A moral desert
An impoverished religious mind at work:
Recently, atheists seem intent on proving they can be good without God. I always get a kick out of evangelizing atheists and how they’re so desperate to prove that they’re as good (and usually better) than us religious types.
No, we’re not desperate, but we do like to counter the slanders of many theists to the effect that we can’t be good without God. If Matt Archbold were making a good faith argument (so to speak), he would acknowledge that many theists claim that atheists are necessarily immoral, and that we naturally disagree with that. But he’s not, so he didn’t.
But let’s give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt because us religious types like to do that.
No you don’t. That is one thing you emphatically do not ‘like to do,’ not when it comes to atheists at least. You ‘like to’ give us the very opposite of the benefit of the doubt (as this whole piece abundantly illustrates).
I have to wonder from what philosophical grounding does Dawkins’ altruism emanate? Why is other human life worth anything if there is no God?
What an ugly mind is here revealed.
The rest of what he says is ignorant and unreflective, but that question is downright ugly.
Same questions occurred to me earlier today when I read the article. Ugly and sick. What mindless and dishonest chatter! An offence against intelligence, integrity and good manners. What appalling things religious people say!
Indeed, and he’s so cheery about it. How dare you, sir?!
I almost think he gets worse in the bit you didn’t quote. Or if not more offensive, at least sillier:
What definition? He doesn’t say. Is he one of those who believes that whatever god says is good is good by definition? I had no idea that goodness was an intrinsically theistic concept.
As you say, an ugly sentiment.
Implicit assumption therein: “Without God-belief, I would not value other human life, so why would anyone else?”.
One wonders why Mathew Archbold bothers. Even if his aim is to be a Catholic Rush Limbaugh, he still has an awful long way to go.
The best part of his blog is the string of comments below the opening rant. Most of his readers (by far) have tipped the bucket on him. Given that he is so crass, not as abusively as one might have expected.
I have only had time to read through about half of the comments, but the pertinent remark that he was in over his philosophical head has so far gone unchallenged.
Still, he seems to make a living at it, so perhaps PT Barnum was right.
“Why is other human life worth anything if there is no God?”
Why wouldn’t it be? And, compared to the infinite worth of God, why is other human life worth anything if there *is* a God?
This “truth, beauty and goodness come from God, so without God truth, beauty and goodness must not exist” argument is silly. Not believing in the Easter Bunny doesn’t make chocolate eggs wink out of existence…
Amazing – another Christian whose mere existence is an excellent Argument against the faith he promotes. Why would an honest, unbiased person read this muck and think: ‘Oh yeah, Catholicism, maybe there’s something to it?’
This kind of attitude also casts an interesting light on all that kiddie-fiddling. Perhaps an outfit like the Catholic Church attracts people who are morally ‘disabled’, aware of their own cruel and selfish impulses, and feel the need for an institution that tells them exactly what to do/think/feel on every conceivable issue. But then they find it also puts them in the way of temptation…
Why is other human life worth anything if there is no God?
You know, I find this almost a fair question (though the apparent belief that it’s not one any atheist has considered is mind-boggling: in terms of midnight oil, it must have a carbon footprint bigger than Canada’s). It’s not the assumption that human life may not be found to have very great intrisic worth without God that I find unsettling, it’s the weaselly little ‘other’ that’s slipped in there. The assumption that philosophically (rather than pragmatically) we Godless will assign greater intrinsic worth to our own lives than to others. Cute stuff.
Do you value your own life? Do you recognise your common humanity with others? Once you’ve answered those two questions with ‘yes’, then you have almost all the building-blocks you need for a complete system of ethics, with no ‘God’ in sight.
if of course you can’t answer ‘yes’ to either of them – or you can’t construct an ethics for yourself without the threat of eternal punishment – chances are you aren’t a ‘good’ person for the purposes of discussion. Next.
Quite so – and babies start the process very early, and it proceeds in identifiable predictable stages. Empathy is simply built in.
Of course Archbold’s ridiculous claim is that because it’s built in, it must be God what did the building in – but he neglects to say why.
There was a talk near me today that I didn’t get to go to. A well-known Bible teacher from an evangelical church, and the title “Why can’t atheists stop talking about God?”
But what really made me sit up was the assertion in the blurb that “The Bible shows that God does not believe in atheists.”
Well God would know for sure whether there are atheists, therefore none of you exist. Sorry folks.
*blinks out of existence*
One wonders how mankind survived utter annihilation by its own non Christian hands for 7000 years or so before the man who preached the joys of dashing babies against rocks made his appearance.
One gets the impression that religious people like Archbold are actually getting upset that atheists want to be moral and to help their fellow human beings. I can almost hear the plaintive whine: “No fair! You’re not allowed to be good if you don’t believe in my god!”
I would ask Archbold “Why is other human life worth anything BECAUSE THERE IS a God?” (which seems to be his implied position). Other theists’ answers seem to say “because God tells us to value human life” or “because GOD values human life” . In either case, it implies (or states boldly) that humans are not capable of determining value on their own, plus we must accept HIS opinion without question. – thie leads us to the usual- what if God decided that eating babies was moral?
Why is other human life worth anything if there is no God?
Because we’re free to develop our empathy without any fairy tales about how a sky-fairy wants us to kill our children or commit genocide in his name.
Next?
Stephen Turner
‘There was a talk near me today that I didn’t get to go to. A well-known Bible teacher from an evangelical church, and the title “Why can’t atheists stop talking about God?”‘
It fascinates me when theists say that – my (Catholic) dad mentioned that to me only recently, based on a letter someone had sent into The Tablet. I just don’t see how they can begin to ask a question like that without stopping, contemplating, and realising why it’s ridiculous – because theists don’t stop talking about God? Because they keep asserting quite laughable things about atheists, about the universe, about existence? Because they haven’t quite grasped why their beliefs ought not be privileged in society any more than others (and don’t even seem to realise that they are being)?
It’s flabbergasting, but I think many theists really do genuinely think that the vast majority of religious people are just good, quiet types who get on with things and cast an amused and smug eye over those wearisome noisy atheists, who of course have no reason to be even interested in questions about existence and ethics.