"A Week" March 20 - 26

[Matthew0059]

Mightynancy, my point was that we know absolutely how an atheist can do good things, but they are absolutely mistaken. You seem to be saying that the relativistic viewpoint is viable ("one can use reason to be good"). I am saying to you that relativism (that relies heavily on sophistic reasoning) cannot lead to goodness- we know that the atheist is ignorant of the very thing that allows him to be good (the Light of Christ)! In fact, relativistic philosophy and cultural relativism rely completely on the atmosphere in which one was raised, as has been pointed out by others. Relativism requires absolute ideals to work- and relativism begins to tear down those absolute ideals as time goes on and popular sympathies change.

I am concerned about the penchant you seem to have for justifying the relativist viewpoint. We can agree on the rest.

[Faded]

The problem with making generalizations about atheists is that there are so many types of atheists. There are those who believe it is immoral to insist that there is a God, which they view as perpetuating a lie, and those folks are very determined to prove to anyone who cares to see that they can be a good person while rejecting the existence of God at the same time. In my experience, these are a a small minority among atheists.

The greater bulk of atheism is a jumbled mess of things.

• Some saw terrible tragedy strike in their life and decided that God doesn't exist because if there was a God, he would never allow horrible things to happen.
• Some are atheists of convenience who are really more interested in discarding the rules and consequences associated with God than they are in discarding God (but they have to put a good face on things if/when challenged.) .
• Some of them focus on cases where horrible things were done in the name of God and religion and decide the world would be a better place without religion. In the face of overzealous religion at it's worst, these sorts of atheists tend to seem like the voice of reason in the midst of insanity in far too many cases. Take the recent massacre of UN workers in Afghanistan for example. The protesters were angry that Rev Terry Jones held an official Koran burning in Florida, but an atheist might easily point out, "The morality of the Judeo-Christian God is less than useless when all it takes is a book burning halfway around the world to incite you to murder." Every world religion has seen similar idiocy in it's history, so no religion gets to say "that doesn't apply to us."

It's the last case of atheism that is the hardest to rebut. It creates a complete role reversal: Religion is the morally reprehensible entity, therefore ending all religious belief would make the world a better place.

I'm not saying any of these ideas are valid, but it's worth a thought. Atheism is simply too inconsistent to make any blanket generalizations stick.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Faded

[Matthew0059]

The problem with making generalizations about atheists is that there are so many types of atheists. I'm not saying any of these ideas are valid, but it's worth a thought. Atheism is simply too inconsistent to make any blanket generalizations stick.

The foundation of relativism (or at the least agnosticism) is almost always there, though. Blanket statements can be bad, but not when applied to a blanket principle.

That's how I see it, anyway. Let them do as they wish on Facebook.