Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Problem With Atheists . . .

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason,

Slavoj Zizek argues for atheism in the New York Times:

For centuries, we have been told that without religion we are no more than egotistic animals fighting for our share, our only morality that of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, can elevate us to a higher spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace?

The problem with vesting one's hope for humanity in atheism is that atheism only rejects faith in God; beyond declaring what it does not accept, it has nothing else to offer philosophically. That?s unfortunately why so many atheists are moonbats?they may have rejected one form of mysticism, but it does not follow that they have rejected all forms. That?s why I?m not surprised when Zizek says this:

A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence.

Ah, Hume?and a moral code that is still disconnected from the individual?s life. A moral deed is not its own reward?it is recognition of the facts of one?s nature as a living human being and the nature of choices one must make in order to flourish. Every rational moral choice is self-interested?even if given the nature of our times, it doesn?t seem that way to most.

Zizek makes one last observation:

While a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other's beliefs. Respect for other's beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple "regimes of truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth.

What, however, about submitting Islam ? together with all other religions ? to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.

But I don?t respect Muslims for their beliefs. I respect the Muslims right to hold their beliefs (and harm no one but themselves in the process) but I have nothing but contempt for any code that damns existence on this earth in the name of the supernatural. Life demands rationality, and that is why, in the end, atheism is not substitute for Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I myself have always believed in a supernatural existence after death, but my principle belief is that all of nature and the place/time of it's origin are subject to moral absolutes and an objective existence, and Atheism has never held such a thing as objectivity to be possible.

When you think about it, David Hume is a step back to the primitive tribalism that existed before Christianity, to when there was no form of conceptualization, when people acted without a thought process. He is described as a believer, but his philosophy is actually diametrically opposed to belief. He is an enemy of both Classical Theism and Objectivism, two opposing views in themselves of course.

The modern Atheist is, in many ways, a throw-back to several Christian Heresies, the most notable being the Gnostics, who believed that all material existence was an evil and accidental side-effect of genesis. These people were the heirs of Plato's "Realm of Forms" and applied it much more consistently to their Christianity than Augustine did. The result was a system that had to portray Christ as being some sort of "half good" and "half evil" being because he had supposedly (I say this with the purpose of remaining objective) assumed form as a human being.

Inevitably, if you desire to truly destroy civilized humanity, theism (and I mean the more rational theologies that developed between the Paleolithic era and the Enlightenment) must also be destroyed because it carries with it a tinge of self-interested thought, and with it comes the propensity for rational thought and rejection of self-hatred for the sake of self-love. Immanuel Kant and David Hume are the fathers of the various forms of irrational atheism that pervade society today (as well as many irrational forms of theological pursuit, some of which are found in the Catholic Church). And I believe that every human being, Objectivist or not, should regard them as mortal enemies rather than brilliant philosophers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with most athiests is that they don't have a good moral philosophy to fall back on, as many do turn out to be leftist moonbats who get off on attacking people of faith yet offer nothing substantive in return. I'd take a person who is rational in most aspect of their lives, yet believes in god, over a "godless socialist."

My group of friends are a pretty diverse lot, some are conservative and some "libertarian"(for lack of a better term), some athiest, some Jewish, some catholic and some protestant. But we all respect each other, because despite our personal faiths (or lack thereof), we know each other to be rational, intelligent people in other aspects of life. Religion is not the defining quality that defines mostly-rational people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real-life friend I can discuss philosophical and political issues with is a Jehovah's Witness.

I hear ya'. My choices are Mormon minister and Wiccan priest. So far, no spells or witnessing, so I'm okay for the time being.

I gotta get out more ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...