E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Do we need an atheist President?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

An honest atheist would admit he believes that the Holocaust is not absolutely immoral, because without a Primary Source for morality there is no universal standard we can use to compare competing moral standards. This is a useful perspective to consider when evaluating a claim in a letter to the editor last week:

As an atheist, he will know when he gives the order to unleash the power of our nuclear arsenal, he is performing the final act for our species.

The author argues that since atheists do not have a hope for a life after this one, they will do everything they can to preserve life on this planet - unlike people who believe in life after death. But this is a simplistic comparison. Examine Christian theology, for example.

The Bible forbids us from committing murder. While Christians certainly believe in God's wrath and the lawful use of force, no Christian denomination endorses whole-scale slaughter of hundreds of millions, especially when those killed are noncombatants. This is based on the Biblical truth that we are created in the image of God, and exterminating human life unjustly is an attack on God's image. Some Christian friends of mine believe nuclear weapons themselves are intrinsically immoral because of the massive collateral damage a nuke would cause.

Our lives on this beautiful planet are not a dress rehearsal for some infinite fairy tale in the sky.

Our lives are what we make of them and this is the only life we will have.

This is another simplistic argument. In Christian theology, our lives - and how we live here - matter very much for our eternal life. Because Christians do not want to displease God (and because man is made in the image of God) sincere Christians would not support nuclear Armageddon. Assuming Christians would "push the button" for a nuclear war is not just simplistic - it is arrogant and bigoted.

The author would have us believe that atheism is somehow morally superior to religion (primarily to Christianity) because atheists focus only on this life. But from a truly atheistic standpoint, that is not a judgment that can be made because atheism is incompatible with universal moral standards. I would rather elect someone accountable to a higher power than someone who submits to nothing greater than humanity - because humanity has proven itself to be barbaric.


Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.


Post a Comment

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.