The Atheist Manifesto

I saw this on a forum in response to Atheist Trolls always bashing Catholics. It’s not authored by me, but I feel it is good enough for me to share. If you get hassled by trolls on religious themed forums, ask them to just recite the Atheist manifesto and leave. It goes like this:

"I am an atheist. I am a soulless biological robot. My mind is simply a computer executing subroutines comprised of instinct and learned behavior. Free-will is just an illusion. Love is also an illusion; it’s a perception created by chemicals in the brain designed to induce reproduction, cooperation, and nurturing behavior.

Morality is a man-made creation, and is subject to the changing whims of contemporary society. There are no absolute truths.

There is no “higher being” so there is no higher purpose to this existence. The purpose of my life is to eat, drink, breathe, sleep, urinate, defecate, and possibly procreate for 7.8 decades, which is the average lifespan of the human animal.

When I am on my deathbed, screaming in agony as cancer eats me from the inside-out, all there will be is “lights out” as my utterly pointless, irrelevant life comes to an end, and I take the final leap into oblivion.
I will then be planted in the ground where worms will feast upon me. This, in turn, will provide nutrients to the soil. Hence the goal of my pathetic existence was to be a bag of fertilizer, making me no better than an insect.

I will disingenuously blame all of the planet’s ills on religion, even though the worst crimes against humanity were committed by atheists.

Anyone who does not share this creed must be “stupid”, “insane”, or “less-evolved”, and therefore must be mocked, ridiculed, or sent to re-education camps until they do. If they continue to deny “enlightenment” they must be murdered for the greater good of the human race. My all-time atheist hero is Josef Stalin.

I swear this to be true, so help me Darwin."

What exactly does this accomplish for you? It’s a strawman of an atheist position. If you use this in a debate, it only serves to make you look disingenuous.

If you don’t like trolls in a discussion it’s best not to engage them.

Check out this thread on the temporary band on atheism being banned as a topic of discussion.

Isn’t that metaphor from Aristotles “Chain of Being” with “higher beings” having a closer position to Gof?

Although I am surprised that so many atheists are such idealists when the philosophy’s only logical conclusion is that of nihilism.

Sure hedonism “works” I guess for a time, that is until you eventually get bored with fornication which is inevitable.

And utilitarianism “works” economically, that until you inevitably get bored with money and the accumulation of things.

Once those pleasures have turned habitual, like all pleasure they’re necessarily subject to theklaw of diminishing returns.

So again nihilism is the only real end to atheism.

First off, if you find an atheist group that centers solely around hedonistic sex and money, please let me know.

Seriously though. If there are intrinsic meanings to life, why do we see variations in values between different cultures? Meaning is a social construct. One could not individually decide that randomly killing people is morally ok in a society that believes the opposite. Society would not allow it and that person would be removed. However, if a society as a whole decided that random killings are good, and there were no dissenting voices, how would they determine that killing is wrong?

First, it is only atheism that assumes all cultures are equal.

Second, there was some variation in values between cultures, but it was never that broad until secularism.

Third, how does that affect the truth of whether there are inherent meanings in life? Just because people are wrong doesn’t mean there isn’t a right answer. But I guess the new approach is that 2+2 can equal 5 if you can make a good argument for it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It says nothing about the equality of various cultures.

Your second point is just not true. There are now and have been in the past, thousands of cultures that hold various beliefs about religion, the value of human life, universal meanings, etc.

I was discussing the universality of morality and how it relates to cultural differences, not number systems. It is true that there are objective facts. We know this by observation and demonstration of these observations to others.

But how would a culture that believes entirely in random killing come to the knowledge that it is objectively wrong?

Well, if you are going to use the numbers argument, “there are now and have been in the past, thousands of cultures that hold various beliefs about religion,” and in all those cultures religion has been preferred by the vast majority of people to atheism.

It says something about the equality of cultures by default. By asserting that there is no universal, it also asserts that all particulars are equal. With your argument you assumed that all cultures are equal. If they aren’t equal then it is completely irrelevant that there is variation in moral values. But you seem to think that variation means something.

Your second point is just not true. There are now and have been in the past, thousands of cultures that hold various beliefs about religion, the value of human life, universal meanings, etc.

Of course it is true. As I said, there is some variation, but it isn’t all that broad. Christian cultures, Buddhist cultures, Islamic cultures may vary in their values but they are extremely similar when it comes down to it. If you reduce everything to rules, you might come to the conclusion that they are completely different, but rules aren’t a comprehensive view of a culture or religion.

I was discussing the universality of morality and how it relates to cultural differences, not number systems. It is true that there are objective facts. We know this by observation and demonstration of these observations to others.

But how would a culture that believes entirely in random killing come to the knowledge that it is objectively wrong?

I would agree that they probably wouldn’t change unless there was outside influence. But natural law is a good place to start. Natural law isn’t a religious issue either it goes back to Aristotle. It has become taboo because materialism has become the dominant perspective, so nothing else makes sense other than material existence.

There has never been an atheistic culture.

The main problem with using this “manifesto” is…it is wrong. Obviously, it was not written by an Atheist. (Do you even know any Atheists?)
The worst crimes against humanity were not committed by Atheists.
Josef Stalin is not a hero to atheists.
Atheists do not believe life is meaningless at all, but the contrary.
All atheists don’t want to murder people who don’t agree with them (and furthermore, they don’t send people to hell if they don’t agree with them…)
Atheists don’t necessarily believe we have no “soul”.
etc, etc…

And…so, so, so much more…

.

Agreed. It is hard to get everything wrong in such a short and meaningless rant. I know several true atheists and they would laugh aloud at this. It is always very dangerous to try to categorize an entire group of people, It makes me wonder if it is the author who has a hero-worship problem.

[quoteUOTE=Sparkythedog;11759051]First off, if you find an atheist group that centers solely around hedonistic sex and money, please let me know.

NAMBLA focuses not only on sex but sex with young boys.

Secondly I didn’t say “hedonistic sex and money”. Hedonism is soley about sex, not money.

I suggest that you might want to look up other various types of atheistic philosophy besides atheistic humanism(which even that meaning varies from one atheist to another).

Its not surprising that you’re slightly confused.

Seriously though. If there are intrinsic meanings to life, why do we see variations in values between different cultures?

Because you’re confusing objective truth and morality with value opinions about morality. What is culturally relative is opinions about right and wrong, not right right and wrong themselves. The word values fudge this distinction.

Secondly, no culture ever existed which taught a totally different set of values. For example honesty, justice, courage, cooperation, wisdom, self-control, and hope were never all thought to be evil and lying, theft, murder, rape, cowardice, folly, addiction, despair and selfishness were never all thought to be good.

The origin of objective morality is not ignorance, for the belief is compatible with and coexist with knowledge of cultural diversity. Anthropology does not discover a diversity of values, only value opinions. Anthropology is not the science of values. Ethics is.

Meaning is a social construct.

Begging the question and arguing in a circle.

You’re presupposing atheism in your first premise and then asserting subjectivism as your second.

One could not individually decide that randomly killing people is morally ok in a society that believes the opposite. Society would not allow it and that person would be removed.

You’re wrong. Because “society” is merely a collective of individuals. If morality is subjective then they would have no grounds at all to “impose” their morality onto the individual.

That would be “discrimination”.

However, if a society as a whole decided that random killings are good, and there were no dissenting voices, how would they determine that killing is wrong?

You just explained how Nazi Germany enacted the Holocaust and how Soviet Russia forced the starvation of 7 million Ukrainians.

Obviously the killings were wrong, according to objective morality, but these “collectives” called the Nazi and Stalinist parties asserted their atheist philosophies by force.

That still doesn’t follow that “morality is a social construct”. All it proves is that in regards to subjectivism the idea of tolerance that makes subjectivism so agreeable doesn’t always, in fact almost never, leads to policies tolerating anything besides subjectivism.

I do know Atheists. While my description is perhaps not fair for all of them, for many of them it’s perfectly apt.

The worst crimes against humanity were not committed by Atheists.

Not true. The worst genocides of the 20th century were committed by Mao Tse-Tung in China (an Atheist), Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union (an Atheist) Adolf Hilter in Germany (not sure about his religion, but he was avowedly anti-christian as well a antisemitic) and Pol Pot in Cambodia (an Atheist).

Compare this with the Crusades and the Inquisition, were the death tolls were in the thousands (although both were still pretty despicable)

Josef Stalin is not a hero to atheists.

He is to many of them. Especially here in South Africa, my home country, were most of the militant Atheists are either Marxists or former Marxists.

All atheists don’t want to murder people who don’t agree with them

Maybe not all of them, but then neither do most Christians, which is an accusation made against us by many Atheists.

Lenin, Stalin, Plutarco Calles, Mao and Pol Pot certainly did murder people of religion.

Prominent Atheist intellectuals like Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens advocated “discrimination” against practitioners of religion in order to make them renounce it (discrimination is often a forerunner for worse persecution.)

(and furthermore, they don’t send people to hell if they don’t agree with them…)

Neither do Catholics. We can’t send anyone to Hell. Not even God sends people to Hell. Hell is the destination of souls of people who renounce and reject God. They choose to go to Hell because Hell is a state where God is absent.

Atheists don’t necessarily believe we have no “soul”

.
.
The whole point of Atheism (as I understand it) is that there is no God, no supernatural, no spiritual, no afterlife, and if you die in this life, that’s it. If my understanding is wrong and there are Atheists who argue otherwise then I would (seriously) like to hear their opinions on the matter.

.

.

It is always very dangerous to try to categorize an entire group of people,

True, but as I understand it that’s not the point the author was trying to make. On Yahoo, several forums on religion (Catholicism in particular) are repeatedly hijacked by Atheist Trolls, who obviously have no interest in the subject matter being discussed, for the sole purpose of insulting and demeaning those who are religious. The article, as I understand it, is just to shut them up.

The point is it’s just wrong to join a forum only to fling insults and obscenities, and not contribute any way to the matter being discussed.

I’m taking “point” here to mean “conviction.” If so, that’s not correct. The common attribute is the lack of the conviction that there is at least one god. After that the belief attributes may vary as much as they do in other humans. I won’t detail it here, but check out the Wikipedia entry on the topic as they do discuss it briefly.

[quote=wiki]The strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in any deity; as such, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs.
[/quote]

If that is the author’s intention then I think the word “troll” by itself may be enough to categorize the behaviour that he or she is observing. The expressions of a troll are not necessarily indicative of his or her philosophical position on theology but may be part of the front the person is putting on to provoke his or her audience. A troll might not be representational of the category of people to which he or she claims to belong.

Atheism used to be the official philosophy of the old Communist Soviet Union.

Atheism is the official philosophy of North Korea, China, and Cuba.

So now we know where that will getcha … prosperity and all kinds of human rights. :rolleyes:

But how do you account for the example set by the countries of Scandinavia? The people have become very secular but their governments, from what I’ve heard, care about human rights and international development more than those in the rest of Europe, in North America, and in Australia/New Zealand.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.