Christian Apologists Just Don't Understand Morality, Part 2

In the first piece I explained why it is a fallacy to argue that atheists, because they are mostly materialists, must abide by some form of evolutionary morality. In this piece I'm going to briefly explain how a secular moral system could be set up, and the reasons I feel a secular-based morality is better than a theistic one.

First of all, as I explained before it is a fallacious argument to say that an atheist must abide by some evolutionary morality because all the word atheist means is "without gods." Therefore, any moral system "without gods" would also be logically coherent. Out of the many secular moral systems that have been developed, I believe that the Social Contract is the best one, and for various reasons, which I previously laid out here.

Now, why do I feel secular morality is superior to theistic morality? First of all, the famed Euthyphro Dilemma points out the flaw nicely. It states, "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

This is essentially asking whether or not something is moral because god says it is moral or is there some source of morality that is above god, and he simply hands these moral codes down to us? From this, it is logical to draw one of two conclusions.

1. Either there is a higher form of morality that is even beyond god and human beings must search it out, or god lets us in on what that ultimate morality is, or,

2. There is no such thing as a fully universal set of laws and all morality is relative. Relative, depending upon location, local customs, time period, experiences of the inhabitants, and of course our biology.

From looking around at the world and seeing the diverse beliefs of various peoples (even of differing or similar religions) it's clear that number two is correct: morality is relative. Now, the next logical step is to figure out what we find repulsive and what we accept as good and decent behavior. This is most easily accomplished through basic principles such as the age old "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31/NIV), though no one could ever credit christianity with such a principle since it was spoken centuries earlier by the Buddha and even in the time of the Greeks: "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." - Thales

Though even before the rise of the Greeks, there is evidence that our evolutionary heritage bestowed upon us an innate morality that was crafted by natural selection for our survival, since we were, and still are, social creatures. Because of this, natural selection would naturally (no pun intended) endow us with a set of social skills, which would include ways of handling moral dilemmas. [1] It has also been shown that a large percentage of our altruistic tendencies are innate and this would explain the universal principle of morality, "Do to others as you would have them do to you", that has been developed over vast distances throughout the world and between diverse cultures.

For example,

"Rushton and colleagues from the University of London gave questionnaires that measured altruistic and aggressive tendencies to 573 twins. [...] The majority of the variance of each scale was due to genetic factors. Specifically the heritability of altruism was 56 percent. Altruism increased with age while aggressiveness decreased. Virtually zero percent of the variance of each trait was due to the common environment such as religious instruction." (emphasis in original) [2]

Studies have also shown that this innate altruism isn't only for those in our close knit groups, unlike what many christian apologists like to claim, such as Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker in their book Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, and even christian apologist David Marshall, in his book titled The Truth Behind the New Atheism.

In the January 2008 issue of Discover magazine they relate the following studies:

"For years, lacking evidence to the contrary, most scientists had assumed that altruism is unique to humans. Sure, other primates groom each other and even share food, but this kind of helping could be chalked up to selfish motives - either to benefit close relatives who share their genes or to get an immediate reward. In June, however, scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology reported the first experimental evidence of spontaneous altruism in chimpanzees, toward both non related chimps and humans.

In one experiment done with semifree-ranging chimps in Uganda, a chimp struggled to open a door locked by a chain. The researchers wanted to see if a second chimp would release the chain to help the first get food. Three-quarters of the time, the chimps in a position to help did just that. 'The crucial thing here is they help without any expectation of being rewarded, because they don't benefit from their helping,' leading researcher Felix Warneken explains.

The pattern showed up in a similar experiment with chimpanzees and humans: When a person with whom they had no prior relationship struggled to reach a stick, the chimps handed it to the person even when it required climbing up to a tall raceway. The chimps helped people just as often as 18-month-old German toddlers did in a similar set up involving a person struggling to reach a pen.

'The main finding is that humans and chimpanzees share altruistic tendencies,' Warneken says. In terms of evolution, he adds, this similarity suggests that the two species' common ancestors has these inclinations before culture developed.

And that tells us something about human nature.'There's a widely held belief that humans are selfish in the beginning and only through socialization do we turn into somewhat altruistic individuals,' Warneken says. This work suggests our nature contains the seeds for both types of behavior.'" [3]

One might then argue that, alright we do have this innate morality, though what would make us follow it? We could simply rebell just as we do many of our other instincts. That is true, though, it seems natural selection has once again stepped in to help out because studies have shown that the "reward pathways" of our brains respond when we cooperate with others and act altruistically. Genetic studies have also shown that dopamine genes are involved as well. It literally makes us "feel good" to cooperate and to help others! [4]

I apologize for getting a little bit off track there. I wanted to dispel some misconceptions about humans' innate morality that are often touted as some kind of argument against them. Because morality is relative no religion and no god could give us some universal standard of morality because of the various religious beliefs about what this god supposedly wants. Even those who supposedly know what this god wants are obviously confused so clearly religion is not the answer to moral dilemmas (different religions, and even different sects of the same religion disagree about morality).

I have shown how theistic morality is relative, just as secular moralities, but now I want to expose a flaw in theistic moralities. This flaw is mainly one of choice and conscience. If a theists' god orders you to go to a town and murder its inhabitants (as the christian god does in Samuel 1:15; or what about child sacrifice as in Exodus 22:29-30 for example) must you obey it? Of course, because it's god's command! And in the bible god often punishes those who fail to follow his commands, no matter what it is, even if it's murder as in the above noted passage in Samuel 1:15. Even Samuel 15:23 says that "Defiance of [god] is sinful as witchcraft" (NEB), so what is a theist to do? It's obvious. Because a theists' god orders the murder of even innocent people, clearly no god gets his morals from another source. Therefore, whatever god says is moral, and theists must follow it as instructed in Samuel 15:23.

However, a secular individual can follow his/her own conscience and their own moral sense and philosophy and do what is truly moral.

Such a morality, I believe, should be along the lines of the Social Contract so as to preserve the freedoms of all people - even the extreme minorities from oppression (does anyone recall the immoral campaign to take away the freedoms of homosexual to marry?).

The propaganda spewed out by apologists about how any place that does not abide by god's laws and is "without gods", or atheistic, will become a bastion of immorality and strife is nothing but complete nonsense. The studies which show that the most secular countries are prospering is a direct and lethal blow against this argument. To quote the sociologist Phil Zuckerman:

"If this often-touted religious theory were correct - that turning away from god is at the root of all societal ills - then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty and disease and most religious countries to be models of societal health."

Zuckerman continues,

"A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries - those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics - are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations - wherein worship of god is in abundance - are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor and destitute." [5]

With the millions of theists throughout history who have clearly defied any sort of rational moral code and have murdered others (please see this refutation for examples) is also clear evidence that even belief in a god does not curb ones' potential immorality.

Because of this, human beings must choose what they feel is right and wrong. These choices are indeed relative, but that in no way makes them less binding, so long as the Social Contract is respected and if not, the people will gather and decide what to do with the defiant individual. Though allow me to stress the point that just because there is not some ultimate source of morality, that does not mean men will all of a sudden disobey all codes of conduct. Again, the most secular societies is proof of this. There are even examples of completely free societies with no laws whatsoever being completely free of crime.

Natural selection crafted humans' innate social instincts which do well to help us relate to one another, though it is obviously not perfect. Our intellect has also given rise to our uses of logic, which is, in my opinion, our best source for morality that we have. As I said before, no moral system is perfect, but what we can do is allow our empathy to shine through and use our reason to figure out the best way to ensure each individuals' freedom from any form of oppression, no matter how small. To me, the Social Contract is the best choice, but again, it's up to you, so long as you avoid infringing upon anothers' natural rights.

I have shown how it is a specious argument to claim that an atheist must follow some evolutionary concept of morality. I have also shown how an atheist is in a better position morally because they need not obey the orders of an oftentimes cruel being (as seen in the bible) and can build a society based upon mutual respect and empathy towards their fellow man (and animals) through their use of reason and humans' innate altruistic tendencies.



1. Did Man Create God? Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain?, by David E. Comings, M.D., Hope Press, 2008; 480-481

2. Ibid.; 482

3. The Discover Magazine (Jan. 2008) piece was titled "Chimps Show Altruistic Streak", written by Marina Krakovsky, pg. 63

4. Did Man Create God? Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain?, by David E. Comings, M.D., Hope Press, 2008; 483-484

5. 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a god, by Guy P. Harrison, Prometheus Books, 2008; 296

Update - 2-13-10

It has come to my attention that Christian apologist William Lane Craig has attempted to go around the Euthyphro Dilemma by arguing that god's nature is absolutely good, therefore, everything god orders is necessarily good morally. Huh??? And what basis does Craig have in concluding his god is all good? He presents no evidence whatsoever. However, the evidence we do have about his god comes easily from the bible and the many cruel acts his god commits, as in the examples above. Would Craig dare to somehow argue that the many innocent people put to death by his god is good? Therefore, it is safe to say that god's nature is not 'all good' and cannot be counted upon for moral guidance.

Christian Apologists Just Don't Understand Morality, Part 2

Christian Apologists Just Don't Understand Morality, Part 1

If there is one issue (other than the utter lack of scientific knowledge among christian apologists) that annoys me to no end, it is christian apologists' claims that atheists have no source for morality. These very confused (and often bigoted) individuals further claim that in order for there to be an objective source for morality their god must hand down these supposed 'objective' laws. Of course, as I exposed in my refutation of Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker's book Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, these claims are without foundation.

It's even more glaringly obvious that many christians don't understand morality when one actually accused me recently of an extreme lapse of "morality" (at least in his distorted view) on par with the mass murders of the 20th Century! What did I do that was supposedly as bad a mass murder? I published a debate I had through an exchange of emails and they never wrote me back when I asked to publish the discussion on my blog. Instead of doing the ethical thing and kindly ask me to remove the emails (because up until the author's post about me I didn't know his feelings on the issue), the christian apologist slanders me on his website and calls me highly immoral. Of course, the guy's post is dripping with bias and incorrectly states why I published the emails to begin with, even though I stated why right in the post. Not to mention completely botches and misrepresents years of actual scholarly research into the true motivations of the Communists by people who know more about it than him (and even myself).

In the christian apologists' (distorted) view of the world, they seem to think it's a damning blow against atheists when they argue that because they are materialists, agree that evolution is the true and accurate way through which all species have come to exist, and because they believe this happened without any kind of divine intervention, an atheist must accept an equally materialistic ethical philosophy in order to be logically consistent. Usually this means some kind of evolutionary ethics, no doubt because of the long history evolution has in being used for horrible purposes, eg. Social Darwinism.

However, it has never seemed to dawn on theists (or even atheists it seems, since I haven't seen this counter argument elsewhere, but if anyone has please let me know) that just because an atheist holds to a materialistic view of the world doesn't mean they must get their ethics from evolution. The reason is because an atheist is simply someone who rejects theistic dogma and does not have any belief in any gods. It is perfectly consistent for an atheist to follow any kind of morality so long as it is not theistic. It seems this fact goes way over most (if not all) christian apologists' heads.

Other than our innate morality, humans have been developing secular moral systems for centuries that do not rely on any kind of supernatural source. Such systems are the following: Utilitarianism, Egoism, and my personal favorite, the Social Contract, among many others.

Through the use of our natural, innate instincts, logic, and reason, an atheist is perfectly capable of coming up with rules of conduct which man can live by. Yes, these rules are relative, but that's no argument against them because the theist is in the exact same position as an atheist as I'll show in the second part of this post.

It is not my intention to lay out an entire system of ethics, but to show that atheists have a source of morality that is at the very least just as good, if not better, than theistic morality.

In this first part I've exposed many christian apologists' flawed thought process about what an atheist should follow regarding morality in claiming it must come from evolution. In part two I'm going to explain why I feel the atheist, rather than the theist, is in the better position morally.

For Part 2 Please See Christian Apologists Just Don't Understand Morality, Part 2

Christian Apologists Just Don't Understand Morality, Part 1

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited, Part 4

Thus far, Mariano from Atheism is Dead has posted a few posts attempting to refute my arguments that atheism had no part in the 20th Century atrocities. His latest attempt has also failed [the updated link is here], just as his others have (see parts 1-3). I will once again point out his errors. As in the other posts in the series, I shall quote the article in full in regular font, with my replies in bold. When I am quoted I shall place those instances in italics. Let's begin:

We now conclude considering comments that were made about my Creation Ministries International atheism essay via comments posted to Apologetics 315, RichardDawkins.net’s forum, Free Republic, the essay itself and a special section for the Arizona Atheist who posted a comment to the essay itself and subsequently posted on it at his blog.

Thank goodness... "We now conclude.." Is this windbag finally done proving how little he knows about the subject of Communism now??? I sure hope so.

Arizona Atheist (continued)
The Arizona Atheist also quotes Dr. Rudolph Rummel who both affirms and denies that “religion” was to blame for the atheist Communist atrocities as Rummel writes:

Q: Is atheism the principal factor in democide, such as that committed by the "Big Three,” Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?A: No. I find that religion or its lack -- atheism -- have hardly anything to do in general with wide-scale democide. The most important factor is totalitarian power. Whether a church, atheists, or agnostics have that power is incidental -- it is having the power that is a condition of democide. Incidentally, some ideologies, such as communism, function psychologically and sociologically as though a religion. The only distinction is whether the subject is a god or a man, such as Marx, Lenin, Hirohito, Hitler, Mohammed, Kim Ill sung, Mao, etc.

Arizona Atheist chimes in again with the old, tired and discredited notion that, “communists were not influenced by their atheism, and it was Marx's ideas/communist ideology that influenced their actions” and if it need be emphasized again, Marx’s ideas/communist ideology was premised upon atheism. Thus, again: they blame “religion” for the atrocities of atheist Communists who admitted to premising their atheist Communism upon atheism is the “logic” de jour.

On the contrary, as I've already shown in my first and third rebuttal to his absurd series of posts, he is wrongly attributing things to atheism that it fails to contain.


Arizona Atheist then quotes Vladimir Lenin’s Socialism and Religion,

Economic slavery is the true source of the religious humbugging of man...The proletariat of today takes the side of socialism, which enlists science in the battle against the fog of religion and frees the workers from their belief in life after death by welding them together to fight in the present for a better life on Earth [Arizona Atheist’s emphasis and ellipses].

Does atheism, by whichever definition, really have no relation to enlisting “science in the battle against the fog of religion” and to “frees the workers from their belief in life after death by welding them together to fight in the present for a better life on Earth”? You could quote this, attribute it to any of the New Atheists and not one would know the difference.

I would agree that one of the statements that is often attributed to atheists about the benefits of giving up religion is the feeling that you must make this life count because that's all you have, though once again, Mariano doesn't understand the context. Lenin was speaking of the attempts to get everyone to accept that this life is all they have so they would try to fight for a better life on earth, ie. Socialism. Once again, it was their ideology; not for the sake of atheism in any sense. I was also showing with that quote the fact that it was the Communists' ideology which caused them to target religion ("Economic slavery is the true source of the religious humbugging of man..."). One would also know the difference if he had the slightest clue about Communism...

Here, Lenin was expressing the belief of Marx's that religion was the "opiate of the people." It was man's conditions which was the reason for his belief. Once socialism was accomplished, man's conditions would improve, and their religious belief would fade away.

Indeed, “religion” is seen as springing up from “man’s condition”—a consoling delusion—because the atheist Communists could not conceive of “religion” as springing up from God’s inspiration. But why not? Because they were atheists and for them there is no God to inspire anything at all. “Religion” had to spring up from man’s condition which is a Darwinian evolution view. Atheism is the valium of the people.
In fact, he goes on to emphasize that, “Lenin was expressing the belief that capitalism was partly responsible for man's conditions, and thus, religion is a result of capitalism.” Again, note that, on this view, “religion” is not a result of God’s inspiration since there is no God, it was the result capitalism which invented “religion” as an tool of oppression (or that the people invented to comfort themselves). Moreover, he quotes Lenin as stating, in part, “The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching...eliminating the social roots of religion.”[1] Thus, again, religion is viewed as a natural phenomena which can be done away with by social engineering, sort to speak.

Again, and again...and again... religion was to be done away with, not for the sake of their lack of belief but their ideology, which was atheistic, but all that means is that Marx's beliefs/ideology didn't have any supernatural element regarding gods to it. Just because Marx's belief system was atheistic, doesn't mean it was that aspect of his beliefs which caused these things to happen. Mariano needs to remember that the attack on religion wasn't expected. This problem of religion happened 'late in the game' and the Communists weren't expecting to have to deal with it at all, because Marx claimed religion would fade away and pave the way for socialism. Though, religion became an obstacle for their socialist plans, and as was quoted in the last piece, anything that hindered the revolution was considered bad; anything that helped, good. Obviously since religion hindered what the Communists wanted to accomplish it was deemed a threat. Of course, Mariano doesn't mention this to you. That's because 1. He probably has no knowledge of this (though after reading my arguments he should now) and 2. He wants to put all the blame on atheism and ignore what legit scholars have known for decades: it was their ideology of the conflict between classes and the attempts to create a socialist utopia.

And of course, as usual, when Mariano quotes Lenin above (from my paper) he completely butchers the quote and cuts out the relevant parts, so as to confuse the reader, though here is the quote in full:

"The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching...It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion...It means that Social Democracy's atheist propaganda must be subordinated to its basic task - the development of the class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters."

Lenin says explicitly (which Mariano ignores for his distorted use of the quote) that the atheist propaganda was used for a basic purpose: the development of the class struggle, which was the very foundation of Marxism.

Arizona Atheist makes another statement with which I agree:

One of the groups responsible for anti-religious propaganda, the League of the Militant Atheists, even had a slogan which also confirms what the above quotes demonstrate: that the reason for the attempted abolishment of religion was because of Marxist/Communist ideology. The slogan was, “The fight for godlessness is a fight for socialism.”[2] [Arizona Atheist’s emphasis]

Once more, “the reason for the attempted abolishment of religion was because of Marxist/Communist ideology” which as atheistic and “The fight for godlessness is a fight for socialism” and this socialism was atheistic.

And again...ah shit, been there done that. If Mariano and any reader who doesn't get it by now, they never will.

He also quotes Nikolai Bukharin,

The transition from the society that makes an end of capitalism to the society that is completely free from all traces of class division and class struggle will bring about the natural death of all religion and all superstition.[3]

Does foreseeing the “death of all religion and all superstition” have nothing to do with atheism?

He also throws in another atheist talking point,

Another, even larger, blow to this claim is the fact that when you examine the least religious societies and individuals, something interesting becomes apparent. Studies have shown that non-religious societies and individuals are just as moral, if not more so (though that is debatable), than religious individuals and societies.

Many questions could be asked such as; what does “moral” mean for the “least religious societies and individuals”? Also, if I were to argue like Sam Harris I would just say, “Just because they are moral, or more moral, does not mean that atheism is true.” Also, studies continue showing that atheists are amongst the least sociable, least charitable, most immoral, etc.

These studies do not prove whether or not atheism is true; it refutes the argument that with a lack of religion in a society, that society will fall pray to a spreading of immorality and decay, of course as these studies, show that's not the case. He mentions some "studies" that supposedly show the opposite but cites no actual evidence. What a surprise... However, the studies to which I refer have shown that secular societies are more charitable, have a lower crime rate, lower rates of STD infection, etc. (Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris; 43-46) He did nothing to rebut my point.

Lastly, let us note that Arizona Atheist wrote:

With many studies proving these claims to be completely false, I defy anyone to prove otherwise. Looking at all the evidence, it seems that religion - not atheism - is the largest threat to society. Religion breeds the mentality of a "top-down" approach and blind obedience to some authority and dogma which were so vital to the Communist and Nazi ideologies, and these factors are still affecting the human race today through religion, with the lies and propaganda efforts put forth by theistic ideologues.

I have demonstrated that the argument from religious violence is not cogent. He is presenting an atheist talking point in the form of a conveniently self serving definition of “religion” and what “religious” people do. For example, he does not take into consideration the true and honest skepticism which the Bible enjoins.[4]
Thus, overall I found that:
1) Most people who commented on the essay did not read it.
2) Those who read it (assuming that they read it) did not consider the context/the qualifiers.
3) Many charges were made in a hit and run fashion whereby they claim fallacy but do not back their claim.
4) They served up many undercooked red herrings.
5) Mostly, they left the essay unscathed while discrediting themselves.

I actually do not understand why some atheists are so willing to discredit themselves by ignoring historical facts and violating logic in defending atheism from any claim of spot of blemish. It would certainly be more honest to simply admit the facts.

I suppose that one reason to defend atheist by all means necessary is that a favorite atheist talking point is to claim that “religion”/theism is discredited by evil done in its name. Thus, if any evil at all could be attributed to atheism they would fall into the very hypocrisy into which they surely have fallen even if they do not admit it. Such an admission would rob them of one of their favorite and lucrative pastimes.

Lastly, note that if, for example, evil is done in the name of Christianity I can point to absolute standards of good, evil, Christian theology and doctrine and absolutely condemn that evil. But, if an atheist were to admit that evil was done in the name of atheism to what would they appeal to call it “evil” in the first place? What could they claim was violated? To what would they point in claiming that it was a misuse of atheism?

There is nothing there to which they could point, to which they could appeal, upon which any of their particular worldviews are based (except for personal preferences which are premised upon personal preferences) and so they cannot allow atheism to be sullied as they have no standard by which to condemn or excuse. They merely go on pretending perfect purity and discredit themselves in the process.

[1] “V.I. Lenin, And God Created Lenin: Marxism vs. Religion in Russia, 1917-1929, by Paul Gabel, page 90
[2] Ibid., p. 326
[3] Ibid., p. 89
[4] The Bible states, “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18), it has Thomas asking for tangible evidence since the rest had experienced it but he had not (see The Apostle Thomas : Patron Saint of Scientists?), the Bereans are praised because when Paul taught them they, daily, check to see if those things were so (Acts 17:11), etc.

If anyone is ignoring "historical facts" it's this guy as I've demonstrated in this series...

And of course, Mariano uses the silly theist talking point about how atheists supposedly have no standard of morality to turn to... If anyone is being hypocritical it's theists because, as I've shown elsewhere (see The Euthyphro Dilemma), theists have no standard morality, either. All morality is relative, but theists wish to pretend their god somehow solves all that. Not so.

Besides, even the Communists did not do away with morality. As I've stated already (and Mariano has even quoted the Communists saying as such) anything that helped the revolution was good; anything that hindered was bad. However, the Communists' morality was premised upon - what else??? Their ideology, just as was everything else.

To quote Peter Singer in Marx: A Very Short Introduction:

"The belief that Marxism contains no ethical judgment derives from some comments made by Marx and Engles. In The Communist Manifesto, for instance, morality is listed together with law and religion as 'bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.' (CM 230). It is true that for Marx morality is part of the ideological superstructure of society, is determined by the economic basis, and serves to promote the interests of the ruling class. But it does not follow from this that all morality is to be rejected. What has to be rejected is morality that serves the interests of the ruling class. This includes all dominant moralities up to now. Once communism has been established and classes have disappeared, however, we can pass beyond class morality, to what Engles called 'a really human morality'." (82) [Emphasis mine]

So, what have we learned these last few posts?

For starters, Mariano doesn't know jack about Karl Marx, Marxism, or Communism. Or history for that matter. Or logic. But besides that, we have learned that theists must distort what atheism is; they must attribute to it what it fails to contain on its own: a hatred of religion; a lack of morality; materialism, and evolution. Atheism is a lack of belief, or the lack of theism and that is all. It is a negative. It makes no moral statements, nothing about whether or not the supernatural exists, etc. It is also a feature of some religions, as well as some philosophies, though anyone who is truly logical (unfortunately this would obviously rule out Mariano) would be hard pressed to see how a simple lacking in theism would automatically cause all of the above ideas to become intertwined into whatever atheistic philosophy or system someone could or have invented. They are all separate ideas, though for many people they are combined in their worldview, but as I've shown they are not all one and the same, which theists exploit in order to pin atrocities upon a very simple concept: atheism.

We have also seen how the author likes to take bits and pieces of quotes and leave out the relevant parts, while putting his own distorted spin on what the quote actually means. We've seen how he quotes Lenin, or some other Communist, when they're talking of materialism or evolution and after the end of the quote, he adds his own bit, distorting what was actually said and in effect putting words in the Communists' mouths.

As I've said before, even a Ph.D. in Russian history was forced to equate atheism with a hatred of religion because even someone with so much knowledge could find no other way to pin the reason for such tragic events upon atheism, and I demolished his case. Now, someone with an immense amount of even less knowledge than this Ph.D. obviously is trying to equate to atheism other attributes, which again, it doesn't have. If someone with that much knowledge of Russian history couldn't do it I doubt this lightweight in Mariano of Atheism is Dead could either. And as I've proven over and over again, his arguments fall not only to logic, but historical facts as well.

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited, Part 4

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited, Part 3

Well, third time's a charm. Atheism is Dead blogger Mariano has tried to rebut a few more of my arguments [the updated link is here] from my piece about Communism and Atheism but once again fails in his attempts. I will once again reproduce the entire article with my comments in bold, while when he quote me from my article I'll place those in italics.

Arizona Atheist (continued)
Interestingly, the Arizona Atheist writes,

instead of causing society to spin out of control into moral decay, there is evidence that natural selection crafted our innate sense of altruism - hardly that "selfish" concept bandied about by so many who are ignorant of Darwin's theory.

Note the words of Philip S. Skell, “the father of carbene chemistry,” member of the National Academy of Sciences and Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University as he elucidates a point about the natural selection of the gaps:

Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive — except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable.
Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed — except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers.
When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.[1]


Benjamin Wiker seconds that observation by noting the following in his consideration of “Game Theory”:

By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming “to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.” We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…
The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.[2]

These two quotes do absolutely nothing to argue against my point. The fact that a highly atheistic/secular society prospers is a knock-out blow to the argument that atheism is somehow bad for a society. The quote from the scientist also misses the point, since I demolished Wiker's arguments in my review of (I think) his latest book, Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, about evolution somehow being the necessary moral source for non-theists, and that it's only an unsavory, selfish morality.


The Arizona Atheist further seeks to correct another notion:

I do not deny that some of the dictators have been atheists (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) and their actions are truly horrible, but the apologists are in a bind. They don't seem to understand that the atheists are not claiming that christians are committing the atrocities they have just because they are christians. No, the atheists are claiming that many of the beliefs christians (and other theists) hold are directly responsible for such violent and horrible actions.

I must be missing something; Christians did not commit atrocities “just because they are” Christians. No, they committed atrocities because of “many of the beliefs” which they held. But what beliefs do Christians hold except Christian beliefs? Or what makes them a Christian but holding to Christian beliefs (and taking corresponding actions)? Well, he seems to be stating that Christians did not commit atrocities because of, based upon, premised on, their Christianity, on Christian beliefs. No, they committed atrocities because they held to certain beliefs which are not necessarily in keeping with Christianity; since no atrocities can be logically premised upon biblical Christianity it must be unbiblical non-Christian beliefs.
He goes on to refer to “the murder of abortion doctors” (of which there have been 8 or 9, in three decades in both the USA and Canada, see here). He also references “an example of missionaries committing atrocities” such as:

sister Maria Kisito, who was convicted of murder for her role in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. From a Washington Post article:…convicted of aiding in the slaughter of some 7,000 people who sought refuge at their convent…they called in Hutu militiamen to drive people out of the convent knowing they would be killed…This is said to have been done to propagate the hatred between the Hutus and the Tutsis because it would be favorable for their objectives of conversion to Christianity.

Good point as this most certainly has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

This has nothing to do with christianity??? The whole point (as stated in the quote) was to propagate the faith! Save as many "souls" as they could! That is the point of christianity, or why else all of the missionary work to begin with?! My point above was that the christians are trying to turn the argument around back on atheists, that many christians have committed atrocities, so they argue that so have atheists, but to a much worse degree. I argued that the christians do not seem to understand the nature of belief/non-belief and how beliefs influence people. The christians clearly (as I stated by citing the persecution of homosexuals and abortion doctors) are influenced by their beliefs to commit these terrible actions. However, because atheism lacks any beliefs, there is no belief/ideology to influence. It's simple, but once again, this blogger seems to have some trouble with logic.

The Arizona Atheist further writes:

This is precisely the reason so many feel religion is such a potential danger to society; many individuals and even entire groups take the more unethical and primitive teachings literally, and are influenced by them, and often act on them. Atheism has no such potential.

Again, I could not agree more with him that religion is a potential danger to society—according to certain definitions of “religion.” But does atheism have no such potential? We have been considering the historical fact that entire societies of atheists were murdering each other by the hundreds of millions as they took the more unethical and primitive teachings of atheist-Darwinian-evolution literally: there being no God, no transcendent premise for ethics, humans being mere animals who struggle to survive as the fittest, etc.

Did you notice that he references “unethincal” without providing his particular atheism’s premise for or definition of ethics? Well, he is not done yet as next he offers the “true” definition of atheism:

Again, he ignores his own flawed thinking and continues to wrongly equate atheism with those other subjects, which is illogical as I've shown in the first piece. Of course atheism has no such potential, as he has amply demonstrated. Instead of showing how atheism influenced the Communists, he is having to argue that these things other than atheism were responsible for their actions, namely evolution and materialism, both things that are not purely atheistic.

I didn't need to provide a definition of unethical because it's a very simple concept that doesn't require any kind of supernatural source to figure out: Whatever harms another or infringes upon their natural rights is wrong..

There are many who don't seem to understand the true definition of atheism. It is a lack of belief; it is not a belief that there is no god, or a rejection of god, as is often defined by many of the same apologists who say atheism is responsible for the 20th Century atrocities.

I wonder who/what has bequeathed upon the Arizona Atheists the infallible authority to dogmanitcally declare what is the “true” definition of atheism? In my essay History of Atheism I note that circa a decade before the modern popularization of the lack of belief definition, Thomas Huxley coined the term “agnostic” because atheism was known to positively affirm God’s non-existence. But why promulgate this one “true” definition? Because it allows for the following claim,

Funny how so many christians like to foist upon atheists what is obviously their issues of dogmatism...

I got the definition from looking at the Greek root of the word which is atheos, which means "without gods", and this definition fits it perfectly because there are also religions that are atheistic as well: They are "without gods". The definition is the most logical given these facts.

Because atheism is a negative it is logically and philosophically impossible for it to inspire or influence a person's actions due to the lack of an ideology, which is unlike that of Communism and Nazism, which included a mixture of unscientific race and economic theories, which in hindsight have been proven wrong.

Note that even the “true” definition of atheism as lack of belief is a misstatement as this definition is missing what they lack belief in. Thus, this definition is generally worded as lack of belief in god(s).

Now to the illogical nature of this claim which is that since atheism is a negative it is a lack of ideology. Not so. Even a lack of belief in god(s) is an ideology in and of itself. Atheists take this ideology and build upon it absolutely anything that they please as there is nothing to hamper anything which they may choose to do. Thus, atheism is the ultimate blank canvas.

Wow.... an ideology is a belief about something that informs your actions, beliefs, choices, etc. A simple lack of belief is just that. No belief, period! Mariano has once again demonstrated his lack of reasoning ability.

He writes that “Due to atheism lacking such an ideology, one must look towards the ideology of those who committed the atrocities” and those atheists Communists who premised Communism upon atheism held to ideologies whereby they premised Communism upon atheism.

Once again, he makes these absurd statements that I've refuted time and time again about his illogical equating of atheism with evolution and materialism.

He also notes that Nazi anti-Semitism “mostly derived from the christian heritage within Germany with Martin Luther.” Martin Luther (the Protestant) is he whom (the “Roman Catholic”) Adolf Hitler looked to for what? The reason that Hitler turned to Martin Luther was not, or not solely, that Luther had written some anti-Semitic works but because of that which was most important to Hitler; Luther was a German (see Adolf Hitler’s Birthday Present).

Instead of any kind of argument, he simply links to some post about a book and doesn't bother to deal with my argument. He simply ignores the christian heritage of anti-semitism, and the fact that the program Hitler used against the Jews is similar to the steps Martin Luther proposed... no of course there's no link... (there's my sarcasm again...) That's also why the Nazi's, during their campaigns, published Luther's anti-Semitic ravings and even exhibited Luther's The Jews and Their Lies in a glass case in Nuremberg during the Nazi party rallies (Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany, by John Weiss; 34).

Arizona Atheists keeps pushing his point by writing,

Even if one used the "positive" definition of atheism, which is where one "believes that there are no God or gods,"…there is still no logical link between that "belief" and a lack of morality. For the sake of argument, just because someone does not "believe" in god does not mean they reject all concepts of morality.

This is a misstatement as there is a logical link between positive atheism and a lack of morality. The more logical phrasing is that one does not necessarily from the other. Also, it is good that he used the term “For the sake of argument” because I am not aware that anyone argues that positive atheists reject all concepts of morality. What is argued is that in a Godless universe morality is ultimately relative and arbitrary.

Of course there is no logical link between positive atheism and morality! A positive definition of atheism would be one in which a person actively believed there was no god despite his actual existence. It is a matter of belief, not ethics. As I said, even the positive definition of atheism doesn't equate to a lack of morals. And of course, the European countries disproves that notion all together. No wonder he avoided directly trying to answer that argument. As I showed in my review of Answering the New Atheism that's the only kind of morality there is! Relative morality. So that's no argument at all. Even a theists' morality is relative to what god commands, and/or believes is "good" and "moral!"

I wanted to make note of a most peculiar comment which was included in the above statement at the point where I inserted the ellipses points. The Arizona Atheists states that positive atheism,

is illogical anyhow since believing something does not exist implies that entity actually does exist, it's just you personally do not believe it does.

He seems to have his wires crossed: positive atheists are positive in their positive affirmation that God does not exist while, conceivably, it is weak atheists who allow for the possibility of God’s existence. How so?
You may lack a belief in something which actually does exist but if you are positively affirming the non-existence of something you are absolutely certain that it does not exist (of course, one may positively affirm the non-existence of something which actually does exist).

It seems it's Mariano who has his wires crossed. Yes, I would agree that the positive definition of atheism asserts there is no god, while the "lack of belief" definition is the correct one because there is no evidence that there is anything to assert the non-existence of!

Well, it looks like third time's a charm, just wasn't for Mariano. He has for a third time failed to refute anything I've said, or show how atheism influenced the Communists.

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited, Part 3

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited, Part 2

Well, I may have spoken too soon. It looks like Mariano did address a few arguments [the updated link is here] in my post Communism & Atheism: Revised and Updated, though so far all he quotes is one tiny sentence explaining how Lamarck's theories were the ones that most likely influenced Karl Marx and a host of other philosophers. I've always found it annoying how he posts bit by bit, with most of the individual posts lacking hardly anything of substance at all. I think it would be better to work at a longer post bit by bit and then post the final result. But that's my personal preference. I cited their differences and Lamarck's theories definitely had more similarities to Marx's and Nazi ideologies than Darwin's ever did. However, instead of trying to prove me wrong in any way on that point, Mariano simply accuses me of worshiping Darwin by way of cult of personality! Hilarious!

Here is his entire post in regular font with my comments in bold (let's hope there no more of this pointless drivel):



We now continue considering comments that were made about my Creation Ministries International atheism essay via comments posted to Apologetics 315, RichardDawkins.net’s forum, Free Republic, the essay itself and a special section for the Arizona Atheist who posted a comment to the essay itself and subsequently posted on it at his blog.

Arizona Atheist (continued)
After reproducing further quotes from Lenin and some by Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin the Arizona Atheist writes, “As I've explained…atheism cannot be equated with a lack of morality, or moral relativity. That is not what atheism is.” This is clearly a non sequitur and or category mistake as atheism does not have to be a lack of morality, or moral relativity in order to be equated with a lack of morality, or moral relativity.

Quit with this silly philosophical bullshit: non sequitur and whatnot. The simple fact is that atheism makes no statements about moral matters. It is simply a lack of belief. The point I was trying to make is that Mariano's quotes about moral relativity were pointless; he is trying to blame atheism and show how atheism is responsible, yet he continues to fail to find such a link! So he quotes Communists and others about evolution, materialism, and moral relativity! It's an absolute joke! He is making an illogical leap in trying to equate atheism with these things when atheism makes no statements about these things at all!

Again, the problem for the Arizona Atheist is that the atheist Communists who provided their own context and definitions affirmed what anyone but an atheist apologist can clearly discern: in a Godless universe there is no moral imperative, there are only human beings with ideas about morality (and perhaps moral impulses which evolved and which, of course, you are free to heed or deny).

And as I explained in part one of this rebuttal, the author did nothing to show that this was the intention of the Communists at all. He simply asserted it was true, all the while giving bits and pieces of quotes, without ever showing their entire context! That's called quote-mining.

Lenin wrote “when people charge us with harshness we wonder how they can forget the rudiments of Marxism” and the rudiments are atheism. Mao Zedong wrote, “You’d better have less conscience. Some of our comrades have too much mercy, not enough brutality, which means that they are not so Marxist.” Note also the premise upon which Lenin established his particular, and peculiar, atheistic morality, “Whatever helps the world Communist revolution is good; whatever hinders it is bad” which he concludes as “We deny all morality taken from superhuman or non-class conceptions…we do not believe in god”—but this is not atheistic right?

The ignorance of this author annoys me. He quotes Lenin as talking about Marxism above, and then cuts off the quote and inserts atheism himself! He is clearly reading what he wants into these quotes instead of paying attention to their context. With the second quote about whatever helps the revolution is good; what hinders is bad, that was referring to their socialist plans! Not atheism! Yes, as I said before, Marxism was a godless ideology, but the ideology itself (theistic or not) focused on one issue: achieving a better life on earth through Communism via socialism by whatever means necessary. As for the lack of morality not being focused on a god, that's absolutely true, but as the quote above stated, their morality hinged upon anything that helped the revolution along! That was their guiding motivation! Not atheism. Honestly this blogger is starting to annoy me with his immense ignorance and distortion of historical facts.

This time, after quoting Yemilian Yaroslavsky, Time Magazine, the Marxist Robert M. Young, Friedrich Engels and Mao Zedong he writes, “These arguments are completely absurd, not to mention the fact that atheism is not the same thing as evolution, so how in the hell is the author showing how atheism was a factor with these quotes about evolution!!??”
This is clearly a non sequitur and or category mistake as atheism does not have to be the same thing as evolution in order to be equated to it as was done by atheists Communists which is precisely how atheism was a factor in noting quotes about evolution. Also, the quotes were not about evolution in and of itself but about how the atheists Communists, quite logically, correlated their atheistic views with atheistic Darwinian evolution. Yaroslavsky, who was the President and Founder of the Union of the Militant Godless (aka League of the Militant Atheists) wrote that at a very early age Joseph Stalin “began to read Darwin and became an atheist” which urged Stalin to proclaim, “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God…God is sheer nonsense” and about Darwin’s book, “You must read it”—but there is no correlation between Darwinism, evolution and atheism, right?

Marx may have became an atheist after reading Darwin (I'm just assuming this is true - I've read this of Stalin but unaware of Marx - knowing Mariano's poor research skills maybe he got them confused) but his theories about history were what drove his actions. As I stated in part one, Mariano does nothing to show that the Communists believed atheism and evolution were the same; though he did take Marx out of context, which I corrected.

These atheists Communists combined their own ideas of atheism, science, Darwinism, evolution, morality, etc. into various forms of Communism. The quotes which I provide in the essay elucidate this in some detail. For example, Mao Zedong wrote, “Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution” and of course, Chinese socialism was based on Marxism which was based on “a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion.”

After further quoting Mao and then Daniel J. Flynn, the Trotskyite Denzil Dean Harber/Paul Dixon, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and some of my statements, he writes:

Of course, the author simply gives lip service to this argument and fails to show how atheism is able to influence someone. Even more amazingly, the author actually confirms my argument about atheism being unable to influence someone since he admitted that atheism is a “blank canvas!”
In trying to weasel his way out of the impossibility of atheism having its own ideology, the author just confirmed what I've said all along. That it was the Communist ideology; not atheism in any way. Finally, that last line is a hoot, because I've never seen any gods “restrain” any of the abortion doctors' murderers, or any of the participants of the many religious wars and persecutions that have taken place throughout history.

This was stated since, in part, I wrote,

even granting the lack of belief in god(s) interpretation of atheism we note that this makes atheism a blank canvas upon which each atheist, Communist leader or not, can paint a particular worldview of their choosing and completely unrestrained by any god(s).


He seems to fail to note that it is precisely because it is a blank canvas that it serves as an influence for anything and everything. He seems to think of a blank canvas as a mere emptiness which neither implies anything nor is open for inference. Yet, he keeps making the same mistake time and time again; I provided my own context and definitions. It is not clear? The metaphor of a blank canvas emphasizes that “each atheist…can paint a particular worldview of their choosing and completely unrestrained by any god(s).”
I again affirm my agreement with the Arizona Atheist that “it was the Communist ideology” but that, as we have seen even in the partial quotations we have considered, that “the Communist ideology” was premised upon atheism.
As for the last line; I wonder what he would have to see in order to recognize that God restrained any of that which was listed. For example, I offered the stories of Gregory Smith and Angela Montez which is precisely about God restraining a robbery and possible murder. Yet, an atheist commented on that post denying it because they think that they know how to deal with such human beings better than God. This atheist does not believe in letting a person come to a desperate point in their lives during which they are susceptible to listening to God but would somehow magically keep them from ever getting to that point. Yet, if they never got to that point there would be no evidence of God at work in the situation. Also, this would not benefit the person via hardship—which is a very, very useful tool for growth; just ask those who believe that we humans are here today due to the struggle to survive.

How many times must I repeat: the author is twisting, distorting, and adds his own words at the end of the quotes to make them say what he wants them to, as I pointed out above. Mariano's argument about a blank canvas is absurd. People have beliefs regardless of their belief in god or not. People, regardless of their belief in god commit horrible atrocities; it matters not whether a person is an atheist or a theist, and as history shows gods do nothing to stifle a person's actions. These Communists were working with an ideology, which they tried to implement, which the author is obviously in agreement, though he has utterly failed to show how atheism influenced these men, which is the entire point to begin with. He has shown that they were atheists, but so what? He has failed to show how atheism is some horrible thing, when, as I showed in another post, the most secular countries, with the highest percentage of atheists and non-believers, are the most prosperous in the world.

Lastly, the Arizona Atheist wrote:

Once again, just because these dictators were atheists is no evidence showing that it was their lack of belief that caused them to commit those horrors! It was the Communist ideology plain and simple, as I've shown with actual quotes of Lenin in my post Communism and Atheism: Revised and Updated, linked to previously. Because of the more detailed treatment I've given this topic I didn't go into as much detail in my responses as I could have. My article about it should clear up any confusion and refute the propaganda of these stupid apologists.As I had said in my comment that was never published on the original Atheism article, the author utterly failed to prove in any way how atheism was a factor. Like all arguments supposedly linking atheism to Communism, the authors either have to equate atheism with a hatred of religion, or evolution, which is a complete misunderstanding to say the least!

Note the forced admission with the quick retreat into the realm of re-writing history; yes, “these dictators were atheists” but no, it was not “their lack of belief that caused them to commit those horrors!” The one and only problem with this statement is that those atheist dictators disagree and affirm that they did, indeed, commit those horrors premised upon atheism. Since they did not believe in God then there had to be another explanation for life besides creation; the explanation was Darwinian evolution which they saw as necessarily atheistic. From the survival for the fittest to class struggle, their godless Darwinian evolutionary science informed their godless Communist manifestos. Again, and again, I agree that “It was the Communist ideology plain and simple” and just as plainly and simply that Communist ideology was atheistic.

Forced admission with a quick retreat??? A re-writing of history??? Is he smoking something? Of course these men were atheists! I've never stated otherwise! The point is whether or not they were influenced by their lack of belief, which they were not, and as I've shown Mariano's quotes do nothing to back that inane assertion up. Every move they made it was due to their ideology, which was premised on the class struggle! Mariano seems to believe that because Marxism was atheistic that's why things went so horribly bad, but that's such an incorrect interpretation of events a true scholar of Communist history would likely be happy to slap him across the face for his incompetence and absurd propaganda, and the butchering of legit scholarship!

Now let us consider other posts of the Arizona Atheist which deal with the atheism Communism connection. For example, in Communism and Atheism: Revised and Updated he writes,

it seems that Lamarck's theories had more in common with the Communist and Nazi ideologies than Darwin's ever did, and because of the fact that these views were developed long before Darwin ever published his theory he should not be blamed for such atrocities, and neither should his theory…There is absolutely nothing inherently evil or amoral about the science of evolution.


There is something very powerful about a cult of personality. Just as the Arizona Atheist is desperate to protect atheism against the known facts of history so does he seek to protect Charles Darwin and also his theory. Do you see the problem (for the Arizona Atheist)?
He apologetically claims that “Lamarck's theories had more in common with the Communist and Nazi ideologies than Darwin's ever did” and yet, as we just saw, and he saw because he read them and reproduced them; the atheist Communists made various reference to Darwinism as informing both their atheism and their “science.” Again, and again and again we see that the atheist Communists provide their own contexts and definition but the Arizona Atheist fails, at each turn, to acknowledge these and merely spins them as he failingly seek to defend atheism and Darwinism against the facts of history (and we did not even consider Hitler here, as I do not flatly consider him to have been an atheist, but see Hitler’s and Nazism’s Darwinism and Use, Abuse and Misuse of Darwin and Was Hitler a Christian or an Atheist? for info).

Yes I read the quotes about evolution, but as I stated already, Marx was not influenced by Darwin (other than his lack of belief), but later on used Darwin's theories to give credence to his own about the class struggle. If evolution did play a part in the actual ideology of Marxism I'm not aware of it - and a student of Marxist theory even told me that evolution didn't play a part in them in a comment on my blog. It seems that the Communists only used Darwin's theory to give legitimacy to their own views. I was also discussing Lamarck because his theories do have more in common with the Communist and Nazi ideologies, which Mariano (at least so far) fails to do anything to refute.

Sometimes I just get sick to my stomach to see this butchering of history and fact. When it's pointed out how wrong it is, these apologists stick their head in the sand and repeat the same thing over and over, all without one ounce of solid evidence.

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited, Part 2

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited

UPDATE: I had responded to the author at his blog but thus far he has failed to respond. I had responded with a few comments on January 25, 2010 and to date have not heard back from the author. The author has since begun moving all of his blog posts to a new website he has ironically named True Freethinker. At the original Atheism is Dead post I had responded to, the article has been deleted and replaced with a message that says ”Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker at this link”. When you click on it it takes you to a webpage that says,

The 404 Atheist Page

You have reached a page that we believe does not exist.

We've imported a ton of pages from several different blogs and we're working on migrating everything to TrueFreeThinker.com.

We would appreciate your patience and faith that we will get this fixed.

At the current time I’m unable to find a single post referring to Mariano’s horrible Atheism article and my rebuttal. I’m beginning to wonder if he’s trying to hide the huge errors he had made, which I pointed out. Who knows. Perhaps he is revising the article addressing my comments and it will be available at a later date. Only time will tell. Until then, my response has been ignored and his posts about me have vanished (the same has happened at a former host of his articles, All Time Truths, which is why the below link doesn’t work anymore). Just like a theist to duck and hide when you blow their arguments out of the water.

- July 4, 2010

UPDATE #2: Well, it looks like when you click on the above link the page is no longer missing, but it doesn’t even link to the original blog post. No longer does it discuss anything about the criticism of his article and his (might I add, poor) attempts at a rebuttal, but it simply links to each section of his original Atheism article at Creation Ministries International. - August 4, 2010

Update # 3: Mariano has finally posted each of his original rebuttals at his new blog (updated links have been included in each part of my refutation) but has thus far ignored the rebuttals I had posted at his Atheism is Dead blog. - August 18, 2010



I'd say I've pretty much demolished most arguments theists use to link Communism to atheism, or to argue that it was a lack of morality grounded in theism (or the theory of evolution) which caused these atrocities in Russia and elsewhere. But some people just refuse to admit their immense incompetence regarding this subject.

In a previous post I had explained how Atheism is Dead blog author Mariano had posted a grossly error ridden article about atheism over at Creation Ministries International, which I had commented about, though my comment was never posted to the article. Now, Mariano has decided to attempt to refute my brief arguments against his article (I had given links to more in depth rebuttals) at his blog [the updated link is here], as well as at www.alltimetruths.com. Of course, this isn't the first time I have gone back and forth with this particular apologist about this particular topic. He failed to prove his case last time, so let's see how he does this time, shall we?

I will reproduce the entire post in regular font below. When Mariano quotes me I will place it in italics. My responses shall be in bold.


“believing something does not exist
implies that entity actually does exist”
—the Arizona Atheist


We now continue considering comments that were made about my Creation Ministries International atheism essay via comments posted to Apologetics 315, RichardDawkins.net’s forum, Free Republic, the essay itself and a special section for the Arizona Atheist who posted a comment to the essay itself and subsequently posted on it at his blog.

Arizona Atheist

The Arizona Atheist wrote a comment to the essay itself and subsequently went on to post further comments on his blog. The comment to the essay was as follows:

I must say this article is one of the most ignorant pieces of propaganda I’ve read in a while…To point out just one in countless errors, the author completely failed to show the link between atheism and communism. The author clearly doesn’t understand either, or else he wouldn’t have made such a huge error.But you all go ahead and accept this hugely error ridden propaganda piece because the facts are what they are, despite the apologetic hype.

In part, CMI wrote the following to the Arizona Atheist:

Please note the opening caveat at the beginning of the section:

“With regards to the correlation between atheism and Communism; it would be fallaciously simplistic to claim that atheism is the only motivating factor behind Communism and yet, it is certainly a major factor and the very premise upon which Communist ideology was built.”

Taking that caveat into account and considering the testimony from so many of the major players in communism of the importance of atheism to their political agenda, I fail to see how you could claim that: “… the author completely failed to show the link between atheism and communism”.It seems that you did not actually read the section you criticize. If you did actually read it, considering how much evidence the author produced, I don’t see how you could ever be convinced of the connection, which is patently clear.

Hereafter the Arizona Atheist posted to his blog stating, “Despite christian apologists' desperate attempts to connect atheism to communism, not one person has been successful, even a Ph.D. in Russian History.”He then introduces me as “the absurd Atheism is Dead blogger Mariano” and swiftly disregards the caveat which was pointed out to him,

I do not care if the author didn't intend to solely blame atheism; that's not the point. The point is that it wasn't a factor at all, and the author damn sure didn't give any facts to back that up.

Well, he may have a point as within the essay’s section entitled Atheism and Communism I only quoted Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Emilian Yaroslavsky, Frederick Engles, Time Magazine, the Marxist Robert M. Young, the Troskyite Denzil Dean Harber (aka Paul Dixon), Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, et al. (also see Atheist and Darwinist Communists).

Well, it is not that I did not “give any facts to back that up” but that the Arizona Atheist is the sort of atheist that seeks to re-write history in order to protect atheism from even the appearance of not being perfectly pure and blameless. The bottom line that that atheists such as the Arizona Atheist engage upon a very odd and self-servingly convenient sort of “logic” which runs thusly:

1) Atheist Communists stated that they were establishing their various Communist regimes upon atheism.
2) Such atheists are to be excommunicated from atheism.
3) This is because such atheists were acting more like “religious” people than like atheists (as if there was some sort of standard for atheists).
4) Therefore, “religion” is to be blamed for the atrocities committed by atheist Communists who stated that they were establishing their various Communist regimes upon atheism in the most secular and bloodies century in human history.

First of all, he didn't provide any quotes that support his claim because either the quotes he uses are not addressing atheism, but evolution, and two, the quotes he uses of many of the people he cites is not discussing atheism either! If only Mariano had actually done some real research into the ideology of the Communists, instead of using quotes out of context, he would see how strong my arguments actually are.

Second, where did I even say that Communism should be blamed on religion? That's because I didn't. He is simply putting words in my mouth and attributing to me what others have said.

Moreover, he complains that when the atheist Communists make reference to materialism, Darwinism, evolution, etc. they cannot be said to be making reference to atheism because they are not synonymous. However, since when they make such references they provide their own context which defines how they meant the terms to be understood. Thus, it is readily discernable that in their minds they were synonymous then they are to be taken as such.
To reiterate: it is no argument to claim that in general terms materialism, Darwinism, evolution, etc. are not synonymous with atheism when the specific personages to which we are referring did consider them synonymous within their own context.

And how does Mariano know they were referring to atheism? Did he provide any evidence to that effect? Of course not. Again, if he would do some actual research about Communism he could better understand what the quotes he used were referring to.

As for the quotes about evolution, that's speaking about the supposed role the theory of evolution had in Marxism, not atheism, which Mariano foolishly tries to claim are synonymous. They are not because of the fact that millions of theists believe in theistic evolution and the fact that a Deistic god could have created the laws through which evolution works, as many actually believe. Evolution clearly is not atheistic by any means, though that is not the stance I, and many others, take because it's not logical and has no facts to back it up. But my point should be clear, there is nothing about evolution in and of itself that makes it atheistic.

This really is enough to discredit the Arizona Atheist’s every criticism. Yet, as he goes on to write; more and more desperate attempts to sever the direct link between atheism and Communism are made, his attempts become more and more desperate and his “logic” falls away into well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think. He actually makes the valiant effort to consider the fact that I provided evidence to back up my caveated contention even whilst failing to see that his criticism of each one is answered within the quotes themselves. Thus, let us be extra fair and consider this issue in more detail.

This is enough to discredit all of my criticism??? He obviously failed to see that I cited my more in depth rebuttal several times throughout my post because I had gone into more detail there already and didn't want to waste time on Mariano's silly arguments. Even more importantly even though he obviously read that more in depth piece he failed to address one thing I said in it, even though he used a quote from it at the top of his post - out of context by the way.

Since all of the quotes are within my essay and the Arizona Atheist reproduces them all I will only quote his statements and the relevant portion of the quotation from the Communist atheist which answers his statement to begin with.

In responding to a statement by Karl Marx, he writes, “Now, just how is atheism related to evolution?”

Well, if he really has not been paying attention for the past century and a half all he has to do is read Richard Dawkins’ new book (see here, here, here and here). Note that Marx’s statement explains how Marx considered atheism to be related to evolution and Communism, “Darwin’s book of Natural Selection…contains the basis in natural history for our view…a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Do you see the problem (for the Arizona Atheist)? Since Marx was an atheist, Darwinism provided the basis upon which to understand natural history and so he applied this concept to class struggle. Thus, he related atheism to evolution.To a Leon Trotsky quote and a Vladimir Lenin quote he writes, “Again, materialism is not synonymous with atheism! They are not the same thing!” Here is the ongoing problem (for the Arizona Atheist); he generically denies that materialism is synonymous with atheism (without evidence) but that is simply irrelevant since when Leon Trotsky wrote of materialism he himself defined what he himself meant by it, he himself defined his own terms as he himself wrote, “We call our dialectic, materialist, since its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our ‘free will’, but in objective reality, in nature.” Thus, according to Trotsky’s own context and definition of what he meant when he used the term; materialism is rooted in nature and specifically denies heavenly roots.

Once again, he claims that I fail to provide any evidence when I in fact do. Perhaps he was looking at an earlier version of my article. About a week before Mariano's post was posted I added more to that particular statement. But essentially, atheism is not synonymous with materialism because atheism simply denotes someone as having a lack of belief in god/s, not with supernatural events in general. It is true that myself, Richard Dawkins, and a host of other atheists do deny the existence of the supernatural but that is only because when one is sceptical of the claims of religion, one often becomes sceptical of other claims of the supernatural, though I have known atheists who believe in ghosts and other supernatural events, so obviously materialism is not synonymous with atheism. They are not one and the same, unlike what this ignorant apologist claims. As another example, take Buddhists, who are in many cases atheists - their religion (depending on the sect) does not contain any beliefs about any gods, and yet they still believe in reincarnation, an obviously immaterial belief.

As far as Marx's supposed quote about natural selection being the basis to understand history it's obvious that Mariano doesn't understand what Marx is referring to: Dialectical materialism, which is the belief that history follows the path of class struggle. This was simply Marx trying to find a legit scientific theory to confirm his flawed (pseudo) scientific theory about history. Because Darwin's theory of natural selection spoke of a struggle in nature, Marx felt this was a theory he could use to give credence to his belief in the class struggle. He wasn't referring to atheism at all.

To quote the Socialist and Marxist Anton Pannekoek from his 1909 work Marxism And Darwinism, Chapter 5:

"As soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the proletarian vanguard, the Socialists, hailed the Darwinian theory, because in Darwinism they saw a corroboration and completion of their own theory; not as some superficial opponents believe, that they wanted to base Socialism upon Darwinism but in the sense that the Darwinian discovery, – that even in the apparently stagnant organic world there is a continuous development – is a glorious corroboration and completion of the Marxian theory of social development." (emphasis mine)

As for the quote of Trotsky he is simply speaking of materialism, though Mariano once again fails to show how Trotsky was referring to atheism. It's obvious that Mariano is simply reading what he wants into these quotes and fails to provide one ounce of actual evidence proving his own (wrong) interpretation.

Vladimir Lenin wrote, “Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i.e., Marxism” and Marxism relied on the God-free theory of Darwinian Natural Selection. Lenin goes on to state that “The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism…a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion.”

Lenin also notes that Frederick Engels wrote an “an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy” emphasizing that “Marxism is materialism” which was viewed as rooted in nature and specifically denied heavenly roots.

To re-reiterate, that in general “materialism is not synonymous with atheism!” is irrelevant to the fact that according to the context and definition of these atheists Communists it is. In fact, Lenin went on to note that the Materialistic/Darwinian/Atheistic Marxism upon which Communism was premised is “relentlessly hostile to religion” and “it applies the materialist philosophy.”
In responding to another quote from Lenin the Arizona Atheists writes, “As I've explained elsewhere, the reason the Communists persecuted religious believers (though they were by far not the only group targeted) was because of their Communist ideology.”
This is quite right; atheists Communists persecuted religious believers because of their Communist ideology. But do you see the problem (for the Arizona Atheist)? Atheists Communists persecuted religious believers because of their Communist ideology: which was premised upon atheism. What Lenin had stated is that “Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired … to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion” because this would merely “revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out.”

Once again, Mariano is incorrect. He has taken the quotes and attached his own distorted meaning to them. Yes, Marxism was a godless ideology but that was only a feature of the ideology. It was not it's basis. The Communists wanted to promote "atheism" because they felt religion caused man to become too involved in the supposed next life in heaven to come and not feel compelled to work now towards a better life on earth; which meant the creation of a socialist society. To quote Lenin:

Economic slavery is the true source of the religious humbugging of man...The proletariat of today takes the side of socialism, which enlists science in the battle against the fog of religion and frees the workers from their belief in life after death by welding them together to fight in the present for a better life on Earth [emphasis mine]

- Lenin, Socialism and Religion, 1905

Here is another quote of Lenin's explaining how the reason for the eradication of religion was due to the need to help the class struggle along:

The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching...It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion...It means that Social Democracy's atheist propaganda must be subordinated to its basic task - the development of the class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters. [emphasis in original]

This idea of creating a socialist society was the underlying premise of Marxism. From Bukharin and Preobrazhensky's The ABC of Communism:

"The proletariat is fighting solely on behalf of the new social order. Whatever helps in the struggle is good; whatever hinders, is bad." (Chapter 3)

It's obvious the Communists wanted to create this classless society no matter what, even murder millions to attain it. One of the main aspects of this was the abolition of private property. As Nicholas Churchich stated in his Marxism and Morality:

"For Trotsky…deceit, violence and murder, if they serve the proletarian political ends are perfectly ‘moral’ and should be employed without hesitation."

As for the quote above of Lenin, saying that, "The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism…a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion" Mariano failed to cite the following in the same document, explaining the ideological roots of their hostility to religion: "Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class." (Lenin - The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion) This quote left out of Mariano's discussion is almost identical to the quotes I've provided above, explaining why the Communists were hostile to religion. It hindered their progress in establishing socialism and they believed religion exploited man. This has nothing to do with atheism.

It's also obvious that Mariano hasn't a clue about the quotes he is citing because one of them above by Lenin says how Engles "condemned the efforts of people who desired … to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism..."

Here it's explicitly saying that one of the founders of Communism didn't want atheism taught! In complete contradiction to what Mariano says - how atheism was the underlying concept in Communist ideology, yet here is one of it's principal adherents saying otherwise! Why did Engles say this? Because religion was one stumbling block to the socialist society they were after and the Communists argued over various ways to achieve their goals of getting rid of religion. But this was to better push their ideology, not atheism! In fact, Engles even "condemn[ed] [...] [the] idea that religion should be prohibited in socialist society." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm)

This is excellent evidence that Mariano is simply quote mining and truly doesn't understand the quotes he cites, nor what they actually mean in context. It seems if the Communists say anything about atheism, materialism, or evolution, that's good enough for him and never bothers to see what they mean in context and in relation to their ideology.

I discussed this specific issue further in From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 11 of 13.

It's clear that Mariano hasn't got a clue about Communist ideology nor Marxism. He has once again failed to prove that atheism was a factor in the Communist ideology at all (aside from it being a godless ideology), or that it in any way influenced the Communists.

Please Click the Following Links to Read the Rest of the Exchange:

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited, Part 2

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited, Part 3

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited, Part 4

Atheism is Dead Continues to Beat a Dead Horse: Communism & Atheism Revisited

When You Can't Beat 'Em...Smear 'Em II

In my last post I noted how a particular christian apologist, when unable to answer my arguments, or perhaps feel I've exposed their arguments as false, felt the need to lie about me and slander me. This is nothing new though. For about the last two years I've been having to put up with (and do my best to expose) the countless lies and smear campaigns against me by two (I believe they could be considered) fundamentalist (not to mention very close-minded, hateful and bigoted) christians: David Marshall and J.R. Fraser.

David Marshall just recently stuck his foot in his mouth once again. Someone who has participated at the Amazon.com customer forums forwarded an email they received notifying them that David Marshall had posted a new comment at a book review. As I explained in the post The Lies, Distortions, Hypocrisy, and Immaturity of David Marshall Marshall has done almost nothing but lie about me, insult me, and talk down to me during our many discussions on the Amazon.com forums. Well, here is yet another example of his lies and pathetic and immature attitude towards me.

Here is the email containing the first part of the comment that was left, but when I clicked the link to read the rest it appears that this comment was considered so rude that it seems Amazon.com felt it violated their terms of use policy on the discussion boards and deleted the comment so I didn't get a chance to read the rest. Of course, I don't doubt it would have been more of the same bullshit that I've heard from him the last two years.

Here is the forwarded email (for privacy reasons I edited out the sender's email address):

Here is a screenshot of the comments section and the message saying it was deleted by Amazon.com:


Here is the comment itself so you don't have to click the picture to read it [in italics]:

Ken: How can I not "talk down to you?" Respect is something that has to be earned -- it's not a gift for showing up. And the first prerequisite of earning respect is to make yourself worth respecting.

Sorry, I know this is a democracy, but scholarship is not democratic. You either have it, or you don't. If you don't have it, someone who is in a position of teacher -- and I am a teacher, and cannot help but be conscious of the fact that I am older, know more, and am more intellectually capable than you are at this point in your life -- may be able to teach some of it to you. But if you come with an arrogant attitude, name-calling and swearing and boasting about your allegedly irrefutable arguments (which you never posted here, where they could be answered), what am I supposed to respect...

Marshall's comment is severely hypocritical since it's dripping with his own arrogance - an arrogance that's obviously undeserved. Here is, once again, another instance of his talking down to me, and here he even tried justifying it by claiming how superior he is to me! It's funny he complains of name-calling because he was calling me names long before I ever said anything rude to him...another form of hypocrisy. And once again, he spreads his lie about how I never offered any arguments on the Amazon.com forums when that's such a bold faced lie. I've exposed this lie here a while back. How he can actually claim I said my arguments were irrefutable is laughable. I've never once said such a thing. I've only said how no one, up to this point, has refuted them. How that's saying they're "irrefutable" is way beyond me. But once again, it's yet another example of Marshall's inability to read and his obvious bias, just as he was unable to properly comprehend many of my arguments, or the New Atheists in general.

As I've shown in the posts linked to above Marshall's immature name calling and his talking down to me has been going on for a long time, and it's not just against me. This is pretty much how he deals with most everyone he gets into discussions with at some point on the Amazon.com forums. As for my cursing, it was in response to Marshall's attitude and it only happened on one or two occasions, but as usual, he brings up all these past transgressions because he hopes it will discredit me in the eyes of viewers and no one will bother to read the devastating critique I wrote about his book and I believe he hopes this will cause people to fail to take me seriously. Of course, these apologists do need to take me and my arguments seriously because the research I've done clearly refutes their arguments.

But just like most of the christians I've corresponded with they take this belittling approach because it seems they can't handle my arguments so they attempt to slander and discredit me instead. Like I said in my last post it's the bully mentality and I'm getting so damn fed up with these assholes and cowards. They're completely pathetic.

When You Can't Beat 'Em...Smear 'Em II