Atheism is ‘lack of belief’? Sequel

I’ve been told over and over again, and in the most passionate if often vehement fashion, that atheism is not a religion but simply the absence of belief.   I wrote an article refuting this claim here.  In debates with atheists on the subject I am always being assured that newborns are essentially atheists because they are born without any beliefs.  I’m told that atheism, being lack of belief, means that newly born babes qualify as atheists.  Of course that is ridiculous and in fact rather anserine.

Today, I came across this article on the web entitled Children as young as four to be educated in atheism.

My, but my atheist antagonists ought to be embarrassed at this!

Surely even the most ignorant and incompetent atheist can see that there can be no need to educate young children into atheism if atheism is truly their inborn lack of belief! They are born atheists, according to them!

Isn’t it amazing how atheists contradict themselves at every turn? If newborns are already atheists why in the world would they need indoctrination in atheism? Surely just being left alone would suffice to leave them atheists. Ah, but the atheist will claim they will be inundated with theistic or deistic ideas during their lives so we must protect that innate atheism! Really? Why?

Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter. It leads to no good, it helps no one and it tends to either universal anarchy and chaos or totalitarian despotism (remember the more than 170 million killings under officially atheist regimes in the 20th century alone).

If, by atheist reasoning, the universe really created itself out of nothing (the atheists only origins option), and if the universe consequently really has no meaning, no purpose, no good and no evil, why should anyone care what anyone else believes anyway? Why are atheists so adamantly evangelistic on making sure all remain, as they allege, “atheists from birth”.

Obviously they feel they need more.  Should theists now start using PANIC HEADLINES of the atheist genre?

Atheists, now they’re coming for  your children!

– to mimic the Times article on Dawkins’ latest drivel “Creationists – now they’re coming for your children” , on which I commented here.

Of course, this kind of headline would be entirely justified in this case, if only because they want to preach their inane religion in public schools (as though they don’t already under the guise of science and secular humanism which possesses the entire public ed system in the West). These people are fanatically against teaching any kind of religion in schools and even having any kind of religious symbol displayed in any public place, yet here they come! They now want to indoctrinate kids in schools into their religion, all while claiming kids are naturally atheistic!! Can you say HYPOCRITES!?

We now know that children are born as intuitive theists (Barrett, Bloom, Kelemen, …), not atheists at all.

“Intuitive Theists”?: Reasoning about Purpose and Design in Nature”
Children’s Attributions of Beliefs to Humans and God: Cross-Cultural Evidence
“Religion is Natural”

Now here I will quote Dr Michael V. Antony, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. Dr. Antony addressed this “lack of belief” argument thus (my bold):

It is often said by atheists that atheism is not a positive position at all – a belief or worldview – but merely a disbelief in theism, a refusal to accept what the theist believes, and as such, there is no belief or position for there to be evidence for. Evidence is not needed for ‘non-positions’.

While the word ‘atheism’ has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew’s article ‘The Presumption of Atheism’), it is a highly non-standard use.  So understood, atheism would include agnosticism, since agnostics are also not theists. However, on the common understanding of atheism – no divine reality of any kind exists – atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Some insist that this non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ is the only possible sense, because a-theism means without theism. But if that were a good argument, the Space Shuttle would be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself). Ditto for dogs and cats.

Yet none of that really matters, for even the non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ does nothing to neutralize evidentialism’s demand for evidence. As we saw, evidentialism applies to all ‘doxastic’ attitudes toward a proposition P: believing P, believing not-P, suspending judgment about P, etc. Therefore evidentialism says, with respect to the proposition God exists, that any attitude toward it will be rational or justified if and only if it fits one’s evidence. Now it is true that if one had no position whatever regarding the proposition God exists (perhaps because one has never entertained the thought), no evidence would be required for that non-position. But the New Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism. So insisting that atheism isn’t a belief doesn’t help.

Mere absence of belief is not a position.  It’s a passive psychological state.  Atheism is position, it is a chosen position, not the natural one.  Atheism, as denial of reality, is a form of insanity, therefore it is doubtful we will ever cease having to deal with atheist nonsense.  Will we ever see the end of this blatant insanity?


Capital Punishment, Right or Wrong

Today’s world is a seething morass of moral confusion.  We have much insanity running amok in governments and public life on the moral plane.  The inmates seem to be running the asylum. The criminals appear to be running the prisons. What was once holy is now profane and that which was once an abomination is now lauded from the highest pulpits of society as good.

On the one hand we have the death penalty being removed from the sanctions of law and on the other we have the murder of children being sanctioned as “good” because either they are still in the womb or because they are not really human at all yet (see Peter Singer et al.).

“Curiouser and curiouser” the world goes as God is rejected and replaced by Darwinian fitness based, collective cultural whims set up on the auction block for the highest bidder and sold by the use of sly marketing techniques.

Here I present some of the reasons why capital punishment is a necessary sanction for specific crimes.

It would be so nice if we lived in a truly peaceful world wherein all citizens lived by the Golden Rule.  Unfortunately that is not the case.  On the contrary, because humans have free will and motility, and because that means that selfishness can and does exist, we live in a world where selfish persons may make free choices to rape, rob and murder others for their own profit and reasons.

Perfect pacifism is simply not possible in such a world.

Violence is unfortunately sometimes the only means available for stopping selfish persons from destroying the lives of others. I personally deplore gratuitous violence of every kind. Thus I also necessarily deplore crimes of violence committed against innocent persons.

Therefore I ask the following questions:

  • If all violence (use of force) were always wrong why do we have armed police forces?
  • If all use of deadly force were always wrong why do we have armies?
  • What would the world be like if there were no police and no army?
  • If no amount of murdering can ever deserve the forfeit of the life of the perpetrator then what is life’s true worth? Given this, is the life of the perpetrator worth more than the life of his victims?

How long would an unarmed police officer last on the job? How many violent criminals would take advantage of the unarmed policeman? Then, how many policemen would be ruthlessly murdered on duty? Finally, in light of this, who in their right mind would want to become a police officer?

It becomes more than obvious rather quickly that in a violent world the removal of all capital punishment cannot produce peace, safety or justice.  A very superficial study of history is sufficient to reveal that where there is no law enforcement there is no real law at all, and where there is no armed law enforcement, such enforcement becomes impossible in proportion to the selfishness and criminality of individuals rises.

Generalized intelligence and virtue are the only reasons  to allow democratic freedoms, and as such intelligence and virtue are abandoned in favor of moral stupidity and hedonism, freedoms and safety are naturally lost.

What do pacificists think would happen if all death penalties were outlawed? We all know they themselves would not live very long. Certainly they would lived shorter lives than the man that arms himself.  Criminals that resort to deadly force will not be stopped by some mere written rule without enforcement.  Indeed, there is no such thing as law without sanctions and enforcement.

Now this clearly leads to the question: if capital punishment were always wrong why are our police officers and soldiers armed with deadly force?

When a soldier shoots and kills an invading enemy he is practicing capital punishment. When a police officer shoots and kills a criminal on the verge of committing murder he is applying a death penalty on the spot.  Therefore, if all capital punishment is wrong then is this soldier, this policeman also wrong? Would any victim-to-be think so? Obviously not.

Were there some other way of stopping an invading army we’d all be for it. Were there some other way of stopping a murder – same thing.  Of course in the case of an imminent murder police may use some other non fatal force like a taser if possible.  But there we get into specific circumstances of whether deadly force ought to be used or not and I’m not going to go there in this article.  The point is that there are indeed many incidents in which the response of deadly force, i.e. capital punishment, to an unlawful threat of imminent and severe harm, is the right response.

The question arises however, on whether one that has committed murder ought to be himself killed after the crime? This is the real crux of the debate.

Those opposing capital punishment most often state that if we kill the killer we are doing exactly what he has done and are thus no better than he.  This kind of thinking means that, in that view, no amount of murdering, torturing or raping can bring about the forfeit of the perpetrators own life.  It is however clear that such a view implies that the life of the killer is in fact worth more than all the lives of those that he has killed!  Does anyone seriously believe that?

The no death penalty view also implies that strict principles of justice ought not to be applied to the killer.  How so? Under strict justice if you steal 100 dollars you must repay 100 dollars plus damages to the robbed party. If you steal a car then the value of the car must be restored to the victim plus damages in lost wages etc.

Again there is no such thing as law without sanctions.  But sanctions must be equal to the value of the laws in question. Jay walking, for example, is by no means worthy of life in prison. Going 20 over the speed limit is not worth having ones arm cut off. Stealing a loaf of bread does not deserve having ones hand amputated.

Such penalties are not just in proportion to the offense but in fact severe injustice.  The scales of justice would be seriously off kilter if such severe sanctions were applied to such minor offenses.

So what of murder? Hardly a minor offense.  So, does one life not equal another life? Where do we get off pretending it doesn’t? Those who preach this kind of severely imbalanced “justice” by claiming that in fact a life does not equal another life are do not understand the very nature of justice itself.  If the sanction to “you shall not murder” is less than the value of the precept itself, less than the consequences of the crime itself, then justice is not being served at all. By removing the death penalty for such crimes we have in fact defeated justice itself and are declaring that the life of the murderer is worth more than the life of the murdered.

Under such a crippled view we can find no justification for having either armed police forces or armies at all. All killing would be murder.  The soldier defending his country from invaders as with deadly force as much as the police officer preventing murder would both be murder as well.

Another example: any man has a right and duty to protect his family from an intruder into his home.  If there is clear intent to rape, steal and to kill, deadly force is justified, if no other means is available.  Any man that would not do so would be a coward and a disgrace for allowing his family to be subjected to such horrendous crimes.

Therefore if the use of deadly force used under the circumstances is not morally wrong, how can we possibly see the delayed use of deadly force after the crime as morally wrong? A life equals a life and thus strict justice requires life for life.

About two thousand years ago and man of great learning and experience stated, concerning officers of the law, “He does not bear the sword in vain” – the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Christians in Rome.

To remain logically consistent, those opposing capital punishment are thus forced to oppose the existence of armed police and national armies as well. Is there any sane person that would indeed plead for such? Allow me to seriously doubt it.

Am I promoting persistent capital punishment in all capital crimes? No. There is indeed a place for mercy, leniency and pardon.  However nothing but leniency and pardon is exactly equal to no justice at all ever. Mercy triumphs over judgment but if no judgment is ever applied the law is without sanctions and no law at all.

The Transcendent Moral Law

The following quotations, garnered from ancient sources and cultures, demonstrate the independence of Natural Law. Of course this is hardly an exhaustive record.  I’ve taken this pretty much verbatim from CS Lewis’, The Abolition of Man, the appendix.

Lewis added this important note :

But (1) I am not trying to prove its validity by the argument from common consent. Its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it. (2) The idea of collecting independent testimonies presupposes that ‘civilizations’ have arisen in the world independently of one another; or even that humanity has had several independent  emergences on this planet. The biology and anthropology involved in such an assumption are extremely doubtful. It is by no means certain that there has ever (in the sense required) been more than one civilization in all history. It is at least arguable that every  civilization we find has been derived from another civilization and, in the last resort, from a single centre—’carried’ like an infectious disease or like the Apostolical succession.

The reason I publish this is to show that, contrary to the claims of many moderns, morality has NOT widely varied in any fundamental area amongst the numerous civilizations, peoples and nations.  Many moderns talk of morals as though different cultures have vastly differing moralities and thus conclude that morals and values are culturally based and so there is no independent, transcendent moral law.  But this is simply not true.  The most striking thing about moral values over the centuries and across the globe is how very similar they are, not how different they are.

There are no countries, and never have been, wherein cowardice is a virtue, child rape is good or robbery is a commended action. Indeed, the only times in history where nations have begun to condone such things is within cultures that practiced the worship of demons, false gods or have practiced rigorous atheism.  Moreover, most of the great empires of the past all fell into to decline once they began to condone behavior that was contrary to the moral law.  Most of them that refused the warnings of righteous men to turn from such wickedness ended up in chaos and ultimate destruction. Does this happen over night? Of course not. It’s like the decomposition of a living being into a corpse through long slow disease. God is very patient.

I need also to mention here that there is no such thing as law without sanctions.  That is, without rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience.  Any rule without sanctions is thus no rule at all. But any true law must have an overriding authority behind it, with the right and duty to inflict penalties on criminals. Without this underlying authority there can be no law.

This is precisely where atheism utterly fails.  It wants morals without authority, but there is no such thing.  If there is no transcending authority guarding the law, there is simply is no law at all. Having ultimate foundations for ethics, atheism has no foundation for any ethics whatsoever.  This is the moral version of a universe without a creator, a universe that created itself out of nothing. And that is both logically and scientifically ludicrous. If we are to have any morals at all we need the underlying authority and only one thing responds to this call – a moral thinking absolute being, i.e. the being men call God.

I. The Law of General Beneficence


‘I have not slain men.’ (Ancient Egyptian. From the Confession of the Righteous Soul, ‘Book of the Dead’, v. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [=ERE], vol. v, p. 478)

‘Do not murder.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:13)

‘Terrify not men or God will terrify thee.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Precepts of Ptahhetep. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. i3)

‘In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw… murderers.’ (Old Norse. Volospá 38, 39)

‘I have not brought misery upon my fellows. I have not made the beginning of every day laborious in the sight of him who worked for  me.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

‘I have not been grasping.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Ibid.)

‘Who meditates oppression, his dwelling is overturned.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

‘He who is cruel and calumnious has the character of a cat.’ (Hindu. Laws of Manu. Janet, Histoire de la Science Politique, vol. i, p. 6)

‘Slander not.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:16)

‘Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded.’ (Hindu. Janet, p. 7)

‘Has he … driven an honest man from his family? broken up a well cemented clan?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins from incantation tablets. ERE v. 446)

‘I have not caused hunger. I have not caused weeping.’ (Ancient Egyptian ERE v. 478)

‘Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley, xv. 23; cf. xii. 2)

‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart.’ (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:17)

‘He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon goodness will dislike no one.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, iv. 4)


‘Nature urges that a man should wish human society to exist and should wish to enter it.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Officiis, i. iv)

‘By the fundamental Law of Nature Man [is] to be preserved as much as possible.’ (Locke, Treatises of Civil Govt. ii.3)

‘When the people have multiplied, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Enrich them. Jan Ch’iu said, When one has enriched them, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Instruct them.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, xiii.9)

‘Speak kindness … show good will.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

‘Men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good.’ (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. vii)

‘Man is man’s delight.’ (Old Norse. Hávamál 47)

‘He who is asked for alms should always give.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 7)

‘What good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?’ (Roman. Juvenal xv. 140)

‘I am a man: nothing human is alien to me.’ (Roman. Terence, Heaut. Tim.)

‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:18)

‘Love the stranger as yourself.’ (Ancient Jewish. Ibid. 33, 34)

‘Do to men what you wish men to do to you.’ (Christian. Matthew 7:12)

2. The Law of Special Beneficence

‘It is upon the trunk that a gentleman works. When that is firmly set up, the Way grows. And surely proper behavior to parents and elder brothers is the trunk of goodness.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 2)

‘Brothers shall fight and be each others’ bane.’ (Old Norse. Account of the Evil Age before the World’s end, Volospá 45)

‘Has he insulted his elder sister?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

‘You will see them take care of their kindred [and] the children of their friends … never reproaching them in the least.’ (Redskin. Le Jeune, quoted ERE v.437)

‘Love your wife studiously. Gladden her heart all your life long.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 481)

‘Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth…’ (Ancient Jewish. Pro 5:18)

‘Nothing can ever change the claims of kinship for a right thinking man.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2600)

‘Did not Socrates love his own children, though he did so as a free man and as one not forgetting that the gods have the first claim on our friendship?’ (Greek, Epictetus, iii. 24)

‘Natural affection is a thing right and according to Nature.’ (Greek. Ibid. i. xi)

‘I ought not to be unfeeling like a statue but should fulfill both my natural and artificial relations, as a worshiper, a son, a brother, a father, and a citizen.’ (Greek. Ibid. 111. ii)

‘This first I rede thee: be blameless to thy kindred. Take no vengeance even though they do thee wrong.’ (Old Norse. Sigdrifumál, 22)

‘Is it only the sons of Atreus who love their wives? For every good man, who is right-minded, loves and cherishes his own.’ (Greek. Homer, Iliad, ix. 340)

‘The union and fellowship of men will be best preserved if each receives from us the more kindness in proportion as he is more closely connected with us.’ (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. xvi)

‘Part of us is claimed by our country, part by our parents, part by our friends.’  (Roman. Ibid. i. vii)

‘If a ruler … compassed the salvation of the whole state, surely you would call him Good? The Master said, It would no longer be a matter of “Good”. He would without doubt be a Divine Sage.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, vi. 28)

‘Has it escaped you that, in the eyes of gods and good men, your native land deserves from you more honour, worship, and reverence than your mother and father and all your ancestors? That you should give a softer answer to its anger than to a father’s anger? That if you cannot persuade it to alter its mind you must obey it in all quietness, whether it binds you or beats you or sends you to a war where you may get wounds or death?’ (Greek. Plato, Crito, 51, a,b)

‘If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith.’ (Christian. I Timothy 5:8)

‘Put them in mind to obey magistrates.’… ‘I exhort that prayers be made for kings and all that are in authority.’ (Christian. Titus 3:1 and I Timothy 2:1, 2)

3. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors

‘Your father is an image of the Lord of Creation, your mother an image of the Earth. For him who fails to honour them, every work of piety is in vain. This is the first duty.’ (Hindu. Janet, i.9)

‘Has he despised Father and Mother?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

‘I was a staff by my Father’s side … I went in and out at his command.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 481)

‘Honor your Father and your Mother.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:12)

‘To care for parents.’ (Greek. List of duties in Epictetus, in. vii)

‘Children, old men, the poor, and the sick, should be considered as the lords of the atmosphere.’ (Hindu. Janet, i.8)

‘Rise up before the gray haired one and honor the old man.’ (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:32)

‘I tended the old man, I gave him my staff.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 481)

‘You will see them take care … of old men.’ (Redskin. Le Jeune, quoted ERE v. 437)

‘I have not taken away the oblations of the blessed dead.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478 )

‘When proper respect towards the dead is shown at the end and continued after they are far away, the moral force (tê) of a people has reached its highest point.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 9)

4. Duties to Children and Posterity

‘Children, the old, the poor, etc. should be considered as lords of the atmosphere.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 8 )

‘To marry and to beget children.’ (Greek. List of duties. Epictetus, in. vii)

‘Can you conceive an Epicurean commonwealth? . . . What will happen? Whence is the population to be kept up? Who will educate them? Who will be Director of Adolescents? Who will be Director of Physical Training? What will be taught?’ (Greek. Ibid.)

‘Nature produces a special love of offspring’ and ‘To live according to Nature is the supreme good.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i. iv, and De Legibus, i. xxi)

‘The second of these achievements is no less glorious than the first; for while the first did good on one occasion, the second will continue to benefit the state for ever.’ (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. xxii)

‘Great reverence is owed to a child.’ (Roman. Juvenal, xiv. 47)

‘The Master said, Respect the young.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, ix. 22)

‘The killing of the women and more especially of the young boys and girls who are to go to make up the future strength of the people, is the saddest part… and we feel it very sorely.’ (Redskin. Account of the Battle of Wounded Knee. ERE v. 432)

5. The Law of Justice


‘Has he approached his neighbour’s wife?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

‘You shall not commit adultery.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:14)

‘I saw in Nastrond (= Hell)… beguilers of others’ wives.’ (Old Norse.Volospá 38, 39)


‘Has he drawn false boundaries?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

‘To wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed.’ (Babylonian. Ibid.)

‘I have not stolen.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

‘You shall not steal.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:15)

‘Choose loss rather than shameful gains.’ (Greek. Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)

‘Justice is the settled and permanent intention of rendering to each man his rights.’ (Roman. Justinian, Institutions, I. i)

‘If the native made a “find” of any kind (e.g., a honey tree) and marked it, it was thereafter safe for him, as far as his own tribesmen were concerned, no matter how long he left it.’ (Australian Aborigines. ERE v. 441)

‘The first point of justice is that none should do any mischief to another unless he has first been attacked by the other’s wrongdoing. The second is that a man should treat common property as common property, and private property as his own. There is no such thing as private property by nature, but things have become private either through prior occupation (as when men of old came into empty territory) or by conquest, or law, or agreement, or stipulation, or casting lots.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)


‘Whoso takes no bribe … well pleasing is this to Samas.’ (Babylonian. ERE v. 445)

‘I have not traduced the slave to him who is set over him.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

‘You shall not give a false witness against your neighbour.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:16)

‘Regard him whom you know like him whom you don’t know.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 482)

‘Do no unrighteousness in judgement. You must not consider the fact that one party is poor nor the fact that the other is a great man.’ (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:15)

6. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity

‘A sacrifice is obliterated by a lie and the merit of alms by an act of fraud.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 6)

‘Whose mouth, full of lying, avails not before thee: thou burnest their utterance.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

‘With his mouth was he full of Yea, in his heart full of Nay? (Babylonian. ERE v. 446)

‘I have not spoken falsehood.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

‘I sought no trickery, nor swore false oaths.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2738)

‘The Master said, Be of unwavering good faith.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13)

‘In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw the perjurers.’ (Old Norse. Volospá 39)

‘Hateful to me as are the gates of Hades is that man who says one thing, and hides another in his heart.’ (Greek. Homer. Iliad, ix. 312)

‘The foundation of justice is good faith.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i.vii)

‘[The gentleman] must learn to be faithful to his superiors and to keep promises.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i.8)

‘Anything is better than treachery.’ (Old Norse. Hávamál 124)

7. The Law of Mercy

‘The poor and the sick should be regarded as lords of the atmosphere.’ (Hindu. Janet, i.8)

‘Whoso makes intercession for the weak, well pleasing is this to Samas.’ (Babylonian. ERE v. 445)

‘Has he failed to set a prisoner free?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

‘I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a ferry boat to the boatless.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 446)

‘One should never strike a woman; not even with a flower.’ (Hindu. Janet, i.8)

‘There, Thor, you got disgrace, when you beat women.’ (Old Norse. Hárbarthsljóth 38)

‘In the Dalebura tribe a woman, a cripple from birth, was carried about by the tribes-people in turn until her death at the age of sixty-six.’… ‘They never desert the sick.’ (Australian Aborigines. ERE v. 443)

‘You will see them take care of… widows, orphans, and old men, never reproaching them.’ (Redskin. ERE v. 439)

‘Nature confesses that she has given to the human race the tenderest hearts, by giving us the power to weep. This is the best part of us.’ (Roman. Juvenal, xv. 131)

‘They said that he had been the mildest and gentlest of the kings of the world.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Praise of the hero in Beowulf, 3180)

‘When you cut down your harvest… and have forgot a sheaf… you shall not go back again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.’ (Ancient Jewish. Deuteronomy 24:19)

8. The Law of Magnanimity

‘There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)

‘Men always knew that when force and injury was offered they might be defenders of themselves; they knew that howsoever men may seek their own commodity, yet if this were done with injury unto others it was not to be suffered, but by all men and by all good means to be withstood.’ (English. Hooker, Laws of Eccl. Polity, I. ix. 4)

‘To take no notice of a violent attack is to strengthen the heart of the enemy. Vigour is valiant, but cowardice is vile.’ (Ancient Egyptian. The Pharaoh Senusert III, cit. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. 161)

‘They came to the fields of joy, the fresh turf of the Fortunate Woods and the dwellings of the Blessed . . . here was the company of those who had suffered wounds fighting for their fatherland.’ (Roman. Virgil, Aeneid, vi. 638-9, 660)

‘Courage has got to be harder, heart the stouter, spirit the sterner, as our strength weakens. Here lies our lord, cut to pieces, out best man in the dust. If anyone thinks of leaving this battle, he can howl forever.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Maldon, 312)

‘Praise and imitate that man to whom, while life is pleasing, death is not grievous.’ (Stoic. Seneca, Ep. liv)

‘The Master said, Love learning and if attacked be ready to die for the Good Way.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13)

‘Death is to be chosen before slavery and base deeds.’ (Roman. Cicero, DeOff. i, xxiii)

‘Death is better for every man than life with shame.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2890)

‘Nature and Reason command that nothing uncomely, nothing effeminate, nothing lascivious be done or thought.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i. iv)

‘We must not listen to those who advise us “being men to think human thoughts, and being mortal to think mortal thoughts,” but must put on immortality as much as is possible and strain every nerve to live according to that best part of us, which, being small in bulk, yet much more in its power and honour surpasses all else.’ (Ancient Greek. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1177 B)

‘The soul then ought to conduct the body, and the spirit of our minds the soul. This is therefore the first Law, whereby the highest power of the mind requireth obedience at the hands of all the rest.’ (Hooker, op. cit. i. viii. 6)

‘Let him not desire to die, let him not desire to live, let him wait for his time … let him patiently bear hard words, entirely abstaining from bodily pleasures.’ (Ancient Indian. Laws of Manu. ERE ii. 98)

‘He who is unmoved, who has restrained his senses … is said to be devoted. As a flame in a windless place that flickers not, so is the devoted.’ (Ancient Indian. Bhagavad gita. ERE ii 90)

‘Is not the love of Wisdom a practice of death?’ (Ancient Greek. Plato, Phadeo, 81 A)

‘I know that I hung on the gallows for nine nights, wounded with the spear as a sacrifice to Odin, myself offered to Myself.’ (Old Norse. Hávamál, I. 10 in Corpus Poeticum Boreale; stanza 139 in Hildebrand’s Lieder der Älteren Edda. 1922)

‘Verily, verily I say to you unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it.’ (Christian. John 12:24,25)

Quotes on atheism

Here’s a short collection of quotes on atheists and atheism I’ve garnered over the years. Some are profound insights, some are just the obvious and others are rather humorous. Enjoy.

“The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp.”
-O’Hair M.M., “Agnostics”

“Atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man…..”
-Sir Francis Bacon

“Atheism is the death of hope, the suicide of the soul…..”

“An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can’t see…..”
-O.A. Battista, Power to Influence People c.1959

“Atheism is a theoretical formulation of the discouraged life…”
-Harry Emerson Fosdick

“There are no atheists in the foxholes of Bataan…”
General D. MacArthur: Sermons on Bataan, March 1942

“If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.”
-Alvin Plantinga

“Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow’s ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys…”
-James M. Gillis

“Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to acknowledgment of a divine power…..” – Plato

“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding…..”

“No one ever dies an atheist…..”

“The religion of the atheist has a God-shaped blank at it’s heart…..”
-H.G. Wells

“The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..”
-Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

“Atheists put on false courage in the midst of their darkness and misapprehensions, like children who, when they fear to go in the dark,will sing or whistle to keep their courage….”
-Alexander Pope

“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”
-Francis Bacon

“There was never miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God.”
-Francis Bacon

“In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners.”
-Jonathon Miller

“It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.”
-Mohandas Gandhi

“A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere–‘Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,’ as Herbert says, ‘fine nets and stratagems.’ God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.”
-C.S. Lewis

“We find the most terrible form of atheism, not in the militant and passionate struggle against the idea of God himself, but in the practical atheism of everyday living, in indifference and torpor. We often encounter these forms of atheism among those who are formally Christians.”
-Nicolai A. Berdyaev

“Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.”
-Tom Stoppard

“If atheism spread, it would become a religion as intolerable as the ancient ones.”
-Gustave le Bon

“You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you.”
-Napoleon Bonaparte

“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”
-G.K. Chesterton

“Atheism is a disease of the mind caused by eating underdone philosophy.”
-Austin O’Malley, Keystones of Thought

“If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. [So] you must wager. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.”
-Blaise Pascal (this is know as Pascal’s Wager)

“If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence.”
-George MacDonald

“Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter.”
-William Murray

“Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.”
-Vox Day

“A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing; disbelief in God usually results in a belief in anything.” -unknown

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.”
-Abraham Lincoln

“A creature revolting against a creator is revolting against the source of his own powers–including even his power to revolt…It is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower.”
-C.S. Lewis

“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge”
-Ravi Zacharias

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
-C.S. Lewis

“God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job.”
– J.B. Phillips

“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol.”
-Deitrich Bonhoeffer

“A god who would stoop so low as to prove his existence to satisfy a human’s disbelief or demand for proof, would be no god at all”
– Me

“What can be more foolish than to think that all this rare fabric of heaven and earth could come by chance, when all the skill of art is not able to make an oyster? To see rare effects, and no cause ; a motion, without a mover ; a circle, without a centre ; a time, without an eternity ; a second, without a first : these are things so against philosophy and natural reason, that he must be a beast in understanding who can believe in them. The thing formed, says that nothing formed it ; and that which is made is, while that which made it is not, This folly is infinite.”
-Jeremy Taylor

“Shouldn’t atheist have an equal obligation to explain pleasure in a world of randomness. Where does pleasure come from?”
-G.K. Chesterton

“Understanding God is not attained by calling into session all arguments for and against Him, in order to debate whether He is a reality or a figment of the mind. God cannot be sensed as a second thought, as an explanation of the origin of the universe. He is either the first and the last, or just another concept.”
-Abraham Joshua Heschel

“God will not take shelter behind a jugglery of logic or metaphysics. He is neither a schoolman nor theologian, but our Father in Heaven.”
-George MacDonald

“Without God man has no reference point to define himself. 20th century philosophy manifests the chaos of man seeking to understand himself as a creature with dignity while having no reference point for that dignity.”
-R. C. Sproul

“God is dead” – F. Neitzche
“Neitzche is dead” – God

“Unbelief in God is idolatry”

“An “impersonal God”– well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads — better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap — best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps, approaching an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband — that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (“Man’s search for God!”) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?
-C. S. Lewis

“I believe in God as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
-C. S. Lewis

“From the moment a creature becomes aware of God as God and of itself as self, the terrible alternative of choosing God or self for the centre is opened to it.”
– C.S. Lewis

“As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
-C. S. Lewis

“Fervid atheism is usually a screen for repressed religion.”

“The atheist has no hope.”
-J. F. Clarke

“Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.” – Chesterton, Gilbert K.

“Forth from his dark and lonely hiding-place, (Portentous sight!) the owlet Atheism, sailing on obscene wings athwart the noon, drops his blue-fringed lids, and holds them close, and hooting at the glorious sun in Heaven, cries out, Where is it?”
-Coleridge, Samuel Taylor

“He must pull out his own eyes, and see no creature, before he can say, he sees no God; He must be no man, and quench his reasonable soul, before he can say to himself, there is no God.”
-John Donne

“If there is no God, everything is permitted.”
– Dostoevski, Fyodor

“Here lies an Atheist: All Dressed Up and No Place to Go.”

“An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident.”
-Thompson, Francis

“I wanted to be an atheist, but I gave it up. They have no holidays.”
— Henry Youngman

“There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.” — Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, 1921, pp. 159- 60

“The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike…Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish.”
“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…”
“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.”
“Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe.”
“A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid…”
-CS Lewis

“Who made God? Doesn’t matter.  We are not responsible to a hypothetical maker of God but to our maker – God.”
-Walter Martin

“It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan. ”
-Calvin Coolidge, speech, Jul. 25, 1924

La nature a des perfections pour montrer qu’elle est l’image de Dieu, et des défauts pour montrer qu’elle n’en est que l’image. Nature has some perfections to show that she is the image of God, and some defects to show that she is only His image. (Blaise Pascal, 1623–1662)

“Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist…. Nor…are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior”
-Sartre(1961, p. 485).

“You have to assume the law of noncontradiction in order to disprove it.”
“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned”
-Metaphysics I.

“Scepticism, ironically, draws its life’s blood from claims to have a good deal of knowledge. For example, your friends claim to know, ‘Since every possible option has not been explored, nothing can be said for certain.’ That statement is itself a claim to knowledge!”
-William L. Craig

“…I find that there is no such thing as “reasonable non belief.” The litany of excuses, wild speculations, and other absurdities ground out by skeptics and critics doesn’t deserve the adjective “reasonable”
-JP Holding, in his essay rebutting a work of atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder

The three stooges of neoatheism: Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris

Objective moral foundations in atheism don’t exist

This is not to say that atheists have no moral values. Most do. Sometimes very good ones too. But they are borrowed values. Values usually taken from Judeo/Christian roots, or from simple conscience or some assumed value in collective cultural agreements.

The question is not, however, whether atheists have morals. The question is what is the foundation of those morals. Upon what grounds of logic or reason have these morals been founded?

In the end, they have none. At least, nothing objective. Nothing truly, solidly or binding. And of course they have, in their own heads, no one to whom they are ultimately accountable.

There are a great many atheists who attempt to find grounds for their moral values without reference to any absolute Moral Law. This is normal. They want to have moral values but, not believing in God or absolutes, they are forced to find their grounds in something else. Invariably this something ends up being untenable and sometimes very illogical.

Some invent “objective” values based on materialist evaluations of the material consequences of actions. Others become relativists who, of course, can’t really practice what they claim to believe.

Relativism is self-contradictory by nature.

In my experience in debating moral foundations with atheists I’ve found that people who persist in attempting to demonstrate that there are no objective moral values, invariably dig in further to proving there are.

Obviously these types of people believe they are objectively “right”. But then , if what they say is true, they cannot be “right” or “wrong” about anything if what they state is true!

Relativism cuts its own throat.

They will often try to debunk objective moral values by pointing, as usual, at religions and the differences between them as being being immense. They tend to completely ignore the universality of morals and the universality of belief in a higher authority throughout all ages and in all peoples tribes and nations. Instead, they will focus on generally insignificant details in differences between one religion’s set of morals and anothers. Almost always centering attention on the outward workings of the underlying principles instead of the underlying principles themselves.
They will say something like the following I heard recently, “And where it [religion based morality] differs, all claims to objective morality vanish, because the claims are dependent upon a subjective opinion as to which deity is correct.

Bad logic of course. This assumes that every specific religions deity is fundamentally different and opposite to every other. Another falsehood. They are in fact very similar in all fundamentals.
Moral values – their very existence – can easily lead us to conclude there must of necessity be some over-governing power to moral law. Atheists, of course, must deny this or become theists.
One of them said to me, “Like it or not, consensus response to material consequences is the way societies decide right from wrong.

Frankly this is very off the mark. The way humans judge of morality is not according to material consequence but according to reason and then every consequence, material of other. But material consequence alone can never be the rule of judgment. It also requires some objective rule of evaluation for determining what consequences or more important than others.

Now one thing that has always both bothered me and amused me is this – atheists will often invade Internet debate forums on the subject and squeal and whine like little pigs, profanities and insults included, trying to tell you that there are no objective values. And the funny thing about this is that they are all objectively sure! They claim there are no absolutes and they are at once absolutely sure!

Do they think they’re doing some objective “good” in the universe by attending forums and debates to denounce objective morals, absolute values and/or God? Of course they do otherwise why do they bother?!

But how strange is this since, according to their own dogma, they really cannot because they also claim that there is no fundamental right or wrong! No fundamental truth or moral standard external to man. Thus what possible real “good” can debating the matter accomplish? None. All views are relative and the universe has no meaning. (Of course they all believe their own life has some inherent meaning which they invent out nothingness for themselves regardless of the universe being meaningless)
So what’s the point? It’s all useless in the end, in their view, and all views will perish in short time.

So their very presence is indication enough that they do indeed perceive a real objective absolute “truth” to exist. Otherwise they would know they are wasting time trying to objectively prove there is none.

And worse is that, like I said before, they focus on external details – (usually minor; polygamy, sanctions, how women are treated amongst various religions and etc.) – in the actual out-workings of law, to find their arguments against objectivity.

But even in this they must assume an underlying rule over-riding all. Thus any persistence in focusing on outward details is clearly a wrong approach.

Why don’t they focus on child rape? Find me a religion that has approved of this besides satanism or its cousins! There is none and never has been – except of course certain atheistic or demon sex cults who believe there are no objective morals and so they need not answer to anyone – like the NAMBLA member who was so insulted in a TV interview when the host asked him about the moral legitimacy of men in “love” (ie sexual) relations with very young boys.

Atheists assume underlying values which they are use to argue against objective values! Very strange indeed.

One said to me, “It is the human response to results that is the basis of what we consider ‘right’ and ‘wrong’“.

But again, Reason is what brings the moral considerations, not human response to material consequences. And upon what basis would the mere human response be sufficient for establishing an objective rule? Is this the way they live every day? I don’t think so, nor could they – they’d end up in the cell block of the asylum.

The atheist claims that we are the results of billions of unlikely concurrent, conjunctive
accidents – random mutations + selection. (Darwinism is it’s science.) So where do they get off inventing objective morals for themselves, or any morals at all? Or, where can they find a solid rule of moral action since they themselves are nothing like “solid” or meaningful? It never adds up.

We are, in the materialist view, without soul, spirit, heart (let all the artists in the world weep). Without free will (see Dawkins or Provine). Without anything but bio-chem processes in our brains and nervous systems that dictate what we are and even what we believe (Dawkins’ memes), yet they boldly state the contrary — when it serves their own purpose of course.

Again I was told, “All such claims [to a real objective morality] are comprehensively dismantled by studying the basis for any specific set of claims, the irreconcilable contradictions between competing claims, and the fluidity of claims over time. Every religion has its own ‘objective’ morality, and they are, to significant extents, mutually exclusive. “

First, their own proofs of being objectively right, are thus dismantled by the same rule of logic!
But no, their moral values are nothing like significantly different. Rather significantly similar!!

Thankfully there are virtually no “irreconcilable contradictions” nor is there any significant “fluidity over time”. All the most basic, fundamental Moral values remain unchanged over millennia.

It’s rather surprising they can’t see how obvious this is.

CS Lewis gives a quick list of fundamental values amongst very different religions through the ages in his book, “The Abolition of Man” now on-line here :

and the comparative list is here :

a few short quotes :
“I have not slain men” – ancient Egyptian – confession of a righteous soul – book of the dead

“in Nastrond I saw murderers” – Old Norse – Volospa 38,39 (nastrond=hell)
“do no murder” – Hebrew -exodus 20

“Slander not” – ancient Babylonian – Hymn to Samas
“do not bring a false witness against your neighbour” – Hebrew exodus 20
“utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded” – Hindu
“never do to others what you would not like them to do to you” – ancient Chinese – Analects of Confucius

“speak kindness…show good will” – Hymn to Samas
“men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good” – roman Cicero De Off.
“man is mans delight” – Old Norse Havamal 47
“what good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?” – roman Juvenal15, 140

“love your wife studiously. gladden her heart all your life” – ancient Egyptian – ere
“has he appraoched his neighbour’s wife?” – babylonian – List of Sins
“you shall not commit adultery” – Hebrew
“In Nastrond I saw beguilers of others’ wives” – Old Norse Volospa

“take no vengeance though they do you wrong” – Old Norse Sigdrifumal, 22
“do not avenge yourselves” – christian Paul

“I have not stolen” – Egyptian – confessions… ibid.
“do not steal” – Hebrew
“to wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed” – Babylonian List of Sins
It simply isn’t true that there are so many contradictions in the base principles of morality. There is always and universally an underlying belief in justice, goodness, mercy, truth, faithfulness, loyalty, kindness, patience, love, humility, candor, honesty, fair play, benevolence…..

No exceptions outside of satanism and it’s relatives. And even the “values” of satanism prove atheists wrong!

In summary, the atheist ought to re-think his life. Perhaps : “Oh God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul.” would be an adequate prayer for him.

You don’t have a soul, you ARE a soul, you have a body.

Is there purpose in Darwinian life?

This is partly from an article on the uncommondecent site, which I made comments on. Only my own comments are here.
The article quotes from various school biology text books.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”

(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”

(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”

(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”

(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any ‘goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”

(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. … Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains … Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”

(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has ‘chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors—little by little, generation after generation—merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces …. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. … [J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.”

(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. … The real difficulty in accepting Darwin’s theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”

(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

“The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion by suggesting that biological relationship, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god. Many felt that evolutionary randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. The Darwinian view that evolution is a historical process and present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. … The variability by which selection depends may be random, but adaptions are not; they arise because selection chooses and perfects only what is adaptive. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary. Neither religion nor science has irrevocably conquered. Religion has been bolstered by paternalistic social systems in which individuals depend on the beneficiences of those more powerful than they are, as well as the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace … Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries, by a deep understanding of the sources of human emotional needs, and by the recognition that ethics and morality can change among different societies and that acceptance of such values need not depend on religion.”

(Evolution by Monroe, W. Strickberger (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett, 2000), pg. 70-71)

“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. … There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”

(Evolution: An Introduction by Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, pg. 30 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005).)

“[A]s E.O. Wilson puts it, a chicken is really the chicken genes’ way of making more copies of themselves. … [A]s an evolutionary biologist I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”
(Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, by John Alcock, pgs 16, 609 (Sinauer Associates, Inc, 1998).)

“I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”

This, of course, brings back to the table the underlying implications of such nonsense – rape, for example, is a biological adaptation to this end – so is every thing else including murder.

Darwinists may try, as some still erringly and vainly do, to get out of it but there is no way out. Not using reason. Of course the atheistDarwinist may attempt to “invent” purpose for himself, but that purpose is vain, unilateral and ultimately no pourpose at all since, by necessity, it exists within the overall meaninglessness of the universe.
Now if this “gene propagation as sole purpose” is true then a pertinent question forces it’s way to the front – WHY?

Why should we exist in the 1st place? Why should we “propagate the genes”? To what end? Why should humans, or anything else for that matter, *survive* at all?

According to all the above quotes, to no end whatsoever. Survival for survival’s sake! What a bore!

Another pertinent question arises: If there is no real purpose or meaning to life then what is the purpose or meaning of all these atheist Darwinist rantings and ravings?

And what purpose or meaning do these people think they are working towards?  Why bother even writing about it since it is all to perish into eternal oblivionanyway?  A feckless and useless existence is the only result!
Again, as CS Lewis so aptly said, “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…”
and :
“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.”

This is self-evident.

Unfortunately, the atheistic Darwinist camp is incapable of seeing this. They have been brainwashed by years of Darwinist propaganda – everywhere – and thus are in serious need of de-programming!

Ex: I once asked a Darwinist/atheist that if there were no absolutes, no ultimate truths, no real purpose then “2+2 does not always necessarily = 4?”. He replied, “exactly”.

And he was “absolutely” sure!

A strange form of intellectualized insanity follows.

This man is an IT pro who necessarily relies on math to accomplish his day to day job! But in his mind 2+2 may equal something other than 4 somehow, somewhere over the rainbow.

Thankfully he lives in a happy contradiction between reality and his own ideas – applying math *as though it were true* inspite of himself!

This is the postmodern dilema/contradiction and it leads the society that adheres to this sophism, to intellectualized, virtual insanity. “If it’s true, then it can’t be true”.

In this sorry view, there is no answer and we should not be seeking one.

Reason itself slowly dies and is replaced by any idiocy you please – such as the above inane citations from the bio-text authors (based on this bizarre relativist metaphysic).

I’ve been noting the decline of true reason in the public for a while now.
It’s frightening to see the erroneous, faulty logic that more and more people use in public.

Like the pedophile who was interviewed on a major US TV network who was working hard to get sexual relations between men and little boys legalized. He spoke easily and without the slightest inclination to shame and when challenged on the morality of it, began whining about the purposeless universe where there are no absolutes etc… and thus there was no right or wrong involved!

“Who are you to claim this is wrong?!” From the atheistic stance there was no contradicting him! For as Provine displayed, “There are no ultimate foundations for ethics”, no free will and all is biologically pre-programmed by our genes!!

All is thus purely subjective and no objective values can exist – not under these anserine schemes wherein Darwinism plays a major role and gene propagation is the sole ulimatum!

I fear that a major “outbreak” of mental illness will ensue as a result of the flight from absolutes. A flight into chaos – moral and mental.

When you see sophists defending the bio-origins of rape – like Thornhill – it’s time to wake up and smell the poison. But Thornhill and cie, are merely taking Darwinism to it’s logical ends!

F. Shaeffer’s “death of reason” is at our doorsteps and becoming more visible each passing year.

And Darwinism is this new follys’ “science” – it doesn’t matter how ludicrous the explanations are – it must be thus because the postmodern, anti-absolute mindset requires it. To say the contrary threatens the whole relativist/darwinist edifice.

No prupose but gene propagation? What a boring, feckless mindset! No wonder the “Darwinist culture” states are all off the wall endlessly seeking sexual satisfaction!

It’s all over the TV’s, movies etc. and the racks of porn mags in every store just keep growing and getting more explicit and perverse each year!

Time for a radical change!
“Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish.” – CS Lewis

It also seems rather confusing that here we have this article showing what’s in the bio-books stating that there is no purpose but self propagation (i.e. selfishness) and no goals or direction in life, and at the same time we have another book just out called “Darwin Loves you” wherein the author attempts to banish all these ideas and give Darwinism some “purposeful” credibility.

See the book’s description here -> Darwin loves you

And this just happens to coincide with creationist/ID camp’s having been exposing the clear metaphysics involved over the past few years! Coincidince? I don’t think so.

They’ve been exposed. So the high priests of Darwinian fundamentalism and are now rushing to save the precious theory, once again, from inevitable public disaster seeking to reconcile it again to reason and common sense.

Glaring contradictions abound in the postmodern mindset indeed. When will these people awaken from their dream?

Sometimes I fear it will take another world war before the consequences of this atheistic Darwinian intellectual suicide are realized.

The Death penalty – right or wrong?

There are those who say capital punishment is itself murder. There are those who say it is the fit punishment for pre-meditated murder.

The clash goes on – the ones note abuses and the death of innocents, the others claim it is the only true deterrant to murder.

The scripture is clear – a life for a life.

The reasons are clear :

  1. If justice means punishment equal to the crime and to the value of the precept then state inflicted death is the only real justice for murder.
  2. If it is not possible to forfeit one’s right to life by any amount of murdering others then human life is worth very little.
  3. All true moral law requires sanctions. Law without sanctions is no law but mere advice or suggestion. Sanctions must imperatively be equal to the value of the law. If not then a decisive imbalance occurs leaving the way for abusers to profit from the inequality. If the sanction is greater than the worth of the precept then the state is guilty of cruelty and injustice – ex. cutting off a hand for theft of a loaf of bread. If the sanction is less the the worth of the precept then the citizen of the state may commit a transgression with relative impunity and injustice is done.
  4. Injustice is always wrong. If sanctions to precepts do not in fact reflect the value of the precepts then this is of itself an abuse and unjust.
  5. Abuses though certainly wrong and unjust in themselves have no bearing on the value of the precept and it’s obligatory sanctions. Abuses can be avoided under the proper rules.
  6. If the death penalty is ALWAYS wrong then why do all nations have armies? Why do all societies have police forces – most of which are lethaly armed? If capital sanctions are wrong these armed forces must also be wrong since they are mandated with the right to take life when necessary for the protection of other lives.
  7. No amount of “jail time” can equal the loss of one single human life. Life is irreplaceable.

The penalty for involuntary killing “manslaughter” cannot be equal to the value of the precept on murder since the focus of all law is first of all a question of intent and motive. Accidental killing, such as fatal road collisions, cannot be viewed as violations of the precept against murder.

These things being noted, mercy must ever and always be a prominent consideration where public justice and benevolence allow. Mercy can and should be shown where true, sincere change has been adopted by the guilty party, but even then only when the public good may be served by its exercise. This why kings of old and indeed many rulers of today can be praised for releasing certain condemned prisoners through the legal process of pardon when the overall good of society is deemed to profit from it.

But who does not see that to give a pardon to an hardened and unrepentant killer is itself a crime against society?

Both justice and mercy are attributes of benevolence, good-willing or love.

Feelings must not be a part of this judicial process – we cannot allow sentiment to rule over justice.

Here is an example of capital punishment that most do consider as the death penalty :

Suppose that some enters your home and clearly intends to kill you and/or members of your family.

It is not merely your right to defnd them and yourself – by inflicting fatal wounds, if necessary, upon the intruder but it is your duty. Not to do so would be criminal negligence and even complicity in some cases.

You will have exercised capital punishment on the intruder.

The armed forces which guard your nation will do the same to any national invader. And they must do so or be guilty of the same criminal negligence.

This is clearly the path of reason and good willing of the overall good.