butterfly

The atheist’s mantra: There’s none. 

And I am not trying to convert you. It's impossible. 

So, god does not exist. Full stop. I had this conversation with a Christian the other day… He believed in the ONLY god, of course, because His is better than yours… (or it could be the same, but with a different colour, or beard or pants).

So, Richard E. Simmons III — a Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership, (if by rare chance the word “leadership” or “ministry” does not appear in the credential of preachers, it’s because the next epithet is “humble” or "faith-based” — or all of them together...) tells us:

We live in a time where people are truly perplexed over what has gone wrong with our world. There seems to be so much instability in people’s lives. When you look into what’s happening within our culture and world, there seems to be so much moral confusion. How does a modern person determine what is right or wrong?

Hello? We live in a time in which ONLY a few people are dangerously perplexed. Many do not think about the nature of the beast and this is fine. They press buttons, look at their smartphones, have a good time, eat and drink (in moderation whatever that is), work, get paid for it. Good... To tell the truth, if you have lived long enough like me, you would know that there has always been something gone wrong with our (homo sapiens) world for the last 2,500 years at least (possibly 42,000 at a pinch with the extinction of our cousins, the Neanderthals, and the polar reversal) — and far worse “wrongs" than what we are experiencing now. People did not have the scientific tools to deal with pandemics, plagues, toothaches, nor “surgical wars”, thus becoming victims of “carpet bombings” or they died in one-to-one armed combat… 

To some extend there is very little instability in our society nowadays, as most of us have learned to read and write, cook and think about various ways to amuse ourself. What has changed is the gamut of influences — and in regard to moral confusion, you should know that this is not new either. Many of our past religious leaders, including popes (they waged wars with armies) and protestant leaders (Luther hated the Jews and the Muslims), were completely immoral by their application of what they thought was the words of god. These words may as well been those of Satan for the pain they did inflict on others, should you be satirical like Dante.

First, we’re the sum of our indoctrination and explorations, until we learn to revalue our personal stylistic human relativity — our humanism in relation to pain and relative contentment*. This is hard work. Many people do not revalue, but let some concepts fall by the wayside... Shaking indoctrination can often lead to a new form of “submission” to a worse form of religious extremism (born-again Christian or becoming al Qaeda). This is the purpose of morality, religious morality: it is designed to make us submit to the idea of god in whichever religious format we are born into for as long as possible. For us, Western plops, this religious format is Christianity which of course is superior to others because we have invented better/nastier weapons to defend it.

Becoming a truly atheist is not a piece of cake — and nor should it be. Many people sit on the fence and become agnostic. This is an acceptable position that should not take on board any prejudices from religion, say in regard to belittling women, raping the planet or any other goat-humans. What many people nowadays do is accept the secular code of behaviour often learnt as kid by being whacked should we do something contrary — or taught from watching the police catch-a-crook TV shows, unless we don’t want to miss on presents from Santa Claus (eternity, here we come!). 

There is a difference between a secular and religious morality, even if our behaviour “appears” the same. The secular moral behaviour is accepting that we are willing to stylistically share our life with other people without behaving like little shits (we soon discover the concept of "good and bad" through pain and contentment*) — all without having a carrot of being “judged” at the end of eternity, or whatever undefined long time, by an almighty vengeful dude who was crazy enough to send “His” son, to rescue humans from an original sin — committed by a couple of idiots called Adam and Eve — by dying on a cross in Roman times… Pull the other leg. Hey? Sure we are naive, but please… This story does not make any sense at all. Did Jesus commit suicide by letting himself be killed when he could have made a wondrous miracle on the spot — a miracle that would have had far more impact on the future than the resurrection which no one really saw, except St Thomas… Imagine, the only guy who “killed” himself was Judas — a poor remorseful soul (I don’t believe in soul) who was necessary for the trick of the calvary to be enacted. 

In regard to sonny-god, there's bit of repeat in the trick:

For the Muslims, the Christians, the Judaics — all simplistic religiously dedicated deluded morons (sorry dear folks, I could not find another descriptive nice word) who have accepted the Adam and Eve porky — the major next brainwashing stems from the day Abraham was told by god to sacrifice his son… This is a turning point in the stupidity of it all. Here we go:

Abraham Tested

22 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 

4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 

5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 

7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”

“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.

“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 

10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 

11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 

14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide.

—————————

This is a massive fudge at the core of the biblical bullshit: a nasty god sends a dreadful request… No morality here. In the story, Abraham should have answered back: "Look god, I believe in you, sure, but I’m not going to sacrifice anyone to please your silly demented demands. Are you effing nuts? I’l burn a few incense sticks instead, dedicated to your glorious madness. Alleluyah…” God would have better approved an argument well reasoned, not a stupid blind following… Imagine that there's no effing ram in the bushes! Isaac would have been burnt to a crisp like many dudes had been in some traditional religious loonitudes, from the Middle East to the Americas, and Joan of Arc…

So when really looked at, this story is so silly, it could make a clown bicycle laugh to death in the middle of a colourful circus ring. Unless declaimed with gravitas by a con artist of the religious brotherhood, the story would get no traction. This is the trick. When silly stories such as these are delivered with amazing superior authority, the poor illiterate plebs that we are, do not pay attention to the stupidity of the tale. We bend the knees… And this is why these guys and the few dolls are preachers (note: no female preachers in Islam, I believe), and why they’re not quantum explorers, nor proto-philosophers nor plumbers who question the quality of the relative S bend (though they could also be but then they would resent preaching about god the superior S-bender). They train in the art of authoritative declamation — or are born with the “gift of the gab” — with an oratory style that is akin to the trick of hand from a Las Vegas magician with a pack of cards and a million flower pots in his/her sleeves. Beware...

In Australia (and I guess in many other countries), there are debating events where young budding politicians develop their skill of bullshit spruiking, in order to bamboozle the crowds. In seminaries, the teaching reinforce the belief so that the propaganda becomes “real" and circularly sophistic. Goebbels only adopted the technique. He did not invent it.

So, Richard E. Simmons III — this Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership, continues the slay of hand:

Max Hocutt, professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama says:

“The fundamental question of ethics is, who makes the rules? God or men? The theistic answer is that God makes them. The humanistic answer is that men make them. This distinction between theism and humanism is the fundamental division in moral theory.”

Hocutt is correct. The problem then becomes if morals and ethics are determined by men, who makes these decisions? Who determines how we ought to live? How should we conduct our lives?

To personalize it, how do we determine what is moral if there is no God who reveals to us what is right or wrong? Is it determined by our feelings, by our ability to reason?

Yes!!!!! Our ability to reason has nothing to do with god nor organised religious beliefs with rituals and passing the plate on Sundays. For many god-conjurors, evolution is pushing their buttons, but they soon find ways to simplify this annoying reality like one places a fence around cattle to avoid a stampede. Someone has to build a fence, hasn’t it? For these dudes, god is the fencerer-in-chief...

Richard E. Simmons III — the Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership, continues the massage:

If there is no God, who or what is a guiding force in our lives? We must conclude what Richard Dawkins rationally describes in his book River Out of Eden:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference, DNA neither knows or cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Think about what he said. If God does not exist, then what are we as human beings? We are purposeless products of biological evolution, which means all morality is subjective. It is based on your opinion.

Correct! Morality is based on “opinion”… But THERE’S MORE! It goes further than this… Should we not streamline our social and individual behaviour, we would soon become extinct, which for some pigs on this site would not be a bad idea (http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/40619). 

No, we, humans (not just men — some religions see women as “inferior” or “different” and under the ownership of men, like goats and sheep) have invented, through evolving trial and errors of action sets of stylistic rules that allow us to survive as a social species without killing each others, despite our sociopathic rulers (and self) — secular AND religious. And our social groups have grown beyond just a few tribes in search of the promised land… We cannot all live there, thus some religious/political nuts have now defined the USA as the new promised land. Brother! Tell this to all the dead Injuns..

Richard E. Simmons III — the Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership, continues to point the finger at Dawkins:

This has such an impact on a culture when there is no moral compass. You just follow your DNA, wherever it leads you. Richard Dawkins admitted this in a radio interview with radio host Justin Brierley, as Dawkins makes it clear that human morality is nothing more than the outcome of the evolutionary process:

Brierley: “When you make a value judgment, don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good? And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.”

Dawkins: “My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.”

Brierley: “So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.”

Dawkins: “You could say that…Nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.”

Brierley: “Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.”

Dawkins: “You could say that, yeah.”

This is astonishing that the world’s most prominent atheist could not emphatically say that rape is immoral. Though he may not believe this is true within his heart, he seeks to be a consistent Darwinian atheist.

Dawkins is correct. Rape has nothing to do with “morality”, but our opinion of it has to do with the brutality of the act which is anti-social and thus defined as “wrong” by the social code, in which we have come to reject certain rules, for example, such as the polygamy of kings in the bible — now illegal, though some of our princes have their bit on the side, with or without the help of the Epsteins.

Note: already mentioned on this site some animals indulge in "gang rape" for better reproduction. In some Muslim countries, a virgin, condemned to death, will be "married" and fucked, on the night before being hanged, stoned or decapitated, because apparently it is a sin to kill a virgin...

Yes, the trick of the preachers/proselytisers is to mention something horrendous, like rape, murder or whatever and paint the atheist with tar and feathers for not applying “morality” to the deed. In fact, Dawkins is far less of a hypocrite than the priests and the religious mobs who will go to war or lynch someone because of the colour of their skin — or “deliberately” commit a sin, then seek redemption, absolution and forgiveness — while blaming the anti-god — the devil — for having done bad.

Richard E. Simmons III — the Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership — continues the hatchet job:

However, Dawkins does believe that it is not good for a society always to follow Darwinian morality because it is “ruthless.” He says,

“I have always said that I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to the way we should organize our lives and morality. We want to avoid basing our society on Darwinian principles.”

Dawkins, on the one hand, says that we live our lives based on our DNA, but then introduces a moral code by telling us not to follow our DNA. The more I read of Richard Dawkins, the more I recognize how inconsistent he can be.

Dawkins is not inconsistent. He did not mention such thing as "Darwinian morality"… He mentioned "Darwinian principles”. Very different. When you see a pair of lorikeets cuddling, kissing and fondling, you know that the evolution of nature eventually provided other creatures with a sense of self and others. This is the Darwinian Principle which at time can be ruthless in the jungle. At this level, humans can behave far worse than animals, often in the name of god, whatever that is...

Some animals and most (all) plants have no awareness of others, though some plants will sense others. They just are and evolve/breed at the whim of the wind, the seas, DNA and the seasons. Should there be some parameters changes beyond some critical point, species become extinct — aware or not. Yep, and many humans don’t want to know about the tipping points… The sciences can bring out better probabilities on such than the readers of chook entrails.

Richard E. Simmons III — the Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership — is knowledgeable, erudite and can push an atheist like Dawkins into a dark corner by mentioning a better one:

The individual who has had the most to say about atheism and morality is the great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He clearly stated that there is no absolute right or wrong. For this reason, he had much contempt for Christianity, because it elevated such beliefs as love, morality, and humility. You can’t build a civilization of power on these beliefs.

Nietzsche predicted that the English-speaking world would seek to abandon a belief in God, but would attempt to hold on to Christian values. However, he predicted correctly that when societies reject God, Christian morality itself will eventually disappear. The reason is because it will be more difficult to motivate people to be moral, for they will naturally follow their selfish instincts and desires.

Correct. Christian morality is not universal, nor is Islamic morality universal — nor absolute. And Christian morality has nothing much to crow about. It indulged in wars, in slavery (as obligatory mentioned in the bible), in various forms of robberies and many other nefarious glorious concept such as the crusades. The Muslims did and do the same against the infidels while many devotee keep their women’s modesties under black tents, because their men are incapable of keeping their dicks inside their pants, without the help of such stupid dictums written by the younger wife (underaged) of Mohammed as dictated by him.

When some people behave in unChristian ways, but act secularly, most of them still have a code of behaviour that will benefit the group. In the long run, our chosen purpose of life should be to minimise pain, avoid inflicting pain, be happy and help others be happy without destroying the joint. Simple enough on the surface of life, under which the chemicalities are spinning…. Meanwhile, many religions are encouraging their adherents to do just that, conquer the world by breeding more soldiers until they clash, annihilating each other like an encounter of antiparticles with particles in a field of strawberries... 

DNA, as mentioned by Dawkins and the good old Richard E. Simmons III — the Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership — IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX and does not exist on its own. It needs an “environment”.

DNA needs repeat multiplicity, precision (with unfortunate decay), diversity and billion billions chemical reactions with elementary processes, including enzymes, catalysts that manage the surplus and deficit of proteins in the individual structures, be it in a plant or in a superior chimpanzee, we call human. Microbes, viruses or bacteria have no purpose but multiply and evolve — and they usually do it well. Since the original soup in which molecules of nucleic acids reacted and multiplied in ribbon forms, they are still there, surviving at the bottom of the roots of life. That from time to time they find some propitious environments such as a human body to breed into, is not especially defined to kill us. We have our own leucocytes and poisons against these… But these microbial visits are accidental opportunistic random encounters possibly six time removed from the carbolic acids, we call carbon dioxide. And that’s the way it is. Our luck has been that this little planet over 4.5 billion years had some water, an atmosphere of oxygen (but not aways so), all the chemicals components to react and wavoom, here we are, not much cleverer than a group of gorillas on mountain Zob — reasonably dumb compared to fallen angels and quite inefficient as nasty devils...

Thus Richard E. Simmons III — the Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership — brings more dud do I say brilliant ammunition to his thesis:

Dr. Arthur Leff, now deceased, was a brilliant professor at Yale Law School. Back in 1979, he published an article in the Duke Law Journal titled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law.” Today, it’s considered a very important and prominent essay. It is uncertain what Leff believed about God, but what troubled him was that if there is no God, then there’s no way that one can make any kind of case for human morality, particularly human rights. Here is a paraphrased summary of what he said:

"You can say it is wrong for a majority to take advantage of any minority by force, but that is an opinion and not an argument. You can assert all sorts of things, but what you cannot do is say one point of view is morally right and all others are not. If someone says it is all right to enslave a minority, and you say no, it is wrong, who is to say your view of morality is right and theirs is wrong? Maybe it helps to frame it this way: if there is no God, who among us gets to impose their will on everyone else? Who gets to establish the moral laws that people are to follow? These questions are so intellectually troubling that you would think there would be more legal and ethical thinkers trying to come to grips with this."

Leff’s words suggest that if there is a God, then He would make the law for us to follow. We’d base our law on Him. And this, by the way, is how Western civilization was built, with biblical truth as its foundation. We require a moral foundation on which to build a culture. As T.S. Eliot penned many years ago:

“It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe… have been rooted.”

Returning to Leff’s argument, his words also suggest that if there is no God, then moral law has to be grounded in human opinion. So, we must ask, who gets to establish their human opinion as law so that everyone has to obey it? Why should your view of morality have privilege over my view? Ultimately, what you end up with is that those in power will make sure their moral values prevail. Of course, that’s what happened in Nazi Germany.

Ah, the good old Germany and the Nasty Adolph… This is a favourite in the religious demonstration, be it Islamic or Christian, that god has to exist in order to prevent such calamity. It would take a million years to explain to the religious mobs that HITLER WAS NOT AN ATHEIST per se. HE USED christianity AS A PROP.  Yep his best “friend" and that of the fascist in Italy was Pope Pius XII, who went along “to limit the damage”… And T.S. Eliot is not a philosophical genius reference. He was born in America, for goodness sake...

Before Hitler came along following a WW1 defeat as reaction to misery imposed by the Allies, the popes and the protestants used god as a prop to promote their religious connection as the best one ever… They were not called the RELIGIOUS wars or wars of religion for nothing.

Religious morality is flimsy at best and has been based on stupid adaptation of concepts since the Adam and Eve delusion. Sins do not happen. What happens is our propensity to become sociopathic passed a point at which our buttons have been pressed a bit too much — or that, in order to achieve a superior position, political or religious, we choose to become a bit ruthless — albeit with various version of moralitationing to smooth the corners.

For a while now, the Muslims are having their own wars of religion. It’s Sunnis versus the Shias. It’s Saudi Arabia versus Persia (Iran)… It’s the opportunistic bedouins tribes against one of the oldest civilisation on the planet (Iran before it became Muslim). Our latest Catholic Biden venture continuum is to carry on helping the Saudis/Sunnis/Wahhabis/extremists because of oil. But we’re extremely inefficient in this venture, apart from ransacking Syria’s oilfields. But we do this with a moral motive: we hate the Ruskies who support the Shia and a multipolar-cultural world, while we’re on a crusade to prove we’re better by being mono-empirical… And we’re right, aren’t we? We have the biggest army roaming the planet, haven’t we? Yes, our Christian morality sticks out at the end of a gun…

Gus Leonisky

Annoyed dude at the Richard E. Simmons III — the Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership — of this relative world who tries to justify his superior moral religiosity by bashing atheism…

FREE ASSANGE NOW !!! You, the fucking Christian Biden! Yes YOU, the HYPOCRITE moral president of whatever… keeping Assange in prison is IMMORAL!

*pain and contenment have many facets as explained here...

See: https://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35987

Sapiens in the mist (more than 36,000 reads)