an apology for atheism? Really


On this site we hardly write about public figures unless they are politicians and this is to ask them to stop being idiots politicians and for once act like statesmen and we refer them to the lives of such men as Solon, Lycurgus, Gandhi, Lincoln, Cato and Cicero. We have read a few of Dawkins’ books and they were good reads. We are not writing this in defense of Dawkins, on the contrary, we intend to correct a misrepresentation of atheism not by him of course.

apology a formal written defense of something you believe in strongly

Having dealt with matters definitions, an apology for atheism would be something written with the aim of defending atheism. In this post, Darwin’s non apology is an apologetic for atheism where the OP first gets the name of Dawkins wrong and brings Darwin into a question that has nothing to do with him and lastly drags atheism into the whole picture, as they say, from the backdoor.

We mentioned Dawkins because he wrote a tweet to which he later wrote an apology/ explanation on his site. We have read his apology and we think it is fine. In it, he clearly says to have or not have an abortion is to be made by those concerned. This is the position I think that most reasonable people would hold.

The OP to which we refer to writes, emphasis by us,

Without God, the highest achievement can only be one’s own temporal happiness. Without God, person-hood is endowed on a sliding scale according to a child’s growth toward (or an aging person’s growth away from) usefulness, a “a gradual, ‘fading in/fading’ out definition.” Without God, humanity has no value beyond what some men consider useful, so “the decision to abort can be a moral one.” Without God, there is no objective moral standard for good and evil, right and wrong, yet the moral law written on every fellow human heart created in God’s image compels even atheists to reason about “moral” choices, despite the reductio ad absurdum. That Law on our hearts can be suppressed for a lifetime, but ultimately convicts. Atheism is in every case a temporary state

As we have repeatedly noted, the theist has to demonstrate the following things;

  • what god is
  • whether god is
  • what are objective moral values
  • whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods

Having mentioned the above, what other duty has man apart from his happiness, temporal or a-temporal whatever the case maybe. If pro-choice is seen as endowing person-hood with a sliding scale of usefulness, its corollary must be that with god, the value or morality of a woman is dependent mainly on how many number of children she can push into the world regardless of whether they stand a chance in life or not, as long as they are born! I think this is a warped way of thinking.

To write,

without god, humanity has no value beyond what some men consider useful

is to create a strawman of the pro-choice stand. The statement also assumes only the godless abort which every right thinking person knows ain’t the case. The idiots, Islamic State, that are on a killing spree are doing it in the name of a god they believe supports their cause. To tell us that without god such and such is the case is really to be an idiot of the first degree. It is to act like one who is not aware of the things believers to do to each other every day to get ahead.

To the universe, I would hazard, whether there is life or not, would not make a lot of difference, in fact, in a sense, some places would be better without human beings. We have destroyed whole ecosystems, forced animals into extinction and continue to kill each other and the environment without a care for the future.

It is time we must change the statement to read

with god, everything is permitted!

For in most instances, believers have invoked the names of the deities they believe in as they commit crimes or its alter ego.

Dawkins apology has nothing to do with atheism. It says nothing about whether or not there is a reason to not believe in god. It talks about one issue and that is who makes the determination in the case of a pregnant mama. Is it some self righteous idiot who doesn’t know what it means to be pregnant or is it the couple concerned who understand what it means to terminate a pregnancy. This is the question we must ask. It has nothing to do with atheism. You can try to draw atheism into it, but it will not work.

This closing statement

Richard Dawkins’ pro-abortion statements make perfect sense on Atheism, which would make a genuine about-face apology quite unexpected anyway.

must be refuted for Dawkins did not make a statement about god belief or lack thereof. His apology which is in fact an apology, is about his strong held position on pro-choice. It is not pro-abortion. To call it so is a misrepresentation of others who hold onto the same position.

We here conclude that Dawkins did make an apology, this we agree, but it is apology for pro-choice and not atheism. Having said this, I invite anyone who thinks I got it all wrong and that Dawkins apology is in defense of atheism please show me the light, increase my unbelief.

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

60 thoughts on “an apology for atheism? Really

  1. Mordanicus says:

    I have nothing to add, except that I am glad not to waste my time by “debating” theists.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “Without God, there is no objective moral standard for good or evil.” When I read tripe like this, I think of the one truth I live by, “Without Christians, I have no breakfast.” Debating theists is akin to debating door knobs. Well, that’s not true. At least door knobs serve a useful, functional, temporally important purpose.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Here’s some of the morality our loving god handed down to us, from his lips to the ears of the authors, to the eyes of the translators, to the eyes of the editors, to us:

    He begins with the 6th Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill, and goes on from there:

    Numbers 15:35 “And the Lord said unto Moses, The man [who had been gathering sticks on the Sabbath] shall surely be put to death: All the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.”

    Numbers 31 – Kathy’s god tells Moses to take his armies against the Midianites – they take all of the women, children and other livestock. But Moses upset, and 31:17, orders his men to go among the defenseless captives and kill all of the male children and the women who aren’t virgins.

    Leviticus 20:1 – “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

    Leviticus 20:9 – For every one who curseth his father or mother shall surely be put to death….”

    Leviticus 20:10 – And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife…the adulter and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

    Leviticus 20:11 – father’s wife, death to both!

    Lwviticus 20:12 – daughter-in-law? Death to both!

    Leviticus 20:13 – Man lying with man – death to both!

    Leviticus 20:14 – a man with his wife and her mother? Sounds like a fun weekend, but burn ‘em all!

    Leviticus 20:15 – a man and a beast form a romantic attachment – both die! (“What did I do? I was raped!” says the goat)

    Leviticus 20:16 – equal-opportunity executioner, women get the same deal!

    Leviticus 20:27 – man or a woman who is a wizard? Rock ‘em to sleep!

    Leviticus 21:9 – daughter of a priest sleeping around? Bitch barbecue!

    Leviticus 24:16 – he who blasphemes shall be stoned to death!

    Leviticus 24:17, repeated in 24:21 – this one is confusing, considering all of the orders for the tribe to kill those who commit the above offenses, as it would appear to create a never-ending loop: “He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.” – and the one who kills HIM, and the one who kills HIM, and the…

    I know that having morals like that to follow makes MY life a whole lot simpler —

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ron says:

      yeah, but … free will … sin … different time/culture … mysterious ways … Jesus … OUT OF CONTEXT!!! … “Who are you to question God?” … “You’re misinterpreting the scriptures!” … I’ll pray for you.”

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Why THERE you are, Kathy – but why do you look like Alvin, the Chipmunk?

        Like

        • Ron says:

          Chipmunk? That’s not a chipmunk, you silly bird; that’s a bear—to remind you that I alone “bear” the OBJECTIVE TRUTH amongst you lying, prideful, godless Liberals.

          Now repent, or else me and the Mrs. will do a number two on you… i.e., 2 Kings 2:23-4.

          Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I trust you’re referring to the lady Asherah.

            I’ve been saying all along that the original Hebrew god was Amurru, from Assyria, who went by the nickname, El Shaddai, and who had a wife named Asherah. (Abraham’s nephew, Laban, throughout Genesis, is called, “laban the Syrian) Then, after the Israelites, personified by the character, Moses, joined with the Midianites, who worshipped an obscure desert god they called YHWH, we suddenly find god announcing to Moses that his name was Yahweh, and that he had been known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai who we later find in scripture may have had a wife named – wait for it – Asherah.

            Like

          • Ron says:

            Sheesh! There you go with your facts and empirical evidence again.

            I was referring to Lady Kathy. There is clearly no real desire of “FINDING TRUTH” here. Deny, deny, deny…. It’s become a game for you… and it’s 100% DISHONEST.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I thought that thread was rested? Is the conversation still ongoing?

            Like

          • Ron says:

            Unfortunately, the “conversation” has now moved on to Part IV.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I saw it. Nate must be a glutton for punishment or there is something in that thread am missing

            Like

          • Ron says:

            Perhaps he’s trying to contain the craziness to her own special thread until she finally loses interest. But then again, I might be mistaken.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Is there a chance Kathy will move close to saying guys all I believe in is from that book and it is based on faith and that alone all the rest is trying to make it fit after the fact

            Like

          • Ron says:

            Probably not—people such as Kathy have usually invested enormous amounts of time and effort trying to convince themselves their faith-based beliefs have a solid foundation. Any retreat from that position would be tantamount to admitting there is no evidence.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            That is a terrible position to find oneself in.
            Just gone through the comments in the new thread, she hasn’t said much

            Like

          • Ron says:

            She usually starts posting after noon (Nate’s time). I expect her to use the “No True Christian” defense in response to Laura’s comments.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            There was a post I participated where this no true christian canard was on offer. If I could get it, it sure would help Kathy a bit.
            No true christian wave of the hand will not take away William’s challenge nor Laura’s

            Like

          • Ron says:

            The “no true _____” defense is meant to disassociate yourself from group members who don’t share your views by accusing them of not really being true members of the group. I’ve seen it used by atheists as well. Perhaps it’s a primal response.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I think I should start using it, whenever I don’t want to answer a direct question 😀

            Like

          • That thread is like the zombie apocalypse: you think its been killed, but it just keeps coming back.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            What a correct analogy

            Like

      • ratamacue0 says:

        Where’s the “like” button? 😉

        Like

      • makagutu says:

        Ron, you have been MIA, hope all is well with you.

        Like

    • makagutu says:

      Having such morals to follow would surely make life difficult. Or they would kill each other to the last man standing

      Like

  4. john zande says:

    To say someone is pro-abortion is like saying saying someone is pro-amputation.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. keithnoback says:

    Why bother with this? I read that post too. The guy doesn’t know anything about ethics. Does it really merit a response?

    Like

  6. aguywithoutboxers says:

    An excellent summation and clarification, my Nairobi brother. You did an amazing job. Of course, theists will argue otherwise. But then, it’s only the same tired arguments they’ve used for centuries with no concrete proof. Good work!

    Like

  7. The no true ____ defense fails miserably when applied to chowder-heads. There are millions of those.

    Like

  8. shelldigger says:

    Nice post Mak.

    Great comments here too.

    I got nothing to add, just wanted to leave a message and a “Like.”

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s