Every generation thinks the generation after them is immoral

I couldn’t have chosen a better title for this post, so we will make do with the above. In his post, glorifying sex, alcohol and drugs Aloo wants to portray a picture of decadence of morals among the present generation school going children.

He tells us, in his own words

As I join everybody else in condemning the behavior of the students in question and their lackluster approach to life, I must point out that there was nothing shocking about the incident because ours is a rotten society. [emphasis by me]

How is the society rotten? Is it because school girls and boys were having sex, doing drugs or because they were found doing this? Whilst I don’t urge drug use among adolescent you, blanket condemnation of society as being in a state of decay maybe because there is so much sex is in my view hypocritical.

Our interlocutor goes ahead to claim, unashamedly, that

What you have to understand is that the society is affected by reckless (allow me to use this word again) sexual behavior of young people. This is reflected in the rate at which sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS is spreading across the nation.

And when pointed to statistics from the ministry of health about which demographic leads in the spread of HIV/AIDS, he brushes it off with a slight of hand because it doesn’t fit into his scheme of propaganda. He blames everyone else of sugaring their stories with sex tales to sell while he does the same while ignoring facts. One wonders what his goals are. Is it to demonize the unlucky students who were unlucky or to offer guidance in how to solve the problem.

Before you start demonize yours truly for promoting loose morals; lets not pretend that our generations were far better than the current breed of children. We may not have been caught in buses during school holidays not because we were paragons of virtue, far from it. It could be because we didn’t attend school far from home and did not have access to drugs.

End of rant.

 

Advertisements

There can be no liberty without religion

In this post, the author starts by contradicting himself by saying natural law requires religion, biblical religion. You may want to know why this is a contradiction

Natural law is a philosophy of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it.

I am aware the Catholic will say

the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.

and I contend that such a law, if it involves the supernatural, cannot in all fairness be called natural.

I haven’t received the memo yet, but it appears the secret is out. Atheists are trying to eliminate Jews and Christians.

This author tells us

There is really only one struggle in this world, but it manifests itself in many different ways.  That struggle is between those who believe in and worship the One True God, the God of the Bible, and everyone else.

and I will tell you, if there is any struggle, it is between the reasonable and the unreasonable and in this group we have the superstitious, the denialists and jihadis, and Indiana Governor, Mr. Pence. Very few, if any worship the god of the bible. No one stones their neighbour for working on a Sunday, many have tattoos, wear clothes of mixed fabric and so on.

Nietzsche writing about morals in Genealogy of Morals, argues and correctly so, that christian morality is a slave morality, a morality of the weak. It encourages it’s believers to be meek down here to be in a position to inherit wealth in the hereafter. It’s aim is to shift the balance of power in the hereafter to the poor, the stupid and the uneducated.

I don’t shy away from the charge of being amoral. I am willing to be shown how good/ bad are not matters of judgement and only that they make sense in society. That without people living in groups, the word morality makes no sense.

It is true,

the Humanists recognized that those who believe in God are a powerful force of opposition, specifically those who believe in the Bible.

but not in the way this author thinks, far from it, but they are the greatest opposition to advancement in human development and expansion of human rights everywhere. The humanist desire is to have a better world for all, the christian believes the world is transient and is busy making a world in the nether world at the expense of decency and goodness here, where it matters the most.

When this author writes

Is this starting to explain what you see happening in our society today yet — especially in politics? It explains why Humanists have no concern for human life: because they see no value in any life but their own.

I can say without fear of contradiction that he is lying. There are only a handful of atheists in government positions. Many atheists I know are opposed to war, to capital punishment. The christian prays as he goes to war that his god grants him victory. Bush believed he was doing god’s will when he attacked Saddam. So no, you got it wrong. The humanist is concerned with life, human life especially, but extends the same dignity to all sentient creatures.

I think the believer living in America must know very little. The world is vast. People have varied religions and some have none and they live well.

I am not American, but I believe all the progress that has been made there and elsewhere in terms of human advancement has been done inspite of the religion.

And further, were it not for the humanists, such as Joseph Lewis, Ingersoll, Mencken, Mark Twain, the American evangelist would still be scaring his congregation with hell fire. It is the humanist who pointed out the absurdity in believing in a loving god who has a BBQ on the side for people who question its existence.

I think the belief that it is up to us to make the world a better place for us and others achieves more positive results than telling people they will roast forever plus 1 in hell for not believing silly things. We have grown up. We can’t continue to believe the superstitions of our ignorant ancestors. I believe that any one who today believes that the bible is true and that is the word of a god is uneducated, stupid and unreasonable. The age has come where we have to see it for what it is, a book by ignorant men, mainly, for ignorant men written for political and theological ends but always by ignorant and unsophisticated men.

blog break 4: bestiality, morality and an observation

Folks, I don’t know how much of what happens here in the neck of the woods gets beamed on your news screens. Last week we were treated to a news story of bestiality in Mombasa involving teenage girls, some tourists and dogs or so I hear. I don’t at the moment know what is it that transpired in Mombasa though I do hope this will be known in due course.

One of the commentators writes

…..this is a manifestation of moral depravity our society suffers when such acts as bestiality, abortions, homosexuality and casual murders become ingrained in our systems and values.

Why anyone would think homosexuality and abortions are an example of moral depravity is still beyond me.

He goes on to argue for moral divine command. He tells

Mankind too subscribes to a deity whose divine command sets standards of engagement. In our cases, the holy books provide such guidance

I don’t know if the author is aware of the dilemma in the Platonic dialogues where it is asked if something is right because gods command it or gods command it because it is right. To tell us the holy books are a guide it would be nice to know if he would stone his neighbor to death for working on Sabbath.

He then lists chapters in the OT where there are various curses and punishment for different acts. He lists exodus 29:19, Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16 and Deuteronomy 27:21. My observation has been that injunctions are only issued on things that are going on already and rarely in anticipation of the said acts. In short for the authors these passages to give such warnings, this was already a problem. What we need to ask as students of history is what would drive man to have sex with brutes? Anyone with information on what contributes to such drives would do great justice if they could share their knowledge or direct me to studies on the same.

An apology for atheism

My theistic friends are all nice people albeit with beliefs that I think are ridiculous and have no basis other than that they have been indoctrinated to hold such beliefs as true. It is no fault of their own. Maybe some of them think I need help and worry for my soul-whether we have a soul is question of another day- and silently pray that I would come to believe in something even if it is Hare Krishna just as long as I have a belief.

The biggest problem why atheism is misunderstood is not because atheists do a poor job at apologetics, on the contrary, atheists do a very splendid job in justifying their belief but believers it appears to me listen to fellow believers who have no clue on what atheism is. Atheism is misrepresented and often times A straw man who doesn’t stand a chance in a sunny day.

It is my intention in this post to deal with some of this issues as I understand them. Any errors or misrepresentations are therefore my own. A friend of the type I have talked about in the introductory paragraph sent me a link  conservapedia.com to read through just in case am not sure why am an atheist. I want to look at some of the claims made in the page, so excuse the length of this post should it be longer than they usually are since the article is a book long.

The article starts with looking at types of atheism by postulating these questions

There are different types of atheism, based on different answers to the following questions:

What God or gods does the atheist deny?
Why does the atheist deny?
How does the atheist’s denial manifest itself?

The atheist lacks a belief in the existence of god[s] just the same way the christian lacks a belief in the existence of fairies-I hope this is true of christians- and here the atheist makes no distinction whether it is the sun-god of the Egyptians of old or Jehovah -a misnomer- of the Jews and Christians or Allah or whatever god you know of. The atheist makes the above claim since there is no evidence-verifiable evidence- of a god. Subjective experiences of believers of the said gods can’t be treated as evidence. The god of revelation, that is of the Judeo -Christian religions or rather of the three Abrahamic religions are so incoherent in their internal definitions that they/it just can’t exist. Any person who has a belief in some god, such as the God of Spinoza is referred to as a Deist. This God for all we know could have create the universe and left it to run as it so pleases and is not a personal god, doesn’t plan to burn us in hell for not believing in him and more so doesn’t interfere in human affairs. It is therefore important to make this distinction.

  • Militant atheism which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today .
  • Philosophical atheism – Atheist philosophers assert that God does not exist.
  • Practical atheism: atheism of the life – that is, living as though God does not exist

As I had said earlier, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. If writing that belief in god is not supported by evidence is militant, by all means am a militant atheist. Here my friend writes about militant atheism, I hope you like it.  No atheist that I know of, suppress or oppress religious believers. It is simply not possible, there are more believers than atheists and most believers proselytize everywhere, why they are not called militant I don’t know. The second and third statements don’t make sense,  atheism is a lack of belief in gods, then anyone who is an atheist will live as though god does not exist and will assert there are no gods.

It is false to claim that there has been attempts to dilute the definition of atheism. There is a difference between agnosticism which deals with the question of knowledge -when applied to god is to say we can’t know the nature of god and whether one exists- while atheism is a question of belief or lack thereof in the existence of gods. Neither are atheists shifting the burden proof. This is and must remain the case, if I make a claim of a celestial tea pot aka Russells tea pot, the person making the positive claim provides the evidence not the other way round!

To call atheism a religion, which appears to be widespread among believers is not far from calling not collecting stamps a hobby and a bald head a hair colour. Enough said!

To quote two atheists as expressing doubt over their disbelief and then draw a conclusion that atheism is not true is first and foremost intellectual laziness and to be dishonest to say the least. More importantly, it assumes that atheists are some sort of supermen not subject to frivolities that beset our human existence. Would a believer expressing doubt once in a while make him less of a believer? I don’t think so.

To make anecdotal statements without proof is also poor reporting. To mention one person who became a believer though raised by an atheist parent is a poor correlation. What about the thousands raised in believing families and become atheists? This does not give evidence for anything except to show that human beings are capable of holding opinions different to those held by their parents or teachers or whatever authority you care to mention.

Unless the administrators of these page live in a cave somewhere or have a different source of statistical data on belief or lack thereof, I don’t see how they can make the claim that atheism is losing numbers.

In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reported that globally every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day

I want you to take in those numbers. Then look at this report here and tell me who are being [dis]honest in their reporting. In any case if there are so many people professing christianity, the reason can be easily explained that believers- like Catholics who follow the Vatican ban on birth control- are likely to have more children than the average atheist.

Till I read this article, it hadn’t occurred to me atheism was a business. All along I have always known Churches to be in the business of alms collection and tithe and would be concerned with market share. This is news to me!

The question of evolution is a scientific question. It has however been noted that those who deny the evidence for evolution haven’t read it and are most likely religious. What I can draw from this conclusion is believers like to take things on faith and prefer when a miracle is included in the works, well science presents evidence and excludes miracles. This to me explains the difficulty religious believers have with evidence for evolution, we are asking them to do something they aren’t accustomed to doing.

I don’t know whether there can be infighting in not having a belief in god. If the writers of these article refer to Atheism+ then all that can be said is they miss the whole point by a million miles. There is no contention between atheists on the existence of god, where there is a small disagreement or misunderstanding is whether atheism can mean more. At the very least that is how I understand it and am open for correction. Why we need a leader still baffles me. I haven’t heard of any complaints among atheists or rather there has been no vote for a pope. The atheist says, and rightly so, that every man can think for and lead himself! No pope or guide-book is required. Our collective experience as sentient beings is enough guide on this matter.

To argue against atheism using communism is again intellectual dishonesty. Russia under Stalin protected the Orthodox Church, so I don’t know where this argument holds any water against atheism.

The logical arguments for the existence of god have not been arguments against atheism but rather attempts by religious apologists to argue for the existence of god and all have been refuted by atheists to be fallacious and weak. So the theist need to spend time reading the various refutations to these arguments.

No atheist in recorded history has killed masses for believing in god. Atheism has never been the reason for the murders! The murderers like Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin could have been atheists but they never killed to promote atheism, no it was always a struggle for state power and control. There is no where I have seen where atheists condoned slave trade and for this I think evidence need to provided.

On charity, I have to wait for data that confirms this, so I will suspend judgement until this data is available then I will add it here.

There is a whole question of morals. Am shocked at what the posters claim about atheism and morality. I know of no atheist who advocates bestiality. Homosexuality is only evil in the eyes of a believer. No atheist condones rape and every other immoral act that we can agree on. To say atheists are immoral just because they don’t believe your god commanded moral laws is absurd to say the least.

Any one making a claim of a miracle has to provide evidence for the same.

I wake up, go for a run, I read during my free time, I eat well and am atheist. I know of christians who are obese. What does this prove, nothing, except that some people will take care of their health some will not and has nothing to do with religious belief or lack thereof.

I have written two articles here and here on suicide and I read a lot of assisted dying here and whereas am saying any one who wants to commit suicide has every right to do so. I don’t think there is anyone atheist who calls for mass suicide. By the way there are more suicides in Japan than in Scandinavian Europe which is mainly atheistic.

I didn’t know there was a link between religion and sportsmanship until this moment. What a discovery 🙂

The atheist has a choice to debate or not to debate whoever he chooses. If you have listened to one William Craig debate, you have listened to all of them. They don’t present anything new except trying to improve on Anselm of Canterbury circa 1056 and add in the new discoveries science has made to their god’s cv. Even I would refuse to debate such people. I think most of the atheists named refuse to debate the creationists because it is rather a waste of time to start such a debate if at the end you are not going to change your position and especially when one has shown they are not interested in considering the evidence for a certain position.

We live in a materialistic and natural world. Any one who has evidence to the contrary must provide it and have it reviewed by their peers in that field. To accuse atheists of deception is malicious. To draw such an inference from Darwin’s letters is also a failure to be honest. At no time did Darwin indicate a god was responsible for evolution, in fact evolution theory does away with the need for a god.

I have attempted to respond to some of the issues raised in that page regarding atheism, those I haven’t covered I hope you my good readers can weigh in on and where am wrong or have misrepresented atheists or theists I welcome correction and I proffer apologies in advance.