How many Atheists feel this way?
Those of you who do feel this way are one and the same as the religious extremists who want ‘their Man’ in power, In fact you justify them by your own position. You are just as Petty.
You have no higher ground… no Better vision.
Personally I want a Leader whom respects the inalienable and equal rights of Individuals, and understands that he himself has no special privileges which put him above the same laws and morality as every one else…. and Objectively speaking Few Atheists would be fit for duty because they believe Morality is merely Culturally relative… or Genetic predisposition (So they don’t believe in any higher power to answer to for their Corrupt deeds) , and they believe Mankind are merely smart monkeys…that came from fish…. that came from germs…. that came from a gigantic cosmic accident.
These materialistic Fantasies are incompatible with the Ideals of Inalienable rights, which are only Rational within a Theistic Cosmology.
Denying the Theistic Idea of Mans Fallen Sin Nature Atheists are prone to Utopian delusions.
Utopia being part of an evolutionary progression.
The following Dictators are just a handful of Atheists whom applied ‘Scientific Materialism’ to Politics and came up with… Communism and the Absolute Sovereign State.
Vladimir Lenin. ” Whatsoever Means Serves the Party State and World revolution is Moral”
Joseph Stalin. Russia
Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong) China.
Brother Number 1. Pol Pot. Cambodia
Kim Jong il North Korea.
Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe.
Helen Clark New Zealand. “The State is Sovereign”
Marxist Atheism.
Marxist Theology is clearly stated by Lenin, “Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze…1
“We Communists are atheists,”2 declared Chou En-lai at the Bandung, Indonesia Conference in April 1955. This Chinese communist leader captured the fundamental theological ingredient of Marxism-Leninism in one word: atheism. Today, Marxists-Leninists prefer two words: scientific atheism.
From the university days of Karl Marx to the present, official spokesmen for Marxism have been consistent about the content of their theology—that God, whether known as a Supreme Being, Creator, or Divine Ruler, does not, cannot, and must not exist.3
God is considered an impediment, even an enemy, to a scientific, materialistic, socialistic outlook. The idea of God, insists Lenin, encourages the working class (the proletariat) to drown its terrible economic plight in the “spiritual booze” of some mythical heaven (“pie in the sky by and by”). Even a single sip of this intoxicant decreases the revolutionary fervor necessary to exterminate the oppressing class (the bourgeois), causing the working class to forfeit its only chance of creating a truly human heaven on earth: global communism.
Marxist Ethics.
An ethical ideology that includes the inevitability of change and the evolution of morals leaves Marxists free to abandon generally accepted moral standards in pursuit of a greater good—the creation of a classless communist society. This pursuit requires Marxists to dedicate themselves to the cause and to use whatever action they believe will bring about a classless society. Any course of action then, no matter how immoral it appears to a world that believes in an absolute or universal moral standard, is morally good within the Marxist-Leninist worldview.
It isn’t atheism that is the problem it is the particular philosophy a person has that is the problem. Atheism is simply the non-belief in a deity, that is it, it doesn’t motivate a person to do anything. it is the person’s philosophy that motivates a person to act and in the case of a socialist or a muslim to impose their philosophy onto others.
Absence of belief in God is a valid explanation of dictatorship, just as not wearing a seatbelt is a valid explanation of motor vehicle fatalities.
Richard are you saying there can be no theistic dictators?
No, I’m suggesting that theism is like wearing a seatbelt.
Mark V., I do agree in ways with your statement, but in other ways not so much. You say that atheism is a non–belief in a deity, and that it does not motivate you to do anything. However, that brings forth a perplexing series of questions. Was atheism then the result, the finish line, of one individual’s personal philosophies and motivations? Is religion not the same way? For religion no matter what the category, results from one’s personal philosophies and motivations if brought down to its baseline. Therefore don’t they both have rudimentary philosophical bases? In ways aren’t they both philosophical? And couldn’t they both be considered parts of one’s “personal philosophy”?
For you Richard, I have another question. You say that theism is like wearing a seat belt. So to you I would ask these questions. Is it theism that is the seat belt or is it the morality bases behind theism that is the seat belt? Is theism a safety created by our own sensibilities and needs for morality? Or is that an atheistic viewpoint?
Personally, I think that both atheism and religion, (no matter what type of religion), are more similar than they appear. This may be why many individuals have turned to an agnostic belief system. But, 100 years from now, who knows what humankind will have come up with as ways to cope with their own realities, societies, and so forth. .
Awesome, man. You are the first ever person i meet, other than myself, to say than atheism is just the flip side of religious fanatism. Communism and any fanatic major religion are exactly the same, save some minor details: Instead of God you have The State, and any sacrifice, abuse or evil is justifiable to please that entity on top. Both are in the same total denial of any form of doubt or independent thought. And I could go on and on, but i think i make my point.
Me, on the other hand, like Einstein, I don’t believe in any religion’s God, but “in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”. But I think we both agree that love and truth are the ultimate reality. And i arrive to those conclusions from the standpoint of science, really, but the real, broad, humble, ever questioning science, not the pseudo-scientific DOGMA that one-eyed, materialist atheist “scientists” defend. Nice to meet you 🙂