Opinions about our country, the world, politics, and some other stuff that that doesn't fit those categories
I'm an atheist, but not a typical one.
Published on October 29, 2004 By Eastern Diamondback In Religion
I admit I'm a right-winger; I'm also an atheist. And the truth is neither neither side of the political spectrum can appreciate or accept that fact. But there are explanations for why each side feels what they do.

First, I'll explain why I am an atheist. I've always been a stickler for proof and evidence. I think of myself as being on a jury. The evidence gathered and put forth in support of God's existence has always been weak, and predicated on circular logic: i.e. the Bible proves God exists, but the BIble is true because it's God's word. I don't believe in God just as I don't believe in Woden, or Zeus, or any other supernatural being. Wrapping a supernatural deity in a cloak of moral stories does not make that deity real.

Many conservatives in the Religious Right unquestionably hold the idea that atheism and communism go hand in hand. This is part of the reason the words "Under God" were inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance. The Religious Right's fear of atheists is not entirely unfounded or illegitimate. The Soviet Union and its satellite states were very big on "atheism." But how atheist was the USSR, or any other communist country? Looking at history since the mid-1800's, communism is hardly more than a replacement religion, requiring the same faith and suspension of logic as any other religion.

I didn't actually admit to being an atheist until I arrived at college. At that point I felt like it was a mark of my intellect, that I wasn't so stupid to believe in fairy tales. I joined a student organization of other atheists. It was here that I learned why conservatives, especially religious conservatives, view atheists with concern and contempt. Virtually all the atheists in this group were not just atheists, they were nihilists. They went far beyond just discarding organized religion in general, or Christianity in specific. They called on the destruction of anything associated with Christianity, for example, Western Civilization. I later recognized that this organization was not about atheism, per se, it was a proxy group for anarchists. Whereas I rejected the Commandments which dealt with the supernatural, (Not worshipping other gods, not taking the Lord's name in vain, Sabbath Day), I still accept the importance of those that deal with earthly living, you know morality. These nihilist-anarchists rejected all such ideas. The 10 Commandments almost became a "How-To-Guide."

When I sit back and ponder, I realize exactly what the Religious Right and the Nihilist Left have in common: they think morality derives only from a supernatural source, from God. The Religious Right accepts God and therefore accepts his moral guidelines. The Nihilist Left (often comprised of irrational atheists) rejects God's existence, and likewise any semblance of morality that goes with it. And that's a real shame. Apparently to both groups, 6000 years of human civilzation and trial and error aren't worthy of consideration. Show me a society that can exist and continue to grow without a coherant moral code?

In their anti-religious zeal, the irrational atheist nihilists have claimed under the guise of "separation of church and state" that government should not legislate morality. Then what exactly is the law supposed to legislate? Again, these people confuse religion and morality. For all the fault I find with them, I would much rather live in the Religious Right's camp than with the NIhilists Left.

Comments
on Oct 29, 2004
Excellent article. I'm a liberal and an atheist, but I have to agree with your take on "irrational" atheists. I think many times the atheists on the left waste time by quibbling about manger scenes and 10 commandment plaques. I'm an atheist -- I'm secure in how I live. Many of the things that the "irrational" atheists get upset over don't threaten me a bit. If religion is what it takes for a person to be moral, then I'm happy for morality. You get my insightful for this one.
on Oct 30, 2004
The fact is that morality is completely subjective. In the eyes of terrorists, they are the moral ones, and we are the immoral ones. Gov't isn't there to legislate morality, becuase there is no reasonalbe way to do that. Gov't is there to maintain an environment that promotes the growth ond development of society. Gov't protects with the police against murder and theft because doing so allows people the time not spent on self-preservation to work on promoting societal growth. Morality is a completely human contruct, and it's entire reason for existance is to justify in the minds of its adherants that what they do is right, and thus will not burden thier conscious. Morality is and should remain the domain of the individual, advancement of society should remain the domain of the gov't.
on Oct 30, 2004

I often think that being rabidly anti-Christianity is as bad as being rabidly-pro...


Good article.

on Oct 30, 2004
The fact is that morality is completely subjective.


That's not a fact by any stretch of the imagination. You have just proven my point about morality. You are in the camp that believes morality derives from a higher source, or on a whim, and not thousands of years of civilized experience. Your idea of the growth and development of society cannot exist is morality is just subjective. It's not a coincidence that societies under the grasp of terrorists are backwards. Violence is rampant, fear is omnipresent, death is common. There is no society that can grow and develop under such conditions. This isn't about hypotheses, it's not about what could be. This is about reality; it's about what IS.

In the eyes of terrorists, they are the moral ones, and we are the immoral ones.


So what? If there is no objective sense of morality, then their societies should be as healthy as ours. I hate to break it to you, but some cultures are superior to others.

Morality is and should remain the domain of the individual, advancement of society should remain the domain of the gov't.


Your idea of morality conflicts with your idea of law. If morality is solely in the realm of the individual, then there can be no law. Anything can be justified. There is no valid reason then for a murder, or rape, or stealing to be illegal. If morality played no role in law, then government arbitrarily passes legislation that serves no purpose but to control folks' lives. When the question arises, "Why is this wrong?" the answer invariably is "Because I (authority) say so." Perhaps that is how you view morality. All I can say is thankfully you're not running the show anywhere.



on Oct 31, 2004
likewise any semblance of morality that goes with it.
Nihilists yes, atheists no. You distort the meaning of atheist when you qualify it as "irrational" which is nothing more than a knee-jerk conviction of a nihilist. An atheist on the other hand painfully explores and finds no proof of supernatural forces, but does not lead him to the conclusion that there is no morality, which need not be religious based as in Kant's categorical imperative.Those that call themselves atheists and then defile religious beliefs don't know the meaning of atheism.  
on Oct 31, 2004
Nihilists yes, atheists no. You distort the meaning of atheist when you qualify it as "irrational" which is nothing more than a knee-jerk conviction of a nihilist. An atheist on the other hand painfully explores and finds no proof of supernatural forces, but does not lead him to the conclusion that there is no morality, which need not be religious based as in Kant's categorical imperative.Those that call themselves atheists and then defile religious beliefs don't know the meaning of atheism.


I use atheist to mean one who lacks belief in a[ny] supernatural deity. This makes no reference as to the manner one reached such a belief, just as theism doesn't only include people who believe through introspection, but also people who believe by default, or through forced conversion. An atheist could just as well be a person who was raised in an atheist environment and never picked up on religion, or God, or any deity. In that case it requires no inquisition. BTW, I never said atheism was irrational. Otherwise I would be declaring myself irrational.
on Oct 31, 2004
Everything is relative. Nothing is ultimately necissary. Things only become necissary when the goal they accomplish is deamed desireable. By that same token, there is no ultimate moral rightness. Your comment on some societies being 'better' then others presupposes that some traits are inately better. While I would tend to agree that I prefer and see some traits as superior, that does not mean everyone in the world would. I accept that as the way of the world.

My example of terrorists was simply an example of an extreme case of subjective morality, but it exists elsewhere as well. Take the abortion argument. Both sides feel that the other impinges upon thier morals. Neither side's morals are exactly wrong, but neither are really right either.

Now, the role of gov't is to promote the growth of society. Given that precept, we must then define what societal growth entails. I would posit that, for me, growth would entail creating amore comfortable and fulfilling environment in which to live. This could be accomplished through technology and infrastructure, in part. As such, having the gov't provide an environment in which technological and infrastructure improvements are eased and expedited would be having a good gov't.

Everything is only an action towards a goal. If the goal is judged to be benefitial, then it is, based upon the level of benefit, catagorized as a want or need. However, the judgement is completely subjective, and that is my point.