you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I mean, he's 180 degrees away from the soytard atheist belief system that's currently in vogue, but that doesn't necessarily make him less right.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Now tell us how he is right.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can tell you what I see in the world. First, I see a lot of religious people who do things that are bad under any moral code, but acknowledge some creator-driven philosophy of right and wrong that at least tells them what the ideal is. Second, I see a lot of irreligious people who claim to be following some moral code that's not built on the idea of a creator or anything holy.

The first group is easy to understand. This group thinks and acts how people have thought and acted for millenia.

The second group is more novel. Despite their lack of a holy book, they can get quite adamant about questions of behavior. If pressed about where, in the absence of a deity, their sense of right and wrong comes from, they will typically grasp for something resembling humanism: we must do what's best for the most people, we must tolerate others, etc.

I think those humanist platitudes are an insufficient foundation for even the most mundane version of human life. Why should I tolerate rampant childlessness, homosexuality, and abortion for example? Is that's what best for the most of us? Is it serving the nations that allow it well? I think not. These nations import people with traditional beliefs to support their economies. The childless atheist fur-mommies do nothing to support the economy. They do nothing to keep us all fed and cared for. They will grow old and sap the resources of young people they didn't create or raise.

"OK," they might tell me, "the earth is overpopulated anyway. We just need to find and economic system that doesn't require children." Left unsaid is the fact that economic systems don't change like that without mass extermination. Ask Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc.

"Well, there will be a little pain, but that's where we exercise our tolerance. And overpopulation is bad for the planet anyway."

Interesting. So now your philosophy is humanism, except where the needs of the many might cause intolerance to the few, or environmental damage... or whatever bad thing the next hole I can poke in humanism might cause. That's quite a hodgepodge. How does one rank these several concerns? You know, without any notion of a god or what His ideals might look like?

And that's really the crux of it: knowing what the ideal is, vs. what the real is. A humanist / leftist / atheist fails profoundly at that. They don't want to admit that the heterosexual procreative family is the ideal, because it pains them that they and so many of their friends fall short of that ideal.

We must have ideals, though, and we must fall short of them. Anyone without ideals will only behave well or do good by accident. A developed world atheist does not know what it means to be good. If he does good, he does it by accident.

Finally, I would add that all of this is true whether you believe specifically in God or not.