My friend a co-writer, Lyn May- an avowed atheist, posted an article about a church protesting a sign that advocated the atheist lifestyle. He wrote that this was an outrage. Needless to say, the comment section became a dialog between conservative bloggers and atheist bloggers. While most of these discussions degrade into fruitless badgering, this discussion has become a living example of relative morality espoused by those who reject the notion of God & Universal Morality and Christians who believe that all humans are innately aware of morality through their acknowledgement of God- the maker and definer of absolute morality. Blogger Short Little Rebel decided to turn the morality table around on the atheists and began some rather nasty name calling. She uses the EXACT arguments from the atheists to protect her disgusting activity and is challenging them to ‘prove’ she is in the moral wrong- according to their own philosophy. Thus far, no answer is forthcoming. While somewhat amusing, this discussion is a critical one for Christians confronting atheism today. Short Little Rebel seeks to prove, through this microcosm, the only logical outcome of relative morality: hell on earth….. Come see if you can answer the questions posed by both sides….
OOPS ! Guess what happened everyone? Lyn May, the owner of Rants & Rages has surprised me exceedingly by kicking me off the blog (today 7/19/11)- thus proving my point: liberal atheist progressives are 100% intolerant of Christian speech. He gave no other reason other than ‘artistic’ differences. Even though his original idea for the blog was to have ALL sides represented! Ha! No Christians remain.
The reality is this, my friends: I used a tactic to prove the complete inability of the atheist philosophy to ensure ‘decent’ behavior from anyone. Atheism simply piggy backs on the goodness and laws created through Christian values. In fact, it counts on Christian morality to kick and scream and spit against. It hopes we will live up to our Christian values. On it’s own, it can not produce a single reason why someone should stop behaving vilely. I behaved by their rules. And they didn’t like the result: they couldn’t figure out a way to tell me it was ‘wrong’ to make fun of an atheist homosexual. This same atheist homosexual attacked a Christian writer by calling him names, was horribly sarcastic and worst of all worst: he refused to address the valid arguments of the Christian author. This Christian author (the single best author on the blog based on the number of hits & traffic he generated) asked Lyn May to stop the name calling and harrassment by the atheist. Lyn said he had no intention of censoring ‘free speech’ on his blog. The Christian author finally left due to the lack of journalistic standards on R&R.
Things came to a crux when I read the article and the comments and decided to turn the table on the atheist. I gave him a chance to understand that his name calling was ‘wrong’ by any measure through logical reasoning. This atheist remarked that:
- He could call names because the Christian was ACTING like the names he called him.
- Just because he was a tiny minority who wanted all references of God taken from government didn’t mean that the majority should get its way. He stated that ‘majority rules’ is only appropriate from ‘super villains’.
- He also sneered that Christian morality was hateful and judgemental and had no right to judge anyone else. He cited the superiority of atheism in the creation of a new ‘morality’.
What could I do, readers, but turn the tables on this atheist? I decided to act vilely toward him and his homosexuality. I told him that I could do that because no one, under his own rules, could make a moral argument why I should stop it. Did I taunt him? Yes. He refused to answer my question: Why should I stop? On what moral basis do you stand? What makes my actions ‘wrong’ under atheist morality? I can call you these nasty homosexual slurs because you DO these things. According to his Rule #1, I can use your actions to determine the names I call you. And I said that even if he got all the homosexuals together and got them to agree that I was ‘wrong’, it wouldn’t matter because, according to your #2 Rule, no matter how small a minority is- it can not be ruled by the majority opinion. Lastly, he eventually got angry and wished for the death of my loved ones. That is when I referenced his Rule #3. His comment (which I knew would eventually come) proved that the only thing that is produced by the relative morality of atheists is chaos, ugliness and hate. My strategy worked brilliantly- as we were both now spewing hate and bile. My point exactly.
I explained that when there is no absolute, Universal Morality or God, then mankind cannot find any kind of answer to define ‘good’ or ‘moral’ human behavior. I showed 100% the atheists’ failure to provide any kind of ‘moral’ argument to stop what was so clearly an immoral action on my part. Via personal email, I explained all my thoughts & intentions to Lyn, which he claimed to understand.
And then….. I got an email from Lyn asking me to apologize to the Homosexual Atheist! Why? For calling him names! He pretended to miss the entire point of my strategy & comments. The Homosexual Atheist was a privileged class! This atheist complained to Lyn and quit the blog in a big huff. Apparently, another atheist author had flounced away earlier in the month from the blog due to the other Christian author’s posts. Lyn told me that this atheist’s reasons for quitting were completely understandable! (cause I made fun of his homosexuality). I made a deal with Lyn: have the atheist apologize to the other Christian for the names he called and have Lyn apologize as well for allowing the name calling (since he now had come to his senses concerning name calling) and then I would apologize to trouncing the atheist commentors so publically. But I refused to apologize for the names I called him because I had made it 100% clear that I didn’t mean them and was using them to force the atheist to use his ‘relative morality’ to make me stop. It was clearly a tactic on my part. On the other hand, the atheist meant every insult he flung at the Christian author. I wouldn’t apologize for zero intent to harm.
Funny, it was when the special class (the homosexual atheist) got ‘insulted’ that Lyn chose to ‘censor’ the blog. Verrrrrry In-ter-es-ting. (use a german accent when you read that).
Please visit the R&R blog soon- I’ll bet you a million dollars he removes the comments from the article- or the entire article soon. He can’t stand to allow atheists to look so helpless and WRONG for long.