm thankful for people like you.

      BTW, I AM a Humanist. I'm also not blinded by my secularist convictions.

      Delete
  5. OK, Gren, here you go:

    1) I didn't say that only Christians are moral. I said that in this country, atheists assimilate the moral code based on Christianity—then imagine it's the result of "Humanism."

    2) I'm okay with war—soldiers "offering" their lives. By engaging in war, a soldier in effect gives his enemy permission to kill him...if they can.

    I'm also okay with execution—people "forfeiting" their lives for acts they know to be evil.

    But I'm not okay with Murder or Slavery—people "taking" lives they have no permission or moral claim to.

    3) "Religious Zealotry" LOL. Gren, I'm not even a Christian. I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

    I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. I think the Bible is the chronicle of a people's relationship with their God.

    But fair is fair. And the (Judeo) Christian ideals (not necessarily their every act), is, when examined without prejudice, a much happier, better, high-minded, hopeful, beneficial, code of behavior than ANYTHING arrived at by atheists...

    ...and in general, most other religions...if you examine and judge the other religions of the world by their CULTURAL RESULTS, Christianity wins by a landslide.

    Islam created the sewer that is the Middle East.

    Hinduism created and maintains the wrenching poverty, ignorance and caste system of India, et al.

    We don't really need to talk about the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans, do we?

    Atheism created Mao's China, Stalins Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, and Castro's Cuba.

    Christianity created Western Europe, America and the rest of the Anglosphere.

    If it's true that you can judge a tree by its fruit, it's clear the "Christian" tree is the best.

    This has nothing to do with "religious rhetoric", it has to do with being willing to admit the facts as they are, not as one wishes them to be.

    For example:

    I have been "pro-choice" since Roe v Wade. I dearly want there to be a logical and reasonable argument in defense of abortion rights.

    But, the fact is, every road I go down, except for the false one of vanity, selfishness and "convenience", leads me to the conclusion that there is no defense for abortion under most circumstances.

    I don't know where you got the idea that "religion and politics are not supposed to mix". That is a secular humanist atheist notion.

    And it's a newly invented concept that does not in any way reflect either the intention of the Founders or the spirit of the Constitution.

    The Founders, to a man, said precisely the opposite loudly and clearly...that without religion, faith and high moral standards, a free America cannot survive.

    I guess they were religious zealots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Generally, the altruistic message of peace and love is inherent to human nature, and existed long before Christianity (Buddhism much?), though the more vicious side found in the Old Testament law is also notably part of human nature. It's rational thinking about things that leads to true morality, and questioning dogmas. I think about my views every day, and change them as new information comes in.

      2) War is only justifiable as defense against violent provocation. Humanitarian intervention is justifiable under these terms, but we've overstepped the line in the Middle East. Jesus would agree with me here.

      I'm not okay with execution. (Even for pragmatic reasons, I find it wiser to be anti-death penalty, as an execution costs more than a life sentence given the amount the appeals process costs.) Frankly, a justice system should be based on rehabilitation (and containment till this is possible, if ever), not punishment. Jesus would have agreed here too.

      The Bible condones slavery (Ex. 21:20-21; Lev. 25; NT never condemns slavery when talking about it).

      3) Do you believe in a God, or just in the Bible as a moral source?

      ROFLMFAO at your comment on other religions and their effects on their cultures not being up to par with that of Christendom.... Christianity created the Dark Ages. Conservative economics maintains the poverty, ignorance and caste system of America, et al. Do we really need to talk about the Hundred Years' War and the Witch Hunts?

      Communism was and is a political movement of which atheism is but a part. It mostly replaces religions in place with a one whose god is the state ruler, brainwashing its people into His Word…. Completely incompatible with the rationalism of Secular Humanism. And there have been atheists since at least the Greek philosophers. Don’t lump us all into one category and then expect us not to do the same to Christianity/religion.

      Science and discovery created Western Europe, America, and the rest of the Eurosphere. It's clear the "Rationalist" tree is the best, and the "Religious" tree is not.

      It’s not a Humanist (i.e., Secular Humanist, denoted by the “H”) notion that religion and politics are not supposed to mix, although it is certainly in accordance with old religious humanism like that which our Founding Fathers believed in. The First Amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and this is interpreted almost universally as meaning a separation of church and state. Many of our Founding Fathers were in fact deist (non-Christian), and some, like Jefferson and Paine, were overtly anti-Christian. Jefferson himself coined the term "wall of separation between church and state.” Washington wrote in 1796 that "America is, by no means, founded upon the Christian religion," in the Treaty of Tripoli, and Adams signed it into effect in ‘97. Though many were Christian, our Founders believed strongly in Enlightenment rationalism, a product of Renaissance humanism, which is kept alive by modern Humanism. Even if they did believe in legislating religious morality, times have changed. Criminalizing things like abortion, prostitution, drug use, homosexuality, and even atheism—all of which American Christian conservatives have done and/or attempted before, and all of which were largely seen as immoral in the late 1700s—has ineffective consequences. All of those should be legal, and are safer when legal for many reasons. Moral standards change over time, generally for the better, and it's mostly those with liberal social views reached by rational thinking who spur these changes.

      I don't want religious zealots in charge of my country.

      Delete
  6. Until fairly recently religion was the government and the government was religion.

    There's more to this argument than our limited senses can comprehend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In The United States of America, religion was never government, and government was never religion.

    But...the Founders' faith "informed" their politics. That's as natural as breathing.

    Our faith informs our character and our morals, and our character and our morals determine how we govern.

    It's simple really.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wilber said:

    "The other problem, as you stated, that if our rights are not inalienable, then the State can arbitrarily grant them or remove them. The humanist has no good answer to this problem, as the State has no authoritative definition of good or evil. To the humanist, the latter cannot exist (in their minds)."

    You can't say it any clearer than this!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, I agree partly GS. You can't have "now" without the past to build upon. I disagree with a lot of your conclusions, but I'll leave it at that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. GS, you wrote "I'm okay with war—soldiers "offering" their lives. By engaging in war, a soldier in effect gives his enemy permission to kill him...if they can."

    As a soldier let me assure you I do not, will not and have not given my enemies permission to kill me if they can.

    On the founding fathers, in response to morality and religion Ben Franklin wrote, "I think opinions should be judged by their influences and effects; and if a man holds none that tend to make him less virtuous or more vicious, it may be concluded that he holds none that are dangerous, which I hope is the case with me". To translate; religion doesn't make a man moral.

    P.S. For a person who claims to not be a Christian you sure seem to be beating the pulpit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The postscript is really damn true....

      Delete
  11. Gren,

    The point of this particular post is not that some humanist don't have "good morals", it's that they claim those morals have nothing to do with "religion".

    In this country, there is no other source of morals. Our entire culture is based on Christian morality.

    One does not have to BE a Christian to understand historical fact.

    There is no "moral code" extant that is derived exclusively from Secular Humanism. And to pretend otherwise is to lie.

    Christians can explain WHY they believe what they believe, because it is based on fundamental principles.

    Secular Humanists have NO basis for their "moral code". They simply copied the Christian one, and renamed it.

    I challenge any Secular Humanist to provide a non-theist based foundation for what he calls his "moral code".

    It will be a pack of preferences and compassionate "feelings" without any bedrock foundation. It will be a set of man-made notions. Any man-made "morals" are merely "fashionable" and can be changed, altered, discarded whenever men decide they are inconvenient, or old-fashioned, or outdated.

    Without a Higher Power, no set of morals, virtues, ethics have intrinsic permanence.

    We may not like that, but it cannot be gainsaid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God, by any name, is the creator of Nature, & it's laws are his.
      Nature's highest law is the preservation of one's kind.
      ----- Mighty Whitey

      Delete
    2. God is created by man in his own image.

      Delete
    3. Gun,

      The point of this particular post is not that some Christians don't have "good morals", it's that they claim those morals have nothing to do with "rationalism," which is itself a key component to Secular Humanism.

      In this country there are many sources of morals, but a large part of our culture is based on Christian morality, and where it is beyond the basic principles of altruism, this is often disastrous. Just look at the "absolute moral law" those Christians who take Levitical law literally want to impose? For some time it was illegal to have gay sex, which is a major infringement upon human rights by natural law (which is summed up by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). You seem, based on the way you talk, to only give a damn about that line by Jefferson when those virtues fit with Christian morality....

      One does not have to BE a Humanist to understand historical fact. There is no "moral code" extant that is derived exclusively from Christianity, and to pretend otherwise is to lie.

      Humanists can explain WHY they believe what they believe, because it is based on fundamental principles of natural law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), something that has been around formally since at least the Greek philosophers and is the rationalization of the altruistic principles which are written in our very DNA through the process of evolution. They are in fact part of our very nature, and can simply be rationalized by critical thinking, as has been done by Humanism in a better form than Christianity did.

      Christians have NO basis for their "moral code". They simply copied our altruistic nature, and renamed it after adding more restrictions to it. I challenge any Christian to provide a non-Biblical foundation for what he calls his "moral code." He'll get to it by the same means one gets to the conclusions of natural law. Other than that, it will be a pack of preferences and compassionate "feelings" without any bedrock foundation. It will be a set of man-made notions from 2000 years ago. Any man-made "morals" are merely "fashionable" and can be changed, altered, discarded whenever men decide they are inconvenient, or old-fashioned, or outdated. Christians have done this with the words of their own Bible, for example the realization that fucking slavery is wrong (see the passages I talked about) and human sexuality is too complex and inherent to our being to be logically or practically inhibited by the requirement of marriage.

      Without a Higher Power, no set of morals, virtues, ethics have intrinsic permanence, and thus there is no basis for those of the Bible, because the god of that book does not exist. The laws, morals, and ethics of nature, however, do have intrinsic permanence, being part of our being, and thus they are timeless but will change considerably in certain aspects as new findings and ways of thought affect them.

      We may not like that, but it cannot be gainsaid.

      Delete
  12. Does he think cleverness equals effective argument?
    If he does, he is mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does she think pointing out my cleverness equals an effective rebuttal of my argument? If she does, she is mistaken.

      I like how you haven't even taken the time to rebut any of my arguments, just call me a smartass lefty. Lol

      Delete
  13. It's only because you keep beating the same dead horse I have already buried.

    ReplyDelete