Atheists, Relativists, and Their Delicate Feelings

And now, with the aid of two articles, we examine what happens when people despise God’s Law-Word, and instead put their faith in the Loving Feelings of Powerful Men.

From Gorillas’ rights and atheist wrongs, we hear the atheist case for animal rights:

The moral emergency, Dawkins tells, is “speciesism”—the modern equivalent of racism or sexism. Since “Humans beings are not just like great apes, they aregreat apes,” the atheist figures that our rules forbidding discrimination against other humans should logically extend to other species, in this case gorillas.

Let us embark on a journey following the atheist’s logic. If, after all, we are great apes, then the brotherhood of man in reality is the brotherhood of all primates. But why stop there? If the alleged evolutionary tree extends not just through apes, but other animals as well, then why not have a brotherhood of all animals? Sound too extreme? I actually saw one responder on Dawkins’ site admit that the logic of it all had driven him to vegetarianism—and he was proud of it.

The logical question arises as to where do we draw the line? Since the evolutionary tree supposedly extends all the way back to plants, algae, and protozoa, then should not kill or eat those things either? Never kill a fly? Never chlorinate a pool? Never sanitize drinking water (that would kill trillions of living organisms—our living kin!)? Never stop streptococcussalmonella, or influenza(these are not infections, but family. Be a nice host, now—put out some cookies!)? Is this the great atheist commandment: never harm another living being, even if you starve or succumb to microbial infestation?

Dawkins is no dummy: He tackles the absurd argument for cabbages’ rights, too. He reasons, “We have kind of a continuum. There’s a sliding scale from gorillas and chimpanzees, being very close to us, and cabbages being a very long way away; and there’s no reason why we should erect a wall—we should erect a fence—at any particular place.”

Forgive me if I missed something obvious, but did he not just refute his own position? If the charge is that there is no rationale for not including all species—beast, broccoli and bacteria alike—in this morality called “speciesism,” and Dawkins answers this by saying there is no reason why we should draw a line at any given place in the evolutionary tree, then hasn’t he conceded the argument, not answered it?

Nothing left but pure emotion

Yes he has, and he realizes this. He just pulled the rug of reason out from under himself, banged his head on the floor of reality, and he leaves all of our heads spinning with the explanation that follows. His now reasonless rationale relies purely on emotions: “There are some animals that there is some reason to think can suffer—can think, can reason, can suffer emotion—which deserve, and must have, a greater moral consideration from us than other animals.” Note this well: Dawkins has admitted that the atheist’s case for morality is based purely on emotions.

I distrust a Ruling Establishment that had decided that my life, liberty, and property should be protected… because they feel good about it.

What happens when – not if – they change their mind?

(Especially when it comes to “Delusional religious people who Refuse to Conform…”)

I said it before, and I will say it again: Christians must rule Christians, or Christians will be ruled by those who despise them.

Thanks to the decentralizing & fragmentizing cultural, political, and economic effects of technology, Christian independence from hostile Secularist rule will grow more possible… then probable… then inevitable… over time. I think that we should start laying the foundations for our liberty now: in our own hearts and minds first, then in our churches, families, businesses, and local communities. The end point is political, but that comes only after the religious, cultural (“cult”), familial, business, intellectual, and regional roots have grown strong and deep.

Dawkins’s worldview of leveling the moral playing field does not elevate apes or other animals to the level of humans; it debases human rights to the level of apes. It makes the sanctity of life a purely pragmatic issue, and worse, emotionallypragmatic at that. More to the point philosophically, it is entirely arbitrary.

Our Master’s Goal: making their arbitrary will heard, while silencing God’s Law-Word: the only serious basis for peace and prosperity.

On the practical side, the “emotional” test fails just a miserably. In an atheist world, there is no authoritative reason to respect emotions or anything else. In a godless universe, a human is nothing more than a means to your ends, and an ape is food, clothing, merchandise, sport, or whatever you want it to be, regardless of how it my suffer emotionally in the process. It may suit us to protect an ape, or it may not; and that may change tomorrow.

For some odd reason, I refuse to base my liberty and freedom on the emotions of people who feel nothing but malice and contempt for me and mine.

By “emotions,” I believe Dawkins means something like sympathy or empathy. As a moral rule, this could best be formulated like this: “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you.” The atheist’s discomfort with this language comes from the fact that it is simply straight from the Bible. These are the very words of Christ in Matthew 7:12. Dawkins actually believes in this system of morals, but dares not mention its source, as it would reveal him as a thief of religious ideas. But he has to assume Christian morality in order to have any morality in his version of atheistic Darwinism.

Dr. McDurmon takes Dawkins’ words seriously, and treats the man in a generous and gracious light. I see a cloak of moralism until power is gained, which is when that moral blather will be dumped, and the unquenchable thirst to use political power to destroy his enemies will be demonstrated. “Same as always.”

(Ask any Marxist for details.)

Jesus concludes the passage, however, not by relying on emotions or by speaking of the interconnectedness of all species, but by saying, “for this is the Law and the Prophets.” The love of neighbor is part of the summation of God’s law which was revealed and given to man. Our respect for one another and the empathy that we feel comes from our being created in God’s image. We project that image onto others, even animals, because it is part of our moral conscience. We do not empathize with carrots or cabbages, because we cannot even begin to project the image of God onto those species.

Something to think about. I do admit, I like his rooting of righteous behaviour in the Law and the Prophets, as opposed to What Feels Good to Me Right Now.

Without borrowing moral rules from the Christian worldview, the atheist has no valid moral complaint. Christians can be outraged by such a murder, and they can demand justice based on the law of God. Dawkins can say nothing except about what he feels.

But if those feelings are backed by political power – with the sanctifying cover of the Will of the Majority, or (more common these days) the Will of the Legal or Scientific Priesthoods – then by definition those feeling should be obeyed.

I think that it’s a great time to point out that political power and military force is increasingly decentralized, and materialists who have nothing but feelings and force to rely on are going to face a lot of people who feel differently, and have the ability to defend themselves with increasing success.


In all of this, Dawkins’s vicious circle of moral reasoning never ceases to devour itself. It is with the very charge of wishful thinking, he critiques religious believers in his book The God Delusion: “Admittedly, people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true.”2

Yet, while this may be true of some believers, perhaps they just “feel emotional about it.” And thanks to Dawkins, now we can see that not only people of a “theological bent” are prone to such emotional wonderlands—celebrity atheists are, too. Except, for the atheist, he has no place else to go.

Well, they can always turn to the State and Votes of the People (or of the Courts) for validation.

We will see just how successful those idols will be, in the coming years of accelerating decentralization and increasing Power Elite failures.

From WJM on Arguing with Subjectivists:

Zeroseven said:  “Hi Vivid, I’m not much of a logician. Just give your practical example and we can explore it.”

If you are not going to explore a practical example logically, what use is exploring it at all? To share your personal feelings?

Here’s the problem in for those that wish to interact with Aleta, Zeroseven and Clown Fish: it is utterly unimportant to them that their worldview, statements and behavior be logically consistent. This is why it simply doesn’t bother them to admit that they are hypocrites – insisting on one thing (that morality is subjective) while behaving the opposite way (like morality is objective), and why they keep raising objections that have already been thoroughly refuted (like morality is subjective because people don’t agree about it).

They do not enter conversations with a critical rationalism that they may be wrong about morality being subjective; they “know” it is subjective. Since they are not “logicians” and don’t care if their logic is in error, what good is rationally demonstrating the logical errors in their views? Their idea that morality is subjective is not based on any logical examination of their worldview premises leading to inferences then to rational explanations for actual behavior; it is based solely on sentiment – an emotional rejection of what objective morality would mean (theism), and personal sentiments about other people and their behaviors.


Without believing there is a truth by which some views can be considered erroneous, there is no valid corrective by which one can think they should correct their view. It’s just their personal, sentimental view of how things are, and they do not have to justify that view because there is – in their mind – no objective truth to such matters, and logic is not an arbiter of any real, objective truths.

Lawless barbarians are lawless barbarians…

…and, under stress, as their ideals fail the test of reality, they will become violent lawless barbarians, soon enough.

Forewarned is forearmed: most importantly mentally and spiritually armed, and only secondarily (as the God-State falls apart) physically armed and able to protect life and property as well.

The site owner adds:

I would add that while what WJM says is true, the logical incoherence of their views does not stop them from advocating for the use of the State’s monopoly on violence to force you and me to abide by those views.  Does anyone else see the irony of a moral subjectivist forcing a Christian baker to use his artistic skill to celebrate a homosexual wedding?

Our Masters care little about logic and law and an objective, universal standard of justice – or equality under the law, for that matter.

It’s just about feelings – the feelings of the Right Sort, of course – as the legitimizing cover for their power.

This childish willfulness will reap its proper reward in due time: be ready when the chain of consequences arrives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s