Category: Uncategorized

This piece effectively connects the dots for those who don’t understand that the War on Terror already is World War III. Once you realize that Osama bin Laden is Trotsky, you will understand that his removal will not end it. The next question is: who is the next Lenin and where is he now?

TP writes: Would you flesh out why war has recently taken on a religious theme?

I think there are two reasons. First, the decline of Communism as an overtly expansionary force has removed the ideological impetus for many of the wars of the last seventy years. I haven’t taken the time to sit down and count, but there were probably between 50 – 75 Soviet-sponsored wars throughout the world during that period. While there were some religious clashes, such as India-Pakistan or possibly the Arab-Israeli wars – although this strikes me more as ethnic conflict, since Israel has been secular since its founding – the ideological Cold War dominated the globe. Now, other forces are coming to the fore.

Second, the world is witnessing the second wave of violent Islamic expansion, which began with the ripples in Kashmir. To understand this better, you must read more about the first wave, which started from an even smaller disturbance. Egypt, for example, would never have become Islamic and its culture might have proven much more similar to that of Greece were it not for its conquest in the first wave. I strongly believe that some form of religous conflict in Western Europe will begin in the next fifty years, and quite possibly in twenty. An Islamic France or Holland may sound impossible today, but it is quite thinkable, if not necessarily probable. In any case, it is certain that there are those who are working hard to make it so.

Attempting to convert the United States to Islam sounds like a gnat trying to swallow an elephant, but consider how Christianity has been systematically, if only partially, eradicated from society in the last fifty years. Rest assured that the jihadists have taken note of this, and hope to do likewise to the secular inheritors. The vaccuum, as they see it, only makes their task easier.

Space Bunny was going through my email, and she pointed out that these emails were a) the longest; b) the most thoughtful; and c) the least desirous of inflicting personal violence that I have received from an interest group whose ox has been gored. This speaks well of atheists in general, and really does not surprise me. There are a virtuous few; those who behave with genuine altruism, be it on an understanding of the optimal handling of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a genuine commitment to rational utilitarianism or simple goodness of heart. I may disagree with these atheists; they are also not those of whom I wrote. Some of you recognized this, most did not.

It is a pity that this virtue does not hold true for the vast majority of humanity, which is incapable of even beginning to address the required logic. Once Maughm’s due regard for the policeman around the corner is gone – or due regard for the Father in Heaven, if you prefer – I think that the less imaginative among the virtuous few will be very unpleasantly surprised to learn exactly what shadows lurk in the hearts of most men.

Perhaps you don’t need a God to prevent you from behaving in an immoral manner. I certainly do.

The great challenge of atheism is dealing with the fact that when ‘do what thou wilt’ is the whole of the law, most will choose to do “evil”, against which the atheist has very little to offer except abstract reason. As for me, I see this as a hot knife v. butter situation.

RR writes: If I understand your argument -if atheists have ethics different from yours, ATHEISTS BAD

Apparently you did not understand. As I expressly pointed out, atheists can be good, even according to various religious moralities. They simply have no reason for doing so – excepting the virtuous elite – and in so doing are irrational. Irrational isn’t bad, though it is a red flag to the atheist bull. Almost everyone is irrational, at least part of the time. I prefer to think of myself as extra-rational in certain areas.

if atheists have ethics similar to yours, ATHEISTS BAD (parasites, squash!)

Who said anything about squashing, or being bad? I just find it amusing and ironic that atheists often claim to have independently constructed independent moral systems that just happens to be identical to that of the culture in which the atheist is steeped. I am sure there are a few hard-core thinkers who actually have done so. They are the virtuous few for whom Socrates felt the secret knowledge was to be reserved. I simply don’t believe the vast majority, and I conclude that they are piggy-backing on something in which they don’t believe. They are Judeo-Christian atheists here, and they would be Hindu atheists in India. Had I used the term cultural moralists, very few people would have complained, but it is the same thing. I prefer the term moral parasite, as I do believe that the secularization of American society will eventually kill it. Could I be wrong? Sure, it’s possible.

Sorry if this humble parasite fails to do you justice. I saw Joe Sobran bring up a presumably old question: Is the Good good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? If the latter, then atheists might duplicate God’s reasoning and not be ethical parasites. If the former, then God could command all manner of atrocities, and they would be Good.

No apology needed. In any case, doesn’t being an atheist mean never having to say you’re sorry? I conclude the former. If the king makes the law, which requires a tax of five gold coins from every subject, it is a crime to fail to pay five gold coins. However, if the king decides that subject X does not have to pay the tax, the citizen commits no crime by failing to do so. If God is the authority, he alone defines the good. The Bible not only suggests but outright declares that God’s wisdom (and presumably his notion of good) is beyond ours. It is also pretty clear that God has commanded all manner of what we see as atrocities. Then again, if we’re living in some material form of a Matrix construct, as Christians believe, there are no atrocities per se, there is only the fundamental test. Can you kill a digital bit, even if it thinks it’s alive?

I imagine there will be many who say that they cannot believe in such a God. That’s fine. It is also irrational and irrelevant. The truth is what the truth is, regardless of what you or I believe. I happen to see more truth of the world as it is through the lens of the Bible than I do from the cockeyed, imaginative tangents of pseudo-science which emanate from the hard core of hard-won truth as understood by properly scientific knowledge.

I can’t decide if this sounds more like a psychotic theist or a bitterly disappointed one turned rational atheist:

The Heaven gave rise to everything to nourish men.

Men has not even a thing to thank the Heaven.

Kill kill kill kill kill kill kill.

– Zhang Xianzhong, subsequent to his mass depopulation of Chengu and Sichuan in 1640 AD

MS writes: it’s interesting to note that you choose to post to the easily attacked, hastily composed, ill considered kind of responses on your blog, but not to ones which are “good rejoinders” which ‘merit a response”…. But why waste bandwidth on “ill considered rants” and ignore a well-considered rebuttal? Afraid your readers might see the chinks in your armour?

No, not at all. I am absolutely sure that there are chinks in the armor, such as it is. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen more than a handful of “good rejoinders”. The vast majority consist of:

1) Some variant of the “I know you are but what am I” response.

2) Wild and hysterical name-calling. Consider that I’ve been e-assaulted by feminists, abortionettes, gays and the Council on American Islamic Relations. You can’t possibly think this will bother me in the slightest, can you? I haven’t even heard any creative insults. Very disappointing, especially from the self-appointed rational elite.

3) Assertions with no support.

4) An obvious failure to grasp the major points. Alternatively, a failure to address any of them.

5) A shocking degree of historical ignorance.

In fact, I’ve received more that have hit the quinfecta – assuming that’s a word – than merit any response. But I will certainly respond to two or three of the more thoughtful rejoinders once the flood ceases and I can select from the best of the lot. The easy ones demand no effort in responding, hence the speedy posts, but don’t think those were the bottom of the barrel. If I truly wanted to slag the godless, I’d post a few of the more gutteral rejoinders I’ve received from the incompletely evolved.

WK writes: You, sir, are an irrational ignoramus and you happen to be a christian. You write an article like this to evoke a response from your sheep that may not question you. You fall in line with the Falwell’s, the Robertson’s and many other right wingers who would like to impose their morality upon everyone. However, us Atheists who understand and can dissect your writings will always be here to question you and your ilk!

This is funny. The point that such morality is already self-imposed by the vast majority of atheists too lazy to develop an independent moral compass obviously escaped WK. The sheep who have responded to the provocation should be, well, obvious.

TP writes: Can you really justify this claim? “Most wars are not caused by religion. Read the Chronicles of the Assyrian Kings or Chinese history if you think war and religion are synonymous. War is about power, plain and simple.”

Yes, easily. None of the wars of the Roman Empire, the Persian empire, the wars between the Greek city-states, the wars between the various Chinese kingdoms (7?),the wars of Assyria, Babylon, the Mongols, the Huns or in pre-Reformation Europe (with the exception of the Crusades) were the least bit religious in nature. To make the statement that most wars are caused by religion, much less all wars, requires an ignorance of military history that is almost complete. Those that are religious, such as the Islamic conquests or the 30-Years War, are the exception.

Sparta and Athens weren’t at war because of the latter’s devotion to Athena, they were at war for control of the Greek peninsula. Likewise, the long rivalry between France and England had virtually nothing to do with anything religious – Joan of Arc notwithstanding, the war had far more to do with the English King’s legitimate claim to the French throne.

Even the Crusades were not completely religious in nature, or the Crusaders would not have allied with various Islamic principalities as they did. The fact that the same two examples are always cited while much more historically significant wars are ignored tends to prove this point. And consider the notion from an American perspective. Was World War I about religion? World War II? The Civil War? The Revolutionary War? The Spanish-American War? The Korean War? The Vietnam War? The War of 1812? The misnamed War on Terror, yes, I’ll give you that. This one’s about religion, for all that our leadership insists it isn’t.

The fact that only one of nine American wars have anything to do with religion should be your first clue. But the same holds true of nearly every other country’s history, with the exception of wherever Islam is involved. But, since Islam is a religion of the sword, this should come as no surprise.

JL writes (as did others): How come in this article of yours, you never mentioned Ayn Rand? She was an atheist and a modern philospher who had written about her strong moral convictions in the context of rational self-interest.

Two reasons. 1) I have a 750 word limit. 2) Ayn Rand’s objectivism is outside the mainstream of atheist thought. I respect her work – was a big fan of it in high school – but I think her line of thinking primarily applies to the elite who are capable of accepting Socrates’ virtuous knowledge. It’s beyond the vast majority, and therefore neither useful for them nor directly relevant to the subject of the article.

There is a Prisoner’s Dilemma case for an amoral embrace of the Golden Rule. But as a one-time amoral proto-elitist, I don’t believe the vast majority are capable of seeing this, let alone pursuing it. I know I wouldn’t have, being cut more in the Nietschean mode.

RH writes: Atheists are most definitely altruistic because they _do_ subscribe to and believe in a higher ethos and live by a higher moral standard. Something most religeous zealouts like you are jealous of. You can only lash out in diatribes to wrestle with the little voice inside your head that says “you’re wrong”. … You are also wrong in trying to blame atheists for evil. History shows that all of the worst atrocities ever committed in the world were by religeous fanatics and cultists like you. And for the most heinous religeous atrocities ever commited, the Jews and Christians are the most responsible. Whether as victims or persecutors the fact is without religios psychos like you the world would most definitely be a better place.

Yes, Hitler was an Episcopalian missionary prior to his career as a totalitarian dictator, wasn’t he? And the other 23 Socialist mortacracies of the 20th century were actually run, not by atheist Communists as everyone thought, but by a Catholic-Mormon cabal.

There was a lot more, but that last sentence is priceless. And ever so damning. Not hard to picture him shoving little children on the death trains, is it.