Bbb..but.. He Didn’t Do It In The Name Of Atheism!.. So No Count..


Just saw some guy at the combox of some obscure blog arguing that religion is more dangerous than atheism because — get this! — nobody kills in the name of atheism! The guy thusly proceeded to commit intellectual seppuku then and there by claiming that if anything, Stallin’s mass murder had more of a religious tonality to it, since Stallin was seen by everyone around him to be godlike! So it’s actually an example of religion doing evil! Funny that. Echoing, of course, an argument from the Hitch — although I heard the Hitch say it of Kim Jong Ill not Stallin, but tomeyto tomahto.

If we needed any more evidence that gnu-atheists will readily eschew reason in favor of their own ideological dogmas, this argument from the Hitch, and by extension, the mid-wits that have been smugly bandying it about, will be as good as any. It’s even demonstrably true that the knowledge these people have of that which they expend great effort to criticize (Christianity) barely even rises to the level of Narnia.

Stallin’s drenching of the Russian landscape with the blood of millions can only be because he wanted power, an end he happily worked towards by exploiting the fact that he was seen by everyone as some god-figure —  therefore, checkmate, religion! Checkmate I say! what they keep saying. The silly, silly fools.

While the premise is true, the conclusion is not, and is in fact silly, if not outright stupid.

Stallin (Mao, or even Hitler) purged religion because he knew he could only be seen as a god to everyone else if there was none other that existed. Because the first step to becoming god is to get rid of him — Stallin, Hitler and Mao, were cognizant of this. So his atheism can hardly be said to be incidental.

It’s somewhat tangential to the issue, but it’s also quite amusing how easily gnus are able to channel Sherlock when it comes to someone like Breivik, connecting in the most inane and acrobatic way possible his Christianity to his mass-murder. Yet, like what happened recently, when it’s an atheist who does the murdering, suddenly they’re all unable and/or unwilling to either connect the dots or acknowledge there are any dots to connect in the first place.

Of course atheism by itself isn’t sufficient to drive someone to murder, which is why the often-used canard is that nobody kills in the name of atheism. And this is true — for who could kill in the name of a belief that god doesn’t exist? I submit nobody can. However, the belief on which someone’s atheism might be predicated could, as it were, lead someone to think human life to be worth bupkis. And that this is so unfathomable for gnu-atheists is what is so mind-boggling. Philosophically reflective atheists of the past like Nietzsche, Camus and Voltaire knew, and often wrote about, the dark implications of denying that objective moral standards exist, which can only be had on some form of theism. But the intellectual feather-weights of today, who annoyingly (and ironically) refer to themselves as ‘brights’, believe removing religion will turn the world into a land of bunnies and candy.

And they call us superstitious!

Picture, if you will, someone who believes, as Richard Dawkins does, that there is no good, and there is no evil, and that we are all merely bags of flesh who, in Dick’s own words, ‘dance to it’s [DNA’s] music.’


Now, do you think that someone who literally believes all that can somehow manage to believe human life to be worth more than jackshit?!


Posted on February 19, 2015, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. “Now, do you think that someone who literally believes all that can somehow manage to believe human life to be worth more than jackshit?!”


  2. Then explain! This will be amusing.

    • Explain what? You asked if someone who believes in things like evolution and not in the supernatural can think human life is worth more than ‘jackshit’ (whatever that is).

      I think human life is worth more than jackshit. And I’m an atheist.

      So, there’s the answer to your question.

      • I’m afraid you’re moving the goalposts.

        I believe in evolution too — it was not what I was talking about.

        You said someone can consistently believe that people are valuable while they are meaningless bags of flesh, and while good and evil do not exist, and while we, as per Dawkins, merely dance to DNA music.

        Or do you now want to take that all back?

      • “Meaningless bags of flesh” to whom?

        Not to me. To the Universe, certainly. But why should I care about what the Universe doesn’t think?

      • We both know the universe has no opinion on the matter. Don’t think for one minute that I’ll be falling for your sophistry.

        The point I was making, which you are keen to evade, is that on a naturalistic view like that of Dawkins’, good and evil have no ontological basis, and we are nothing more than puppets doing an elaborate kabuki dance to the beat of our DNA.

        So someone who believes that and is being consistent with his beliefs will have no recourse but to likewise believe that people have no objective value.

      • “So someone who believes that and is being consistent with his beliefs”

        Someone who believes that can still find value in things, even though the universe doesn’t. I’m sorry you can’t.

      • He can find “value in things,” allright..

        He can “find value in things” only insofar as to him they could be a means toward an end — like I said, we’re talking about a naturalist here who is trying to be consistent with the belief that everything is inherently valueless, and that good and evil are merely sentimental predispositions wrought by evolution — I don’t think you are getting this at all.

        So if these ‘things’, or if human life, are only *subjectively* valuable to you insofar as they can be used as a means to an end, then who’s to say you are any different from Stallin!?

  3. Here is a quote by Vladimir Lenin, Comrade Jo’s mentor:

    “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”*


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: