Atheism is a dangerous worldview. Obviously, atheists will vehemently deny this claim. No sane human will agree that their worldview is evil. But a proponent of atheism reveals atheism as an evil worldview.
To say that atheism has an innate propensity to perpetrate evil is not to assert that religion is a peaceful worldview. Killers do represent religion. There are rank evil people professing to some religion or the other.
Reality also reveals many morally upright atheists. What makes an atheist a good person?
Christians claim that atheists could be good because God’s law is written in their hearts (Romans 2: 15). Contrarily, atheists believe that the rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology enable their good behavior.1
A Christian will be a good person if he loves and obeys the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ did not teach us to hate each other rather love each other.
What makes a religionist an evil person?
From within a Christian perspective, if a Christian remains a namesake Christian without any love for the Lord and the knowledge of God’s Word – the Bible, then he could succumb to evil. Such a Christian would have succumbed to the deception of the Satan.
Evil Christians are not Christians to begin with. Those who have succumbed to Satan’s deceptions to perpetrate evil are Satan’s disciples, not Christ’s disciples.
Other than denying God, what is innately wrong with the atheistic worldview that it motivates atheists to be evil? (Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot are famous atheists who ruthlessly murdered millions of people.)
If atheists believe that rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology enable their good behavior, then it’s reasonable to deduce that corruption in sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology would entail evil. (How would an atheist explain the corruption that enters sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology to motivate evil from its adherents? What is the nature and source of that corruption? Let’s not enter that metaphysical domain now!)
Say hello to the Church of Satan!
Do not be surprised by the rules of existence of the “Church of Satan,” which is published on their website, “When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.” “If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy” (Emphases Mine).2
“If he does not stop, destroy him” ????
“… treat him cruelly and without mercy” ????
How does the Church of Satan justify destroying people? This is their justification, “Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!”.3 The Church of Satan does not believe in the biblical version of Satan i.e. Satan is a living spiritual being.
Satanists or the members of Church of Satan are self-centered atheists, “Satanists are atheists. We see the universe as being indifferent to us, and so all morals and values are subjective human constructions.
Our position is to be self-centered, with ourselves being the most important person (the “God”) of our subjective universe, so we are sometimes said to worship ourselves. Our current High Priest Gilmore calls this the step moving from being an atheist to being an “I-Theist.”
Satan to us is a symbol of pride, liberty and individualism, and it serves as an external metaphorical projection of our highest personal potential. We do not believe in Satan as a being or person” (Emphasis Mine).4 The fundamental belief of the Church of Satan exposes atheism in all its glory.
When atheists deny God, they affirm man. (Do they have another option?)
When atheists deny [the sovereignty of] God, they affirm the sovereignty of man. The Church of Satan blatantly declares that man is sovereign, “Our position is to be self-centered, with ourselves being the most important person (the “God”) of our subjective universe, so we are sometimes said to worship ourselves.”5
When sovereignty of man is affirmed, subjectivity invades the domain as a consequence. The Church of Satan affirms subjectivity, “We see the universe as being indifferent to us, and so all morals and values are subjective human constructions.”6
By affirming and subscribing to subjectivity, the Church of Satan offers itself absolute freedom to determine its own rules and policies. In fact, the Church of Satan plays God by offering itself absolute freedom via its justification of man’s sovereignty.
If man declares himself as sovereign, he gives himself the powers to kill and to destroy. This is the source of ruthless dictatorship or ruthless man.
Atheism, in its essence, is capable of gross ruthlessness.
Lack of a common belief system, a consequence of negating objective truth, is another reason why atheism could be a dangerous killer, “The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.”7
When atheism negates objectivity and upholds man’s sovereignty, subjectivity or relativism is a natural entailment. “Every man for himself” is their motto.
Thanks to Richard Dawkins, every man is free to dance to the music of his DNA. Every man is free to hypothesize and establish the rules of his sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology. Sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology become prisoners of atheists.
Within the atheistic worldview, what seems evil to one atheist could be conceived as the greater good of another atheist. On what grounds would you argue with those who perpetrate evil under the assumption that their contentious act is essentially not an evil act?
Consider child sex abuse as a case in point.
Thankfully the Church of Satan believes in not harming children, “Do not harm little children.”8 The American Psychological Association (APA) also considers sexual abuse of children as a harmful practice, “sexual relations between children and adults are abusive, exploitive, reprehensible and properly punishable by law.”9
But NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) believes that consensual sexual relationship between a man and a boy is beneficial to the boy!10 Significantly, the American Psychological Association does not refer to consensual sex between man and a boy as being beneficial to the boy. Whether consensual or not, sexual relations between boy and a man is an abuse and a disorder – an evil deed.
But this is my point; what’s evil to APA is not evil to NAMBLA.
How would you resolve this situation under an atheistic worldview that subscribes to man’s sovereignty and subjective moral laws? At best, these organizations could debate this matter endlessly. Even if one deems the other as evil, the other could find justification from within the atheistic worldview to justify the evil.
The scope for evil’s rule is much greater if atheism prevails. If Christianity as a religion perpetrates evil, then it is a gross misrepresentation of Christianity. Evil is not inherent in Christianity. But evil is a natural entailment of atheism.
Christianity cannot, by any means, justify evil. But atheism can justify evil.
Endnotes:
1 http://atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics
2 http://www.churchofsatan.com/eleven-rules-of-earth.php
3 http://www.churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-statements.php
4 http://www.churchofsatan.com/faq-fundamental-beliefs.php
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
8 http://www.churchofsatan.com/eleven-rules-of-earth.php
9 http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-abuse.aspx
10 http://nambla.org/data.html
First published in http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2015/12/church-of-satan-proves-atheism-is-evil.html
The Rainbow Unicorn says
I’m an Atheist, so I MUST be an evil, satanic, unbalanced, little idiot who doesn’t believe in anything.
I love your logic… *Shakes head dissaprovingly*
northierthanthou.com says
Fascinating Gish Gallop.
J. Gravelle says
Those despots also did not engage in ballet dancing.
That fact is as relevant to their atrocities as is their atheism…
Visceron says
This made more sense to me.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/satanic-temples-seven-tenants-are-morally-superior-to-ten-commandments/
Papa Giorgio says
In this excerpt from Liberty’s Secret, you will find John Adams mentioning that:
✦ Atheism—pure, unadulterated atheism…. The universe was matter only, and eternal. Spirit was a word without a meaning. Liberty was a word without a meaning. There was no liberty in the universe; liberty was a word void of sense. Every thought, word, passion, sentiment, feeling, all motion and action was necessary [determinism]. All beings and attributes were of eternal necessity; conscience, morality, were all nothing but fate. This was their creed, and this was to perfect human nature, and convert the earth into a paradise of pleasure… Why, then, should we abhor the word “God,” and fall in love with the word “fate”? We know there exists energy and intellect enough to produce such a world as this, which is a sublime and beautiful one, and a very benevolent one, notwithstanding all our snarling; and a happy one, if it is not made otherwise by our own fault. (religiopoliticaltalk.com/libertys-secret-excerpt/)
Atheism is “evil” because it cannot account for the simply laid out freedoms in America’s founding documents, and Adams even noted the determinism found in that worldview. A worldview that Dr. Adler wryly noted was impossible to say [in the ultimate sense] good or vicious behavior is the same in this worldview:
➤ What merit would attach to moral virtue if the acts that form such habitual tendencies and dispositions were not acts of free choice on the part of the individual who was in the process of acquiring moral virtue? Persons of vicious moral character would have their characters formed in a manner no different from the way in which the character of a morally virtuous person was formed—by acts entirely determined, and that could not have been otherwise by freedom of choice. ~ Mortimer J. Adler, Ten Philosophical Mistakes (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1985), 154.
And really, the only way you can truly (and morally) say something is wrong is by doing away with the old – deterministic – natural man and being born again. But, the world can benefit from a group of people holding to these values found specifically in the Judeo-Christian ethos. Tammy Bruce, a lesbian, noted this as well:
➤ Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. ~ Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 35.
As we have seen the culmination of events based on John Adam’s and others worldview demanding documents that founded this nation say a certain thing a certain way. The proof is in the pudding in other words:
————————————————–
Although there were some forms of democratic government in local areas in ancient and medieval history (such as ancient Athens), when the United States began as a representative democracy in 1776, it could be called the “American experiment,” because there were at that time no other functioning national democracies in the world. But after the founding of the United States, and especially in the twentieth century, the number of functioning national democracies grew remarkably. The World Forum on Democracy reports that in 1950 there were 22 democracies accounting for 31% of the world population and a further 21 states with restricted democratic practices, accounting for 11.9% of the globe’s population. Since the turn of the century, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2% of the world’s population.
Therefore, when people today complain to me that they don’t want to get involved in politics because they think that politicians are too corrupt (or arrogant, greedy, power-hungry, and other forms of being “unspiritual”), I want to remind them that although democracy is messy, it still works quite well, and all the alternative forms of government are far worse. We should be thankful for those who are willing to be involved in it, often at great personal sacrifice.
Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 108-109.
Papa Giorgio says
Let freedom ring.
Rajkumar Richard says
John Moore, thanks for taking time off to share your thoughts. Apologies for a delayed response, which is partly due to the time difference (I live in India).
I agree with the ‘namesake’ category. It is prevalent in all worldviews – atheism and Christianity included. How do you assert that Stalin, Mao and PP were not real atheists? Being authoritarian dictators is the external manifestation that is predicated on something internal. What is that something internal? Why were they authoritarian dictators?
Theists have a common belief system, namely God. Christianity’s common belief system is the Bible. Atheism cannot have a common belief system, for it promotes relativism.
All I am positing is that atheism as a worldview has an innate propensity for evil. You said, “Some see scientific grounds for measuring good and evil.” How does science determine good and evil?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. God bless.
John Moore says
You seem to have fixed ideas about what atheism is, and your ideas are different from mine, so it’s like we’re talking about different things. I would say your kind of atheism is a straw man. On the other hand, some atheists really are relativists, so that’s one thing.
I define atheism simply as sceptical questioning. I define religion as submission to ultimate authority. What do you think of that? Can you see some usefulness in these definitions? I say religion isn’t a matter of what you believe, but of how you believe. Religious people believe firmly and fervently, whereas atheists believe tentatively and provisionally.
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot weren’t really atheists because they were authoritarian. Authoritarianism is the opposite of the free sceptical inquiry that characterizes atheism. In fact, those three dictators tried to establish their own personal religions, like “cult of personality,” and they tried to force their people to follow them unquestioningly on pain of death. So those three dictators were trying to be like little gods on earth. It’s really closer to religion than atheism.
Let me ask you: Do you think a person who habitually takes a sceptical attitude has an innate propensity for evil?
Rajkumar Richard says
Atheism as the word denotes is “denial of God’s existence.” It is the opposite of theism.
There can be skeptical questioning within theism as well. One could honestly question trinity or the validity of the Scripture’s transmission etc. Skeptical questioning is neither the definition of theism or atheism.
Yes, religion is the submission to God. Religion is predicated on God. But the big question is, am I believing in the one true and living God or in a mystical thought process deemed as god(s)?
Why were the dictators trying to be like little gods on earth? What drove them to that point? That’s where we need to begin our discussion.
Finally you asked, “Let me ask you: Do you think a person who habitually takes a sceptical attitude has an innate propensity for evil?” My answer is YES!
Unless one’s heart and mind is rightfully submitted to God, that mind has the propensity for evil.
Papa Giorgio says
I think a person who continuously takes the skeptical view of important questions in life may not themselves have a propensity for more or less “evil” actions. However, I would question the validity of rational thinking in not coming up with some sort of reasonable test to test one’s own views (or others worldviews) that will lead to some sort of claim to truth.
Richard Dawkins for instance has differing views on children’s viability and society supporting the “doing away with” children with Down’s Syndrome. He has also stated in the past that “[w]hat’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” He even goes as far as to claim that rape [being morally wrong] is inconsequential as us having evolved five-fingers rather than four:
—————————————-
Justin Brierley: When you make a value judgement don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good. And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.
Richard Dawkins: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.
Justin Brierley: So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.
Richard Dawkins: You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.
Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.
Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.
See more: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/tag/dawkins-rape/
—————————————-
So he as a person may not commit actions that are adverse to theism in his own personal life. But over time the legislation that will proceed from a view such as his will have deleterious affects on society as compared to the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Mind you what I am not saying. I am not saying atheists cannot act or be moral. What they cannot do however is offer a coherent response to why something should be or is absolutely morally wrong in all times and places in the Universe.
BUT, questioning is good and healthy for the believer as well:
==================================
Often, however, the cause of our doubt isn’t what you might think. It isn’t necessarily the strength of the arguments that rattles us, but the way they resonate with the unbeliever in each of us (what the Bible calls the “old self”). We hear Tokyo Rose’s voice and she seems to make pretty good sense sometimes. Yet more often than not, if we look closely at the atheist’s arguments, we find that there is little substance. Seeing this can change the argument’s frequency and therefore break its spell.
Believers often worry that their doubts signify the rapid approach of full-blown unbelief. But as pastor and author Tim Keller puts it,
★ Faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic.
All thoughtful believers—even those whose faith is mature—encounter doubt. Not a single person has had unadulterated faith.
In any case, it certainly won’t do to ignore your doubts, and defusing them will only strengthen your faith. To be sure, doubts can be strong enough to become a trial in your life; but like all trials, they’re meant to refine faith, not stifle it.
Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith: To the Head (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2012), xvii.
John Moore says
Some people are “namesake Christians” without any love for the Lord, and some people are “namesake atheists” without any love for free sceptical inquiry.
Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did not celebrate and encourage free inquiry and scepticism. Instead, they were the worst sort of authoritarian dictators. Thus, they weren’t real atheists, just as Hitler wasn’t a real Christian. Shall we call it even?
You mention that atheists lack a common belief system. So do theists! It’s not due to negating objective truth, but it’s just due to people using the same word to mean many things.
Not all atheists are relativists. Not all atheists celebrate “man’s sovereignty.” Some see scientific grounds for measuring good and evil. I’d love to discuss this with you.