MORALITY & ATHEISM

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/09-18-07.asp

Atheism cannot account for morality.

I did not accuse him of being immoral, but I did accuse him of borrowing his choice of moral living from the Christian worldview, the very worldview he denounces.

Like so many atheists, is an “interloper on God’s territory. Everything they use to construct his system has been stolen from God’s ‘construction site.’ The unbeliever is like the little girl who must climb on her father’s lap to slap his face. . . . [T]he unbeliever must use the world as it has been created by God to try to throw God off His throne

Incredibly, Harris seems to be oblivious to the fact that atheists—which he considers himself to be—have perpetrated far more evil and suffering in this world than hypocritical “Christians” ever have.
================================
Morality’s Reality

http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/moralitys-reality-atheists-generally.html
Atheists generally claim that morality is either derived form nature or is a human invention. This may be better stated as a human concept derived from nature through evolution. Deriving one’s morality from nature is a very dangerous thing to do. This natural morality would teach us that we are to fight our way to the top of the pack by tooth and nail (as some people do). We may even eliminate anyone who gets in our way. We would also murder other people and take what they have. Cannibalism and infanticide would be perfectly acceptable. Of course, cannibalism and infanticide is perfectly acceptable to some people.

Atheists besmirch Christianity for the dark episodes of its past, and rightly so. However, they must borrow Judeo-Christian morals in order to do so. Atheists generally believe that morals are completely situational, individually decided, or decided upon by a general consensus.

Some atheists argue that if morality is absolute why is it that all people do not follow the same morals. In fact, why is it even that not all Christians follow the same morals. These facts only prove that it is a personal free choice that determines whether people will follow the moral law. These facts do not prove that there is no moral law. It is illegal to drive through a red light (with the exception of emergency personnel) but people still run red lights. Does that mean that it is not illegal to run red lights? No, it merely means that people purposefully choose to break the law.

Moreover, does it really stand to reason that naturally occurring morals (or are they instincts?) would be to not steal, murder, lie, etc.? How would such actions give us an evolutionary edge? I could certainly succeed more in life if I simply stole whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, from whomever I wanted. I could lie to people in order to deceive them for my own personal gain. I could simply eliminate my competition—in procreation, in business, etc.
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/moralitys-reality-atheists-generally.html

Succinct Statements On Atheism
There are various sects within atheism. Generally speaking, atheism is a faith based belief system that holds to the belief that God does not exist.
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/succinct-statements-on-atheism-there.html

In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Atheism’s Faith Based
Dogmatic Beliefs

There is no authority higher than the individual; the individual is qualified to judge all things by his own wit.

There are no absolutes, except the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, no God, no supernatural, etc., etc.

Morals are relative or situational, except that which the individual atheist has concocted as a moral standard (since atheism is amoral they must borrow moral concepts from theistic worldviews).

http://www.squidoo.com/atheismsuccinctly

===============================
Your code is just Judeo-Christianity without the God

Hey Atheists … Get Your Own Moral Code.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2007/05/26/hey_atheists_%E2%80%A6_get_your_own_moral_code

The problem I have, however, with the atheists and their goodness and their morality claims is that all your ethical codes of conduct sound strangely similar to the principles inherent to the Judeo-Christian traditions. As a matter of fact, it seems as if you have bellied up to the Bible and are treating it like a buffet . . . passing up on the worship of the person and work of God, while taking second helpings of His moral principles, you duplicitous, little, evolved monkey, you.

One of my old seminary profs used to say that although such muddled atheists would never verbally affirm the existence of God, they would live according to some ethical standard, some moral capital they have milked from us theists.

If I were an atheist and I believed that God didn’t exist, that the Bible was a bunch of weird bunk written by religiously deluded men several thousand years ago, that Jesus was an apocalyptic, sandal-wearing, hippie forerunner of David Koresh who went around spitting out cheeky clichés who needed not to be heeded, but straight-jacketed or at least ignored—I sure as heck wouldn’t be borrowing any tidbits of His wisdom to navigate my life’s glide path.

That’s what I appreciate about the atheist and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Freddy is one of the few atheists who told his fellow atheistic buddies that they couldn’t have their cake and eat it, too. Nietzsche understood that we can either have God and meaningful morality, or we can have no God and thus, all life is meaningless and without any trace of hope . . . it officially sucks.


Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., speaks during a Capitol Hill news conference in this March 4, 2003, file photo. Secular groups applauded Rep. Pete Stark for publicly acknowledging he does not believe in a supreme being. The declaration, they said, makes the California Democrat the highest-ranking elected official _ and first congressman _ to publicly claim to be an atheist. The American Humanist Association took out an ad in the Washington Post on Tuesday, March 13, 2007, congratulating Stark's stance. (AP Photo/Terry Ashe, file)

Nietzsche came to the conclusion that if there is no God—or God is dead, as he put it—then he’s not going to live “as if” God is alive and His moral principles mattered. Yes,

claiming the title while schlepping to Judeo-Christian principles.brass-balled Friedrich said that the opposite of how the Bible says to live is the way we should live.

Once again, if I did not believe in God and I believed that the 10 commandments were BS and that faith, hope and love is for “the herd”, and that I came from nothing and I’m going to nothing and there is no ultimate eternal accountability for my actions—then I am sure not going to live like I did. Why do you do so, Mr. & Mrs. Atheist?

So what’s it going to be, my obstreperous amigos? Are you going to continue to blather on about there being no God and then live like there is one and that His word and will matters? Get consistent, why don’t ‘cha? Don’t live by the Ten Commandments. Don’t live by the Golden Rule. Don’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That’s our stuff. That’s the Judeo-Christian way. Get your own commandments that are logically deduced from the “no God” hypothesis, write your own unholy book and form your own civilization. Then let’s see how appealing it is, how it betters the planet and how far you’ll get.

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/06-18-07.asp
The Atheist Bible of Quotations

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/05-07-07.asp
The Atheist Debate
====================================
Founding Believers:
Examining the Faiths of the Founding Fathers

What were the religious beliefs of the founding fathers? Although it might appear to be an issue of only minor historical curiosity, that question is at the heart of many of the most contentious debates in the blogosphere. Countless arguments are centered on claims that the founders were either God-fearing Christians or Deistically-inclined secularists. But while historical documents are often mined for justifying quotes, few people bother to muster historical evidence to shore up their claims.

In his new book, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, historian David Holmes fills that void by providing a useful methodology for examining the relevant evidence. Holmes outlines four areas that can help us laymen determine whether the founding father was a Deist, an orthodox Christian, or somewhere in between:


1. Examine the actions of the founding father in the area of religion (e.g., Did they attend church regularly?).

2. Examine the participation of the founding father in a church’s ordinances or sacraments (e.g., Did they have their children baptized? Did they take Holy Communion?).

3. Comparison of inactivity versus activity in regards to religious involvement.

4. Examine the religious language used by the founding father.

Using these criteria, Holmes claims that the religious beliefs of the founding fathers can be broadly classified as:

Non-Christian Deists: Deists who rejected all sacraments and rarely attended church services.

Deistic Christians/Unitarians: Held Deistic beliefs, attended church regularly, but rejected the Lord’s Supper and confirmation.

Orthodox Christians: Accepted orthodox Christian beliefs, attended church regularly, participated in the sacraments and ordinances.

Let us apply the four areas to the pre-eminent founding father, George Washington:

1. Although he was raised in the Anglican Church, Washington was never confirmed.

2. Washington appears to have consistently refused to take Holy Communion, the principle means by which, as Holmes notes, “Anglicans displayed a commitment to Jesus Christ.”

3. Washington was active in the Episcopal Church, serving as both a vestryman and churchwarden. He attended services with some regularity (about once a month).

4. Washington consistently used Deistic language in reference to God. Although he often used such terms as “the Deity” and “the Supreme Being”, in his correspondence he only uses the name “Jesus Christ” once (in a letter to an Indian tribe).

A careful examination of the evidence would lead to the conclusion that Washington was, using Holmes taxonomy, a “Deistic Christian.”

Applied to other founding fathers, the list could be roughly delineated as:

Non-Christian Deists: Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen

Deistic Christians/Unitarians: Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe

Orthodox Christians: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon

With the exception of the handful of orthodox Christians, the majority of the founding fathers subscribed to a religious view that we would nowadays classify as Unitarianism. A rejection of Trinitarianism clearly puts one outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. We should not, therefore, claim that a historical figure is a “Christian” when we would consider someone who held those beliefs today to be a heretic. The leaders during the revolutionary era may have subscribed to a Judeo-Christian view of morality, but few of them were orthodox believers.

While we Christians can claim few founding fathers as fellow believers, the atheistic secularist can claim none. Not one of the significant leaders was an atheist, much less subscribed to the modern idea of secularism. Most appear to have been held to the classic “five points of Deism”:

1. There is a God.
2. He ought to be worshiped.
3. Virtue is the principle element in this worship.
4. Humans should repent of their sins.
5. There is life after death, where the evil will be punished and the good rewarded.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003358.html
=====================================
My post, not used.
<>So, over 200 years ago some of the founders were deists and some were not.<>
And yes it makes a difference in how we understand what motivated, influenced and helped shape this country. As I said, atheists can not afford to give any credence to Christianity, it would not be good for their agenda. See post 307.

Ahhh Thomas Jefferson! The patron saint of secularists and atheists.

The anti-religion crowd act as if he "alone" authored the Constitution and no other delegate had any imput or influence in the makeing of the document.

Even Thomas Jefferson who was certainly not a trinitrainn, or a believing orthydox Christian beleived that man and the state were not to be the finial abortors for securing out rights . With the influence of Christian doctrine Jefferson posessed a Chirstian worldview that by passed fallen, flawed man/state, and appealed to a higher power for securing our rights. The belief in God helped give us all the Bill
==================================
The "religious right" certainly inspires a lot of repugnance, but I don't think it's their general religious views (of the kind you discuss above) that is the reason. Rather, it's the hostility they express through those views, and their insistence that everyone else has to live by their (rather extremist) beliefs, that angers people.

With such a confident and sweeping statement you no doubt have dozens of solid, convincing examples of how this is true... right?

The point most conservative Christians have regarding the founding fathers is that they all held a philosophy and worldview that was strongly, powerfully founded on and informed by Judeo-Christian theism, which is in great opposition to most modern thinkers.
========================================
Christian Reconstruction
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0496.html