Atheism and the Texas Church Shooter
“If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov. Mentioning this in association with Devin Patrick Kelley, the militant atheist who last Sunday perpetrated the worst church shooting in U.S. history, is bound to raises hackles. Of course, few atheists will descend into committing murder; in fact, I’ve known some I’d call “good people.” Moreover, note that I myself once not only didn’t believe in God, but like Kelley thought religious people were “stupid.” Yet is it possible a straight line can be drawn between atheism (the belief) and increasing crime and immorality? Ideas do have consequences, after all.
George Washington once wrote, “[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. …[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Many great thinkers have expressed the same idea, yet, when it’s related today, the assumption is that what’s being said is atheists can’t be good people. This is both because theists generally don’t explain their position well and atheists generally don’t seek to understand it well; passions run high and the two sides talk past each other. But now I’ll explain exactly what Dostoevsky and Washington meant — in a way making it apparent why it’s an insight that helped bring me, formerly a dismissive unbeliever, to faith.
A very near relation of a close friend said to him once, “Murder isn’t wrong; it’s just that society says it is.” I’ve heard this sentiment expressed, in different words, many times. In fact, notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, known as the “Milwaukee Cannibal,” said to his parents as a teen, “If there’s no God, why can’t I just make up my own rules?”
But here’s the question: What would you say to my friend’s relation? How could you refute him? We could warn, as a painfully legalistic ex-cop once said to me, that committing murder will land him in the pokey. But that doesn’t really address the matter’s heart, does it? We want people doing the “right thing” not just because — and when — they fear consequences. (Atheists emphasize this when criticizing the “fear of God”; note, though, there’s also the love of God.) In fact, we’ve staked our whole republic on people’s ability to, in a great measure, govern themselves from within.
I know what I can say to the man. On the surface, it sounds simplistic: “You’re wrong, because God exists and has created eternal, unchanging moral law — it’s called Truth.”
Now, my friend’s relation could disagree with my proposition (God exists), but he can’t dispute my logic. If God exists and has decreed the relevant moral law, the man is wrong. Yet what can an atheist tell him? For if the atheist’s proposition that there is no God is correct, the man is correct: Society is all that’s left, so it could only be society saying, “Murder is wrong.”
To fully grasp this belief’s implications, we must delve into the nature of right and wrong. If society is all there is and “Man is the measure of all things,” as ancient Greek Protagoras put it, can we even speak of “morality”? Consider my standard explanation:
If we learned that the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla, would we claim this made vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? Of course not. It’s just a matter of taste, or human preference. Yet how is it any different asserting murder is “wrong” or “evil” if the only reason we do so is that we learn that the vast majority of the world hates the idea of killing others in a way the vast majority of the world considers unjust?
If man’s consensus is all it is, then it falls into the same category as flavors: human preference.
Some may now say, “But wait, we’re not talking about killing my taste buds but killing people! It’s a totally different thing!” I don’t argue it doesn’t feel different (to all but sociopaths), but remember that the idea this should put murder in a different category would, under atheism, also just be a function of man’s preference.
This is irrefutable. The only way we can say “morality” properly defined — not as something synonymous with man’s preference, in other words — truly exists is if it’s a universal, eternal, unchanging moral law handed down by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe; that is, if, just as God created Physical Reality (matter and the “laws of physics”), He also created Moral Reality.
And if God doesn’t exist? Then we should stop fooling ourselves and putting lipstick on the pig of mere preference. Stop using words such as “values” (prevalent now precisely because “morality” connotes something absolute), designed to obscure atheism’s meaninglessness. Like my friend’s relation and Dahmer, just accept that right and wrong is illusion.
This brings us to the true meaning of “You can’t be moral without God”: If divine law isn’t real, no one can be “moral” because you cannot conform to a non-existent standard. “Moral” is as incomprehensible a term in a universe without Truth as “physical” would be in one without matter. So, if God doesn’t exist, neither atheists nor theists can be moral — only in or out of fashion.
The reality, my atheist friends should note, is that embracing any moral is a matter of faith. We cannot see a moral under a microscope or a principle in a Petri dish. Science cannot prove murder (or anything else) is wrong — only possible. For science merely tells us what we can do, not what we should.
People generally don’t come to terms with these implications of atheism because most don’t take their world view to its logical conclusion; many also wouldn’t want to, for it means staring true meaninglessness in the face. It means that all the causes moderns fill their lives with are mere vanity. Tolerance can’t be better than intolerance, love better than hate, or respect for life better than murder in a godless, Moral-Truth-bereft world.
Then again, consistency can’t be better than hypocrisy, pretense better than sincerity, or fairness better than imposing one’s will, either. Thus, someone who has thought these things through and accepted atheism’s correlative moral nihilism may push his agenda simply because he wants to. As with atheist’s atheist Friedrich Nietzsche, he may blithely accept his own contradictions, boiling his creed down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
By the way, this may explain studies showing that sociopaths have above-average intelligence. Perhaps they’re people smart enough to think these matters through, but unwise enough to come to the wrong conclusion (God doesn’t exist, thus Truth doesn’t exist, therefore right and wrong doesn’t exist). For certain is that if you accepted this parenthetical proposition intellectually — and incorporated it into yourself on an emotional level so that it permeated not just your head but your heart — you would be a sociopath. You wouldn’t have a conscience because you’d know, and feel, that there was nothing to be conscientious about.
Of course, almost no atheist so thoroughly imbibes that proposition; most have strong feelings about various trespasses (real and imagined). So not every atheist becomes a reprobate any more than every Muslim becomes a terrorist or every Nazi a genocidal maniac. But ideas have consequences. Atheism, just like misguided theism (e.g., Islam), is destructive.
This may take a dark form or just that of the atheistic but generally good-hearted young man I once knew who responded, when I mentioned that something he was contemplating was wrong, “But it’s not wrong for me.” The point, however, is that atheism’s implied moral nihilism can justify anything. Rape? Kill? Steal? Why not? Who’s to say it’s wrong? This brings us to one last matter.
When someone points out that atheistic Marxist governments have killed 65 to 110 million people, atheists will often retort, “But atheism doesn’t prescribe that!” They’re correct. Atheism doesn’t prescribe any behavior.
It also doesn’t proscribe any behavior.
And that’s the problem. Silence on moral matters would be fine if man by nature were angelic. But by nature, he’s barbaric — and he remains so unless some civilizing agency enters the equation. Atheism’s mistake is one of omission.
This is why Dostoevsky, Dahmer and Washington were right: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Ideas have consequences. Be careful what you believe — and what you espouse.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/godless_atheism_and_the_texas_church_shooter.html#ixzz4yGSwKmHZ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
Thumpers seemed to be a lot more civil when the threat of becoming yard art or cat food loomed over their heads.
Notice the fixation to the exclusion of others, the Wal Mart shooter was a thumper and the Texas shooter seems to have been a believer then a non believer and back and forth. This is an individual neither camp would identify with even if he had not committed the atrocity.
This on going argument whether there is a God or not isn't going to end.
If one wants to believe in a God, that is there right, the same goes for non believers.
To each his/her own. I have no problem with either as long as they don't try to convert or convince me how right they are.
They do not have a right to impose that belief or anything that follows from that belief into law. In fact, the Constitution forbids laws to "establish" any religious bias or preference.
IMO, that goes without saying.
There are many social conservatives who reject the idea of a separation of chich and state because it gets in the way of their religious tyranny being enforced on others by the state. They claim that the Establishment Clause is a one-way door that keeps the state or out religion but religion has the right to meddle in and use the state to enforce its dogma on others, despite our constitutional right of freedom of religion.
Former justice Scalia(RIH) was one of those proponents. Roy Moore of the pedo' party is another of that idea major proponents.
Or impose their religion in to a secular society.
Agreed.
But here's the problem-- most people who waste endless hours in this sort of conversation want to do just that-- convince everyone else that they are right-- and those with other opinions are wrong.
(While it is not the only cause-- one of the main factors in accelerating the dumbing down of America is-- the Internet).
Yes, that seems to be the case as shown in this article. Which is one of the reasons that I rarely comment on religious articles. When I do it's simply to express my view and that pretty much ends it.
The one exception to that, are articles written by Enoch and various writing partners. His articles are of great interest to me simply because it's an expression of an idea without the same old, I'm right, your wrong.
Thoughts and prayers. The elixir of the elixed.
Non believers. Believers. Did God create man or did man create God?
E.A see my Comment to Atheist and Einstein.
Atheist are the most prodigious " god makers " they produce gods from all matter of things!
How can or when why would atheists produce many gods if the fact that they are an atheist means that they don't believe in any god? You need to rethink that illogical claim.
If you mean the laws of physics (matter) are god, I'm okay with that.
You have yet to provide any evidence that a god exists.
8.2.1.1.… Eagle Averro
END
Thank god----harharharharharhar
What exactly are you trying to say?
I'm not OK with calling scientific ideas god. Gods are supernatural sentient beings, which obviously separates them from scientific facts/laws/theories.
Referring to scientific laws as god is a deistic idea.
Of course, you knew that I was referring to god symbolically, not as a or one of the supernatural beings.
E.A As I have declared " END " on the Main Forum, if you sincere, and want to continue, join me in the Chat bottom right of your screen Forum Public Chat!
Everyone is born an atheist. Only after years of brainwashing convincing by parents, priests, etc., are they finally convinced to believe in something that you cannot see, smell, touch, hear, or taste.
Therefore all Gods are the inventions of atheists.
I assumed as much by your argument.
Is this your version of yelling IMPASS as a logical excuse when your argument fails instead of admitting that you might be wrong and learning something?
Well, from another perspective, its perfectly logical.
Atheists don't believe any God exists, So if that's the case-- whats the sensible thing to do? Yup-- create one!
But Believers, OTOH, believe that God does exist-- which is why don't have any need to create one...
(Its the damn Atheists that keep going around creating Gods everywhere {to fill the void}...troublemakers the lot of 'em!)
Many cultures created many gods to explain wheat early man did not understand. They didn't have the knowledge or the tools to understand the world around them so they created myths and gods to explain what they didn't understand.
Many people still cling to those gods because they lack the ability to think for themselves and understand the world around them. Religion is easier than thinking for yourself.
Atheism is nothing, it shouldn't even be a word. Do we call people who don't drive a car, 'adrivers,' or people who don't fish, 'afishers?' You don't describe something by what it is not. Atheism is merely the default position of all human beings, we are all born atheists, god belief has to be taught and learned.
Merriam Webster and every reputable dictionary known to modern man disagrees with you but more importantly, so does Sister Mary Edith. And let me tell you, she swings a mean ruler so watch out.
Everyone knows you don't mess with nuns...please don't tell any about my lack of faith!
Sister Elanor sent so many letters to my mom about my lack of belief in CCD that I was almost convinced that they were pen pals. Not even that angry penguin and her pointer could make me believe in some sky fairy, even when I was 12.
You were young! I was 16 before I finally gave up the nonsense. I bow to your sagacity. But I didn't go to Catholic school so it might have happened earlier if I had.
My mother did. When my brother and I came home from Summer catechism with stories about being possessed by the devil, she shut that down in a NY second. My older sisters told me that years later.
I knew religion was (bleep) as far back I remember being forced to attend mass and then CCD after mass. I tried to take a book to read if they forced me to go to church in elementary school. I still vividly remember asking myself if all of these adults really believed this idiocy or were they there because they were also being forced to attend like I was.
A friend went full George Carlin in HS and started to heckle the priest during the homily. He was thrown out and told not to return.
I saw a hilarious meme the other day.
"If you don't pay your exorcist are you repocessed? "
Good one.
Don't give a shit about Sr. Mary Edith but I have no problem with using the word "atheist" for myself. It pretty much translates at "godless" so when the bible-thumpers use that term I raise my hand eagerly. BTW, very of the battle-ax nuns left. Most of them have become pretty militant within the church for women's rights, including their own. If anyone's afraid of them now, at least the ones left in the developed world, it's the Vatican which probably explains why the church is so eagerly pushing vocations in the less developed, poorer parts of the world where it seems local social norms are are friendlier to the old dogmas that no longer sell in the rest of the world.
Or indoctrinated.
E.A While Math, Chemistry, Geology etc: are inherited knowledge, you know like that the Film ALIENS showed!!
Who here confuses reality with fiction?
Now you're making no sense.
E.A indeed how can a fool see wisdom, how can a dung beetle see Honey, How does a Honeybee see Dung, well observed!
Math, chemistry, and geology describe the world around us. I don't need to believe in science. I have proof that can be verified by anyone.
You have yet to provide any evidence that a god exists. I know that you were taught to bel.eive in god but did you ever ask if that god does exist or did you trust that those people were telling you the truth?
I'll make it easy: math, geology, chemistry, ext. is part of reality and enables us to understand and study that reality. It requires no belief. God is fiction and it does require belief. See the difference?
E.A yes I SEE that you and Epistle for decades avoid any FACTS.. like the ones I have been POINTING out to you for decades, so tell me what part of the MATH I showed you over and over have been disproved?
Repost::
15.3.1.2.… Eagle Averro replied to Kathleen/Butterfie @15.3.1.2.… 5 days ago
I have heard about that theory on energy. Interesting, I think.
E.A If you like we can discuss Entropy, Mass Defect, and the need for Multiverses in the " Public Chat " But to conclude this::
The Fact that we are here. proves that " Energy can and did become Sentient "
This math numbers shows why God Then Proceeded to " create "
10^ 50 Anything greater is Improbably
10^80 All Atoms in the Universe ( do not ask me who counted them )
10^ 29345 The odds of ONE Living cell coming about by Accident ( Amino Acids X Proteins ), and at LEAST Two of those have to come about Simultaniously, and they have to be Compatible with each other for life forms to begin!
So that be 10^29345 Square Root of 10^29345.
Now for a different " Path to the same conclusion "
Can Humans at some time in the future Terraform Planets, and genetically modify Life to suit?
Most if not all would say Yes, so then to the " new Lifeforms " what would that " Man " Be if not God?
Hence, if we can see the possibility of that existing by OUR Hand, why could it not have taken place in the Past?
AND::
15 Eagle Averro 2 weeks ago
18 Eagle Averro 4 seconds ago
Proof that God Exists
To some it might be E=Mc^2 Minus 1% ( Mass defect.
All Scientist and all those that know the basics in Physics will agree with the following.
" Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only change from one form to another "
That begs the question, " Where did that energy come from "? And, even a more pertinent question... Can energy Become Sentient ( Self Aware ) The Fact that we are here. proves that " Energy can and did become Sentient "
This math numbers shows why God Then Proceeded to " create "
10^ 50 Anything greater is Improbably
10^80 All Atoms in the Universe ( do not ask me who counted them )
10^ 29345 The odds of ONE Living cell coming about by Accident ( Amino Acids X Proteins ), and at LEAST Two of those have to come about Simultaneously, and they have to be Compatible with each other for life forms to begin!
So that be 10^29345 Square Root of 10^29345.
Now for a different " Path to the same conclusion "
Can Humans at some time in the future Terraform Planets, and genetically modify Life to suit?
Most if not all would say Yes, so then to the " new Lifeforms " what would that " Man " Be if not God?
Hence, if we can see the possibility of that existing by OUR Hand, why could it not have taken place in the Past?
After this I call
END
for another 3 Months just to allow the SITE
To Settle Down, I am Sure you Two and your Gang will continue to
" RAVE on " Endlessly!
All that boils down to is you saying "god did it." It certainly doesn't prove there's a god.
Please do not change my name. I am not a religious letter or essay.
My name is a shortened and feminine form of the word epistemology. Please note the vast difference.
Someone who gets his science from the movies, that's who.
I have often seen this "mathematical" proof of god posted, however though I have repeatedly asked no one has ever posted the "mathematical" proof that an omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing god formed out of nothing before the existence of anything and with his unknowable power chose to create us. Wondering if you have the figures on that happening?
Thanks in advance
E.A Yes, see they end of the postulate/Fact
And of course you believe you can prove that....
(lol)
One thing that does bother me is that both believers and non believers try to blame the other for mass shootings of today or mass murder (Stalin, Hitler) etc.
When we talk about mass killing today, the killer is, IMO, nuts, crazy, loony or what ever word you chose to describe them. They are neither believers or non believers, they are simply fucking nuts.
As for the mass killers, Stalin, Hitler they are not the only ones. The Church throughout time has done the same.
IMO, it would be best for both sides to take a actual look at history and quit with the finger pointing.
Lol, but where would be the fun be in doing that
From the endless articles it wouldn't be any fun for many...
I don't blame all believers but so many of the rightwing, fundamentalist version of that large group are the staunchest defenders of the NRA's efforts to make us a society of perpetual bloodshed by gun, the deadlier the better, as object of their worship. In fact, there are many decent believers who are not of that ilk. The ones who are are just louder and more obnoxious.
I believe that's true on both sides of the aisle.
Maybe but certainly not in equal measure.
I totally agree-- brt most of them are too "intellectually challenged" (and or "emotionally challenged") to do that. to do that
The thing is where does one go to find THE definitive moral guidelines? Atheists and theists have the same problem - there is no clear source for morality. Christians would argue that the source is the Bible (indirectly from God) - and then proceed to argue about what the Bible is actually saying. Muslims would similarly point to the Qur'an and (to a lesser degree than Christians) argue about what the Qur'an is saying.
No matter how you slice this, nobody on the planet can present moral truth - the definitive statements of morality. Objective morality (truth) (if it exists) could only come from one source - the supreme entity - God (by any name). We can present passages from ancient books until we are blue in the face but as long as the interpretation is left to human beings there will be no clear truth. Only the universal arbiter of truth can define morality. And if defined, it must be communicated so that it is consistently understood by all otherwise it is meaningless. (By definition.)
In lieu of unambiguously communicated morality from the source of truth, the best we can ever hope for are the points where we mostly agree. Most everyone recognizes that killing someone is wrong; that stealing is wrong, etc. But go beyond the basics (into where human beings disagree) and we can clearly see the moral anarchy that is our reality.
I think the key word there is "most". That small minority of sociopathic individuals will have a reduced chance of survival to reproduce.
I suspect a lot of people do not get the point I made. (I know you got it.)
So many speak of morality stemming from God. How, precisely, does that work? If there is no place to go to get THE moral guidelines then they do not (in effect) exist. So why, precisely, does anyone think that we have (as in can realize) objective morality?
The ethic of reciprocity makes religious beliefs irrelevant because it works with all religions and in all cultures. What religions enforce as their form of morality is their dogma and not morality.
This entire line of argument was rather amusing coming from someone who uses a symbol of white supremacy as his avatar, particularly since the Southern Baptist cult did in fact use their bible-babble to support slavery and white supremacy.
Damn, learn something everyday. It looks like a "rook" used in a game of chess. Actually it symbolizes a chariot.
PC has gotten so bad they'll probably want to eliminate the rook before you know it. Now how are you going to play a good game of chess without a rook? Can you imagine one of your friends coming over to play a game of chess and finds out you still have a rook? Maybe TIG, who has been around this place a very long time, isn't a white supremacist, nor does his gold rook represent white supremacist no more than a beautiful rainbow represent gays to those who see the rainbow for what it really is.
How did I get pulled into this?
Certainly my mistake TIG. I thought the "Now my friend...." was yours. My mistake.
So this is a white supremacist avatar?
I don't think so, but at least it won't mess up my chess game.
What a rather plain seal. It looks like something taken from Family Feud when a wrong answer is given.
Still looks like something from Family Feud. Yellow and green is not a good color scheme either.
Actually the "State of Jefferson" has been the wet dream of white supremacists since before the civil war. The closest that movement came to fruition was from 1844-1926 when Oregon actually was a whites-only territory and state. However that racist ideology has persisted through the Silver Shirt movement, the Posse Comitatus, and more recently the Three Percent movement and the Bundy clan.
.
More here from the northern CA perspective:
Why in the world would you associate drug use with secularism and progressivism?
Have you seen the stats in West Virginia? Lily white racially, bright red politically, very religious, and one of the worse states as far as the opioid crisis is concerned.
I'm just letting you know where the "State of Jefferson" meme comes from - it's straight out of the confederacy. Also the majority of the counties involved in the latest proposals are pretty far right-wing, overwhelmingly white and voted for Trump.
I don't take a position on the issue despite having heard about it since I was a kid. Apart from the white supremacy aspect (which isn't just historical), I do think rural counties have some different interests than urban counties. But that's true of every state.
I'm not an A's fan, so my statement stands.