Church-Burning Video Used to Promote Atheist Event

_{Gil Dodgen

January 27, 2012

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s another delightful offering from the compassionate, tolerant, inclusive, diversity-promoting atheist community. As usual, it includes a plug for “evolution.”

…the lineup includes atheist speakers, a rapper who raps about evolution and a “kiddy pool” where boys and girls will be able to scientifically walk on water.

There will also be a number of bands performing – the most famous of which is Aiden. They are featured in a video on the “Rocky Beyond Belief” website that includes images of burning churches and bloody crosses.

Among the lyrics: “Love how the [sic] burn your synagogues, love how they torch your holy books.

The group is no stranger to strong lyrics. Another of their songs says, “F*** your God, F*** your faith in the end. There’s no religion.

From a link in the link above:

The band Aiden has announced it will be playing the atheist festival “Rock Beyond Belief” at Fort Bragg in March 2012, as the lead-in act to Richard Dawkins, the main attraction at the “concert.”

As we all know, Christian believers are mysteriously the primary targets of denigration and vilification on the part of militant atheists (always, of course, in the name of the high virtues they proclaim: tolerance, diversity, etc. — yawn).

I have a modest proposal for the band Aiden:

Why not be a little more specific in your lyrics and see what happens? How about:

“F*** Jesus, F*** the Bible, F*** Christians”
“F*** Mohammed, F*** the Koran, F*** Muslims”

The results of this experiment would be interesting to observe.

Comments

KF,
Pardon, but I find the above unacceptable.
We find your refusal to retract your false accusation against Aiden unacceptable.
The problem with evolutionary materialism, as repeatedly highlighted — and just as repeatedly ignored, brushed aside, distorted and even angrily dismissed — is that it has no foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT.
Neither does theism. Theists and atheists are in the same boat -- we have to use our minds to decide what is right and wrong. Theists don't get off the hook by appealing to an outside authority. As I put it on another thread:
...suppose that we did somehow obtain certain knowledge of what God wants us to do. We would still have to ask ourselves, “Is it morally right to do what God is asking me to do, or am I morally obligated to disobey?” For example, who among us would fail to ask ourselves that question if God asked us to kill one of our children, as he supposedly asked Abraham? It comes down to individual judgment. Each of us is responsible for his or her moral decisions, and we can’t pass the buck to any external authority — not even to God.
champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, no, you are suggesting rules for cooperation among those who do not have disproportionatre power. This has no grounds for ought that are beyond might and manipulation make right. As has been repeatedly pointed out, explained, and grounded, but ignored. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, the case you need to answer was presented above this morning, here. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Ch: The very comparison of core morality to a game that we arbitrarily set up the rules for, makes the point. Morality is most important exactly at those times and places where there is not a consensus like we can look up in the rules of Poker. And, evolutionary materialism starts from matter, energy, space and time, and sees chance and necessity as successively evolving such from hydrogen to humans. Along that line, what foundational IS is there that warrants OUGHT beyond might and manipulation of sentiments and perceptions? the answer is obvious, and sadly portentous. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

We’re not talking about bacteria right? I’m curious now about when in the course of evolution were morals created? As systems became more deeply nested and there were more outputs when did morality begin? And why in the materialist framework ‘morals’ are related to living things only, if they are? How about animals today, are some pre-moral, some developing morality? Not that they have to go that way, evolution is unguided after all. If everything went extinct but one individual would the golden rule exist anymore?
I'll give you my opinion, for which there is some good experimental evidence. I think several things go into the mix. One is living in social groups. One is what we call "theory of mind" capacity - the ability to see what something looks like from another's point of view (literally and more abstractly), and probably starts from the capacity to understand where another individual is looking. There is evidence that our closest primate relatives have this capacity in some measure. One is language - the capacity to reify, abstract concepts, for example, rules of behaviour, by means of symbolic representation. One is empathy, which probably goes with a long child rearing period. One is the capacity for goal directed behaviour, i.e. planning capacity. Again, we share this with our nearest primate relatives. As you say, evolution is unguided, in the sense that it doesn't have a goal (but not unguided in the sense of not having a "groove" as it were), so it's possible that some species may develop more advanced morality, while others may go the other way, if going the other way happens to promote the perpetuation of the population. However, being able to live in cooperative groups has proved a huge advantage for our own species, so it may well prove the same for others, in which case, morality may well emerge in those other species. There is some indication that this may be happening in some primates who seem to practice "punitive" action against "cheaters".Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, Pardon, but I find the above unacceptable. I must ask, how many times do you have to be confronted with the direct statements, that:
a: it is a specifically foundational Judaeo-Christian belief that all men have implanted conscience-based principles of morality, part of how we are morally governed? (Have you read Hooker's argument used by Locke as he grounded principles of liberty, which has been ever so often cited, even in this thread?) b: It is also similarly a foundational Judaeo-Christian understanding that we are all finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed? thus, we all face the challenge to live up to the principles we know or should know. c: thus also it is a foundational principle, that we are called to turn f4rom the wrong to the right, seeking God's help to walk in the right?
Accordingly, and as has been repeatedly pointed out in the teeth of the rhetoric of the loaded and ad hominem laced strawman that has appeared ever so often in this thread, the issue is not whether atheists can think or feel or even act morally. So can all men of sound mind. That is what makes us morally responsible. The problem with evolutionary materialism, as repeatedly highlighted -- and just as repeatedly ignored, brushed aside, distorted and even angrily dismissed -- is that it has no foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT. Once no such IS is in the foundations, it cannot then later arise in the system. Consequently such materialism erodes the basis for moral consensus and insight, if left unchecked, at individual, institutional and cultural levels alike. For, as thinkers have known since Plato, it -- by strong tendency -- leads to radical relativisation of morality and to the rise of the de facto principle that might and manipulation make 'right,' and so by manipulation of the community one changes even core morality. for there is nothing more to it than community and personal sentiment, in the end. Thus, such an ideology, agenda and underlying worldview, pose moral hazards to our civilisation. And, as Kant's categorical imperative reminds us, morally unsound behaviours have destructive, chaotic consequences for a civilisation. As we can see in the case of Aiden, and all around us in our current age. Which is the root reason for the polarisation this thread exhibits, and the tone of accusation against those who are pointing out what is after all pretty easy to show: unless the foundations of a worldview warrant OUGHT, then there will be no is that will by magic emerge later on to objectively warrant OUGHT. We need to do some serious rethinking about where our civilisation is headed, why. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

KF,
The evidence, with millions of cases in point currently and across time — obvious, save to the jaundiced — is that serious commitment to God, rooted in penitence, consistently has life-transforming effects.
Evidently those "life-transforming effects" aren't always positive, as you and Gil have demonstrated with your religiously motivated, dishonest accusation against Aiden.champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Sadly probably not true. You probably would be more frightened by the Richard Dawkins crowd. That's why the kind of stuff that I'm reading from kf on this thread makes me so cross. It's sheer scare-mongering - stoking fear of "the other". Whereas it is perfectly true that gangs of people self-identifying as Christians have stalked and murdered homosexuals, abortion providers, non-Christians, and Christians of some other denominations. I am not aware of any incident of Dawkins supporters doing anything like this.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

I'm not seeing it. You don't seem to have addressed my points at all.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Witty, but not true.butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

EL, this could be the worst defense of the moral-materialism position ever. 23.1 and 24.1 really make the case against you.butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: MF, unfortunately appeals to exactly the conflation of "Religion[s]" that plays so central a role in Aiden's smear tactics, as was pointed out and corrected above. The evidence, with millions of cases in point currently and across time -- obvious, save to the jaundiced -- is that serious commitment to God, rooted in penitence, consistently has life-transforming effects. Right now, I am dealing day to day with a murderer, who is a shining case in point. And, this is not exactly the first murderer I have known whose life has been transformed by penitent faith in God through the risen Christ, leading to discipleship. The refusal to acknowledge easily accessible evidence of transformation, of literally millions, is absolutely telling, and trips a huge red warning flag. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

And kairosfocus hasn't retracted his false accusation against Aiden, either. The irony is that his own behavior is yet more evidence that there is no correlation between being a Christian and behaving morally.champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

KF,
...if one were walking down a dark street in a tough part of town late at night, and four hulking young men suddenly turned up behind you, you would be greatly relived to learn that they were just now coming out of a Bible study.
Not if you were homosexual. On the other hand, you would be relieved to learn that they were just coming out of a Richard Dawkins lecture -- regardless of your sexual orientation.champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, Have you not noticed the reference to 2350 years worth of the history of ideas as a point of comparison, which has been repeatedly highlighted in this very thread, complete with pointers to where one can get no less than five from- the- horse's- mouth exemplars, including institutions of science and of science education? (With two or three others in the near vicinity, one a Nobel Prize holder.) In short, I have not appealed circularly and question-beggingly to my own presumed authority, but have (again) given a pointer to evidence that -- repeatedly --has not been adequately reckoned with; that is, any circles involved are informative, not vicious. On the other hand, you have tried to dismiss by pointing to the man rather than the merits, which, ironically IS question-begging as well as an implied ad hominem. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

kf, there is no "consistent refusal" to address this question. It has been addressed repeatedly, you just don't accept the answer. It is perfectly possible to derive the golden rule - do as you would be done by, from the simple need of humans to live harmoniously in groups as social animals. It does not require the assumption of a Divine Creator to figure out. It is objectively true that if that rule is maintained, we all benefit from the resulting benefits of peaceable society. That's why we formulate laws - formal and informal - based on it, and punish, in various ways, those who transgress them, in order to maximise compliance with it, and minimise harm caused by those who transgress it. In other words, your insistence that an a-theistic world view is inherently amoral is simply wrong, as we have shown over and over again. Yet you repeatedly make the same false claim.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

By its nature, the concept we’re talking about, ‘REAL morality’, would have to come externally from our ‘system’ (universe) to be real in the sense that it actually exists...
Do you think that the rules of poker came from outside of the universe, or is it just that we don't play REAL poker?champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

It is quite evident that advocates of evolutionary materialism are unable to objectively ground OUGHT on the ISes they are willing to accept
No, it is not “quite evident”. It’s not even clear what you mean.
It’s not ‘quite evident’ – It’s self evident.
Not to me.
We advocates of what you call “evolutionary materialism” are quite capable of figuring out what is ethical from what isn’t. And I’d argue, do a better job, most of the time, the poster child being the absurd religious condemnation of homosexuality. We, on the other hand, understand that at the heart of ethics lies the principle of the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm. And from our need to live in social groups, the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would be treated. That is why we do not condemn homosexuality, and is one of the many reasons why atheists (in common with many Christians) are often so morally indignant at the so-called moral edicts from the more conservative regions of theism.
That’s rich. But what you think and I think just don’t matter, objective is the point. You say do no harm I say do as you like – which one is true?
Of course what you and I think matter. Both of us agree that we should try to do no harm, right? It's just that some people, instead of figuring out what causes harm, turn to some arbitrarily chosen book, and if it says "do not have homosexual sex" decide that trumps "do no harm". In other words, their subjective choice of allegedly morally authoritative book trumps the self-evident precept that enables do as you would be done by, which is then is undermined by this arbitrary edict.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

We're not talking about bacteria right? I'm curious now about when in the course of evolution were morals created? As systems became more deeply nested and there were more outputs when did morality begin? And why in the materialist framework 'morals' are related to living things only, if they are? How about animals today, are some pre-moral, some developing morality? Not that they have to go that way, evolution is unguided after all. If everything went extinct but one individual would the golden rule exist anymore?butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Kindly see the discussion here above. Do, forgive a mangled block quote.kairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Observe the consistent refusal to ask, what is the foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT, given the problem that if it is not there at the foundation of the worldview, it will not enter later, thanks to what is it called, Hume's guillotine? Of course, though Barb has identified some extremes, and we all need to reckon with the impact of implanted conscience on restraining from full acting out, the trends that a worldview that is inherently amoral will naturally open up, are not heading where we need to head. This is a concern that has been on the table since Plato, and the case in view in this thread, Aiden, is yet another case in point on why. And, the issue on the impact of religious affiliation on morality is not that of whether one names X or Y as religion, but the actual living out of discipleship as a lifestyle. The classic reply to the sort of flawed or misleading studies above, is the remark by was it Rev Jesse Jackson, that if one were walking down a dark street in a tough part of town late at night, and four hulking young men suddenly turned up behind you, you would be greatly relived to learn that they were just now coming out of a Bible study. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

It is quite evident that advocates of evolutionary materialism are unable to objectively ground OUGHT on the ISes they are willing to accept No, it is not “quite evident”. It’s not even clear what you mean.
It's not 'quite evident' - It's self evident.
We advocates of what you call “evolutionary materialism” are quite capable of figuring out what is ethical from what isn’t. And I’d argue, do a better job, most of the time, the poster child being the absurd religious condemnation of homosexuality. We, on the other hand, understand that at the heart of ethics lies the principle of the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm. And from our need to live in social groups, the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would be treated. That is why we do not condemn homosexuality, and is one of the many reasons why atheists (in common with many Christians) are often so morally indignant at the so-called moral edicts from the more conservative regions of theism.
That's rich. But what you think and I think just don't matter, objective is the point. You say do no harm I say do as you like - which one is true?butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Barb Lizzie has made most of the relevant points but let me stress that this argument from numbers of people killed is daft. The question is does religion make people less evil? Leaders both religious and otherwise have massacred in large numbers throughout history. The 20th century despots just had more opportunity - more people to kill and more resources to do it. Do you really think the first Crusaders stopped massacring the Muslims of Jerusalem because their Christian morality told them they had exceeded their quota?markf_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

By its nature, the concept we're talking about, 'REAL morality', would have to come externally from our 'system' (universe) to be real in the sense that it actually exists - like harm, honor, compassion, hatred - morals - are REAL things. And the concept is interactions between collections of atoms (persons, although at most living things - I don't think we're going to talk about moral rocks). The players in the game can't all define their own relationships with each other, there has to be an 'official'. An objective - and that means REAL in this case, I think - rule about interactions in the system have to come from outside the system.butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

butifnot:
Matter and energy could not admit of any REAL morality... It’s just atoms in motion.
What's the missing ingredient that would make 'REAL morality' possible?champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Matter and energy could not admit of any REAL morality. You and me can derive any nice 'golden rules' etc, social living good behaviors, whatever. So what? It's just atoms in motion. No matter how deeply nested the system is.butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Liz,
I’m trying not to mention testosterone.
But not trying very hard. Must be the estrogen. :-)champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

I was talking with my son (18) about this over lunch at Starbucks (our weekly treat, before grocery shopping). He made the point that in his peer group, the most conscientious tended to be the ones who took religion seriously, whether to adopt it or explicitly reject it. He thought that the less conscientious (the ones who cared less about doing the right thing) were both nominal theists or not-really-thought-about-it ones. I think he has a point. It's not religion that makes people moral so much that morality causes some people to subscribe to religion and some to some other ethical system. Sadly, ideology itself - people trying to act in the name of what they think is right - often leads to atrocities. Theism is not immune, nor is political or national ideology. And a heck of a lot of it has to do with our drive for power. I'm trying not to mention testosterone.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Barb, That's pure blind prejudice, and it completely ignores the facts. You should be ashamed of yourself. Unlike you, William Lobdell actually bothered to find out whether Christians behave better than atheists. He describes his findings in his book Losing My Religion:
It was discouragingly easy — though incredibly surprising — to find out that Christians, as a group, acted no differently than anyone else, including atheists. Sometimes they performed a little better; other times a little worse. But the Body of Christ didn’t stand out as morally superior. Some of my data came from secular institutions such as the Pew Research Center and the Gallup Poll, but the most devastating information was collected by the Barna Group, a respected research company run by an evangelical Christian worried about the health of Christianity in America. For years, George Barna has studied more than 70 moral behaviors of believers and unbelievers. His conclusion: the faith of Christians has grown fat and flabby. He contends that statistically, the difference between behaviors of Christians and others has been erased. According to his data and other studies, Christians divorce at about the same rate or even at a slightly higher rate than atheists. White evangelical Christians are more racist than others. Evangelicals take antidepressants at about the same rate (7 percent) as others. Non-Christians are more likely to give money to a homeless or poor person in any given year (34 percent) than are born-again Christians (24 percent). Born-again Christians are taught to give 10 percent of their money to the church or charity, but 95 percent of them decline to do so. The percentage of Christian youth infected with sexually transmitted diseases is virtually the same as the rate among their non-Christian counterparts. Ronald J. Sider, a professor at Palmer Theological Seminary and an evangelical, covers a lot of these statistics and more in his 2007 book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience. “Whether the issue is divorce, materialism, sexual promiscuity, racism, physical abuse in marriage, or neglect of a biblical worldview, the polling data point to widespread, blatant disobedience of clear biblical moral demands on the part of people who are allegedly are evangelical, born-again Christians,” Sider writes. “The statistics are devastating.” …And I already knew that the majority of Catholics ignored some of the church’s basic teachings. A recent poll co-sponsored by the National Catholic Reporter found that the majority of America Catholics believed they did not have to obey church doctrine on abortion, birth control, divorce, remarriage or weekly attendance at Mass to be “good Catholics”. Catholic women have about the same rate of abortion as the rest of society, according to a 2002 study by Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. And 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used a modern method of contraception, according to a 2002 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I just couldn’t find any evidence within Protestantism or Catholicism that the actions of Christians, in general, showed that they took their faith seriously or that their religion made them morally or ethically better than even atheists. Losing My Religion, pp. 204-207
champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

“Atheists are no more nor less evil or amoral than anyone else, and ugly bigotry is found on both sides. Please let’s stop.” Jeffrey Dahmer, a convicted serial killer and cannibal, was an atheist. Find me a religious/Christian counterpart. Pol Pot, Lenin, and Stalin were atheist dictators who systematically murdered millions of their own people. Find me a religious/Christian counterpart. Difficulty: The Crusades killed far fewer than these atheists did, so it’s not much of a real comparison.
Barb, I'm not going to trade genocides with you. A genocide that only kills half a million people is not less evil than one that kills 6 million people. Both religious and non-religious movements have been responsible for heinous atrocities, and I see no evidence that one is any less likely to commit such atrocities than the other. What seems to be the common factor is tribal ideology, religious, in the case of the crusaders and many others, political in the case of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. The nubmers of dead are irrelevant, your Jeffrey Dahmer example shows. And if you want a religious example of a Jeffrey Dahmer, it is not unusual for serial killers to be under the delusion that they are acting on instructions from God. Peter Sutcliffe was one. In other words, religious belief offers no protection against evil-doing, any more than atheism does. And that's before we even consider the human sacrifices that were offered to gods.
The problem is that atheists do not lay claim to any objective standard of morality. Christians may lay claim to biblical standards of morality; Muslims the Koran, Jews to the Torah, and so on.
I don't know what "objective standard of morality" means. I see nothing "objective" about the standards of morality outlined in those books - the very fact that there is more than one book is evidence that choice of book itself, must be subjective. And I don't think those books offer good moral guidance anyway. I'd say that most atheists, who come to their ethical principles by way of figuring out what causes harm and what doesn't, and what contributes to a contented society in which they can live happily have a way more "objective" standard. It certainly produces ethical principles on which most people can agree, regardless of cultural or religious backgrounds.
When you make up moral standards as you go along, you are then more evil and more amoral than those who have an objective standard to live up to. Why? Because you cannot differentiate right behavior from wrong behavior.
Except that atheists don't "make up moral standards as [they] go along". This is a myth, and a highly divisive one. It's high time it was busted.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply