Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

In all the months I've known you, you have never given the slightest hint that you understand the logic of atheism.

Then show me the contrary logic.

Show me, for example, that Atheism is a moral position. Or that it's based in knowledge. Or that it can ground a society...or do any of the things I have said it cannot. If my logic is faulty, it should be a simple matter for your to show that. For it's easy to say "I don't believe you": but it's quite another to show you have reasons for your disbelief.

What atheism did was retain the useful (and usually instinctive) aspects of Christian morality but lessened the religion's quirky and irrational discrimination against women, gays and people of other religions.

Actually, as the Atheists on this board will happily tell you, "Atheism" did no such things. Atheism, they will tell you, is nothing but ether a) a disbelief in God," or as some say, b) a belief in "no Gods." (You'll have to ask them to explain that: they get really incoherent when they do: they say it's a belief but not a belief; that it "knows" but doesn't actually "know"...and so on.)

One thing the Atheists and I all agree on: other than some kind of bare-bones denial of God, it has nothing to say...no opinions about morality, truth, reality, politics, meaning, justice, rights, the future, or any other thing -- let alone discrimination, religions, gender, homosexuality, and so on.

But you are astute to intuit Atheism's pickle over human rights: those are an idea that is borrowed entirely from Judeo-Christianity. Their only legitimation is found on that basis: so all the rights attributed today to any minority group are a bequest not of Atheism, but of the Christian past. And now they exist without any way to show they're legitimate. No wonder, then, we see those rights are being eroded and destroyed today. The world is quickly turning into a cacophony of unprovable "rights" claims, with everybody simply using power to assert their demands, and nobody able to explain why everybody else owes them the "rights" they want.

[Immanuel Can]

Your challenge is pointless because of you, not because of anyone else.

Ad hominem.

Not philosophical, and really, not interesting.

[Science Fan]

I know I stated about a month ago I was done posting on this forum, but, the other philosophy forum I left to proved to be lacking in any actual philosophical discussions. So, I'll give this forum one more try, and hopefully certain people will refrain from engaging in childish personal attacks.

IC recently stated something that is factually false. His claim is that there is a "Judeo-Christian ethics" that the USA was founded on. This is actually quite shameful in light of the actual historical facts. Historically, the USA consisted of state theocracies, every single one of which promoted laws that discriminated against Jews. In fact, at some of the state constitutional conventions, when deciding on whether they would adopt the US Constitution, many representatives at the conventions objected because the US Constitution did not establish any religious test for holding federal public office. This alarmed a lot of the Christian population because they feared a Jewish president. There are actual records regarding these "concerns" which shows Christian bigotry against Jews, and not something that is now referred to as "Judeo-Christian" ethics having been present from the beginning of the nation. Modern-day Christians simply wish people never discover that they started off in America by persecuting Jews, denying them the right to hold state public office in numerous states, and no where did Jews have equal rights.

As far as the additional myth that rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, is founded on Christianity, think again. There is absolutely nothing in the Christian Bible that supports the idea of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is at odds with "blasphemy." In fact, before the First Amendment was applied to the states, which did not occur until the late 1940s, many people were prosecuted for "blasphemy" and sent to prison. The historical evidence shows, quite clearly, that when Christianity is used as the basis for our laws, we end up with an intolerant society that persecutes people for speaking their mind, and also persecutes religious minorities.

Good thing we can rationally support such things as the right to freedom of speech, while theists cannot offer up any rationally coherent argument for basing morality on the Bible. Appeals to ancient history and to religious authorities does not provide any rational basis for accepting such claims. "God said so" is simply not a rational argument for doing anything, much less for the establishment of a national legal system. Iran adopts this theistic view, "because Allah said so," and they hang gays from cranes, and persecute people for voicing unpopular opinions. "Because God said so" is eerily similar to "because our dictator said so." It's an argument that only a fascist could support.

[Immanuel Can]

IC recently stated something that is factually false. His claim is that there is a "Judeo-Christian ethics" that the USA was founded on.

I did not, in fact, state this.

I stated there was a thing called a Judeo-Christian ethic. I made no claims about its historical relationship to the USA.

I'm merely acknowledging that in terms of ethics, Christians owe a great debt to the Jewish tradition. And that is a historical fact. I see no reasonable likelihood it can be disputed.

There is absolutely nothing in the Christian Bible that supports the idea of freedom of speech.

Also, I did not say these words. I said, "human rights."

And that is also hisorically verifiable. Just look at John Locke's "Toleration" treatises, and you'll see it demonstrated very clearly.

I trust that clears that up. I'm happy to be called on something I actually misspoke on, or a position I failed to understand completely, if it can be shown what I missed. But I trust you won't anticipate me defending versions of things I did not actually assert. That would be unreasonable, of course.

[Lacewing]

Your challenge is pointless because of you, not because of anyone else.

Ad hominem.

If you choose to view it that way, you are really missing the whole point and value of it. It is a challenge to the language and terms you expect other people to use to convince you of anything. Yet, if your language and terms and beliefs are so limited, and your attachment so great to what you think you know, there is nothing anyone can say to show you beyond what you so completely identify with and restrict reality to.

Not philosophical, and really, not interesting.

It is absolutely philosophical (whether or not you can grasp it), and you are missing a great deal!

[Science Fan]

I'm not sure why this did not previously post. Locke was a Christian theist who denied freedom of speech for atheists. He also denied freedom of conscience for everyone, which is what the idea behind the so-called "inalienable right" was all about ---- even the person holding the right cannot get rid of it. This is why Christians deny people the dignity of choosing their own death when they are terminally ill.

One cannot advocate for "Judeo-Christian" ethics when the historical facts are that Christians abused Jews for well over a century in the USA.

[Science Fan]

Notice the moral contrast between atheists and theists --- theists like John Locke deny atheists freedom of speech, while atheists allow everyone freedom of speech. Who is morally superior? Christians fought against freedom of speech the whole way. The First Amendment was established, solely at the federal level, so that the federal government could not interfere with any state theocracy. It was only after the federal government grew in size that the First Amendment eventually applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. That occurred in the late 1940s. So, we know for an historical fact that the Christian majority in the USA never wanted freedom of speech for people in general.

[Immanuel Can]

Your challenge is pointless because of you, not because of anyone else.

Ad hominem.

If you choose to view it that way...

Don't have to "choose." By definition, that's what it is. No choice involved. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

[Lacewing]

Ad hominem.

If you choose to view it that way...

Don't have to "choose." By definition, that's what it is. No choice involved.

Yep... that's where you're at.

[Immanuel Can]

...theists like John Locke deny atheists freedom of speech, ...

Show it, please. I am unaware he made any such argument.

...while atheists allow everyone freedom of speech.

Which ones did? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?
And for those that did not, what feature inherent to Atheism made it necessary that they should have done so?

Who is morally superior?

"There is none righteous, no, not one." That's the Biblical claim. Moral superiority, or the claim of it, is no part of the Christian claim.

The First Amendment was established, solely at the federal level, so that the federal government could not interfere with any state theocracy. It was only after the federal government grew in size that the First Amendment eventually applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. That occurred in the late 1940s. So, we know for an historical fact that the Christian majority in the USA never wanted freedom of speech for people in general.

Why are you still talking about American history?

I made no statements about it at all, and in fact have no stake in it. So if you're still writing that to me, then that's as pure "straw man" fallacy as one can ever find.

It's almost like you've heard somebody else's argument somewhere, and you're supposing I care to take it up on their behalf, so you can have your say. But I cannot suit your purposes: I do not know the position of the imaginary interlocutor with whom you're having this debate, and I have no interest at all in revisionist history by anyone -- American or anything else.

I'm afraid you're on you own for this fight. Good luck...maybe somebody else will care enough to pick it up. That sure isn't me.

[Immanuel Can]

Yep... that's where you're at.

Ad hominem.

You should really read that link.

[Science Fan]

IC: Oh, the old "associate atheists with Stalin trick." How about we mention Charles Manson, the BTK killer, and other mass murderers were Christians?

Stalin never murdered anyone in the name of atheism, but in the name of communism, which remains as a theistic belief. Go look up how Marx claimed an historical role being played out and history was headed for a certain end-state? That's a religious belief. Just because it is not a Christian religious belief does not mean it is not religious. Marxism has all of the hall-marks of a religion, including the God of Hegel.

[Science Fan]

IC: I see you now running away from history, which is at least a sign that you know Christian history is not something that Christians can take any pride in. It undermines your claim because it proves with empirical evidence that Christianity is not where we have gotten our modern-day morals from in the USA. We have our present legal system, with such things as freedom of speech, because we fought long and hard against Christian bigotry to get it.

[Lacewing]

You should really read that link.

You should really look at the bigger picture.

[Harbal]

I know I stated about a month ago I was done posting on this forum, but, the other philosophy forum I left to proved to be lacking in any actual philosophical discussions.

So they couldn't stand you there either, what did you expect?

So, I'll give this forum one more try, and hopefully certain people will refrain from engaging in childish personal attacks.

Now that's what I call optimism.