|
From:
http://www.atheistllloyd.com/debunking/AtheismsMoralLie.html
SML205
|
Atheism's Moral Lie?
What if Calling it a Lie is a Lie?
by Lloyd Harrison Whitling
 |
|
-------------Source for religious propaganda:
http://www.wdcmedia.com/pressReleaseArticle.php?ID=221
(snipped from that page)
Lori Lipman Brown, SCA
director, says, "We need to educate the public that people who don’t
have a god belief can be good neighbors and friends and moral and
ethical people." But this is a problem because atheists really cannot
claim to be moral or ethical because morals and ethics have their roots
in God’s law.
Those writers call "Moral Atheism" a
lie, and go downhill from an errant premise. Later:
"In reality, the Council’s curriculum
“The Bible In History and Literature”, which uses the Bible as the
student textbook and provides a 300-page Teacher’s Guide, meets all
Constitutional guidelines and never has been legally challenged
anywhere. It is taught as an elective in 377 school districts in 37
states, including Michigan . When atheist Arlene Marie was confronted
with her lie by the Detroit News, she said, “I misspoke. I should have
been more careful.”"
Maybe all true. If it is true, then she should have "been more
careful," at least in her choice of words that can be misconstrued. It
means all atheists, myself included, must constantly advance our knowledge
and continuously test the waters, whereas (as I will show) Xians have no
worry about that. We must "be more careful", also, to recognize that their
rebuttals will more often than not contain information that has been
manipulated or manufactured, and to not too readily agree with it. But:
When did that event take place? How do we check to make certain an
inappropriate slant has been applied to it? Then:
"When secular humanists, agnostics,
nontheists, and atheists reject God and yet claim to be moral and
ethical, they are first lying to themselves. If they reject the origin
of truth, morality and ethics, their version of truth and morality can
only be a subjective counterfeit. Trouble is, this brand of moral
relativism is being taught wholesale throughout the country. And the
atheists are organizing to get more of it. Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up
a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart
from it.” All the more reason the Bible should be used as a textbook in
every school."
God as a source of morality and ethics depends
too much on translation of ancient literature that, as a body, disagrees
with its own edicts. Xians do NOT carry a rug so they can bow to Mecca
five times daily. They do NOT attend Bar Mitzvahs at the synagogue of
their choice. They do NOT all go to mass or confession. They do NOT take
care of their "temples" so that they are healthier, slenderer and cleaner
than anybody else. That is only a beginning of their sins. How can
morality or ethics come from such a ragged lot as that? The answer is
easy, and part of their instruction set: They can lie to promote their own
beliefs, and maybe must lie to do so because we all know it's all based on
a lie from its foundations:
Lying and
the Bible, morality revealed as attributed to God:
(NIV
Bible)
Philippians 1:18 "But what does it matter? The important thing is that
in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.
And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice"
KING JAMES Version:
"What then? notwithstanding
every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I
therein do rejoice, yea, and I will rejoice."
Is that morality as atheists see it? I think not!
We are atheists because of our refusal to accept lies. Whether or not that
causes us to be honest in all areas of our lives cannot be said with so
little information about it, but it must have some influence and I think
the smidgeon of statistics available quite well bears that out. They will
lie for god and set a precedent for themselves to follow, so they will lie
about who is lying without the impulse of guilt. I believe that trains
them to remain guiltless in other areas, that it hardens them against that
emotional response. I believe most of us do follow the opposite set as our
own precedent, at least more strictly than do they, and that we can
demonstrate a higher set of standards in that respect, in the present, and
in statistical indications of worldwide past performance.
Let me refer you to:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
and you can take it from there.
and:
http://www.atheistlloyd.com/seculardirectory/ if
you need a good start |
|
Why do religionists feel like they
have a right to their arrogance so they can proclaim themselves keepers of
the only truth? It comes inherent to their creed:
From 1st Corinthians (NIV
Bible)
13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human
wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in
spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept
the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to
him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually
discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things,
but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment
And from King James, the same scripture:
13 Which things also we
speak, not in the words of which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the
Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual
judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
We must realize that most of Xianity
lends its greatest credence to the King James version, and will use that
for their arguments. The NIV interpretation presented here serves as
apologetics for the KJV.
Either way you see it, it represents
another token of Xianity's stance against natural science (from where they
glean the tendency to bust natural knowledge and interest as scientism
and downgrade its value and status in their own minds while still
greedily advantaging themselves with its accomplishments, since they have
none of their own to offer). This torpid, hallucinogenic view pits the
imagination against reality, and words against survival senses to promote
dogma derived from dreams.
Their scripture makes clear that
lying words are allowed, but that clarity renders suspect all else they
will say while struggling to maintain their stranglehold upon human
sanity. I propose
Colligion as a
unified approach for atheists and other secularists to use as a source of
information and increased understanding, a tool to develop a unified front
in this struggle to prevent another Dark Ages that threatens to engulf us
all. |
|
Return to DEBUNKING
Return to MAIN SITE
Return to TOP
What do Atheists have that Xians don't:
COLLIGION |
Copyright ©2007
by Lloyd Harrison Whitling. All rights reserved.
![[Click to see larger picture]](../images/DMmaeka001.gif)
"To deny a right to the experience of pleasure
is immoral unless that denial can be justified by a valid presentation of
how pain will result from that experience in an amount that would render
the expected pleasure regrettable; or, if it can be shown that pain will
be induced in others innocent of any involvement. The role of science in
moral issues should be to test that, predict that, and find harmless ways
to demonstrate that."
— L. H. Whitling in the eBook,
Secular Morality — |
This page last edited on
01/22/2008
|
