Atheism: A Logical Analysis Atheist Morality Bible Christian Human Suffering

The Atheist Morality: A Parasitical Existence

The modern atheists (much like the primitive atheists) are always more than eager to attack the moral structure of religion, namely Christianity. Islam and Judaism should be next on their lists but seldom heard, anyways.

Claims like:
  1. The Bible teaches, murder, revenge, fanaticism and  immoral behavior of all types.
  2. Religion has been responsible for wars and is inherently dangerous. Crusades are the prime example.
  3. Religion is indoctrinated in children by their parents, this is extremely immoral and dangerous. (For all the blatant accusations made, this one makes me want to smash my head against a wall. Next one could be, beware of kittens, they are known to detonate when touched).
  4. Religion makes a person, blind, narrow minded, weak, un-intelligent – life forms. It sucks the brain out of them and makes them prone to be easily manipulated.
  5. Religion plants guilt in a person when he is having pre-martial sex or gluttony and so it should be banned as it limits pleasure, in short open sex license. (huh…I dont know what to say on this at the moment. This is so wrong that I am sure whoever first suggested it, could easily qualify to be the biggest fan of  “Desperate Housewives”)

I have just scratched the surface of what Atheism accuses religion of. As I told you, dear reader, I am not here explain how religion is not what atheists think it is, I am here to bury the stupidest notions in their very superlative degrees, which the atheists harbor.
First let us presume for the sake of the argument that the atheist is right…ok. Now comes the big question – what is the moral code of an atheist? What morality does he preach?
While atheism is not a religion, it has the same core structure of an ideology or a belief system. I personally think that it could best be described as follows,
Religion – all the moral statues and obligations + excessive hatred for any system that ever existed + showing complete autism as a system itself  = Atheism
Kindly note that autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior.
However the average atheist tends to highly disagree with me. When asked what moral code can the atheist present for his case? He comes up blank since atheists don’t have a bible of their own or the small red book. The atheist then tries to be a humanist, believing in humanity and science and a collective struggle towards a blissful utopia.
Please note, science and atheism do not have any moral standards neither they teach any or claim to have invented any. The atheist would not come up with anything particularly new, he will just manage to twist and turn each one in such a shape which suits his need (which is not to be held morally responsible for anything.) An atheist accomplishes this by gathering the morality from around him, the culture, society and religion, whatever fits best to adjust in the society he or she currently resides. Atheists don’t have a universal set of codes, they are scattered among cultures and regions which all have different, races, customs, religions, language and preferences. This makes me wonder about the morality of the atheist who may find himself living among some lost African cannibalistic tribe. How will the atheist morality shape up in such inhumane surroundings, one must wonder.
Since atheists  lack a standard set of belief, they parasitically attach themselves to their harboring society and so one never finds out what is so ‘GAGA’ about the atheist morality. It is the same morailty that has been around for thousands of years so the atheist adds some twists to it. In the atheist view, the laws of a sweet blissful utopia could be:
1. There is no God, ‘Yipeeeeee!’ so anyone can do whatever they want without feeling sorry.
2. Do not teach your children about God, they may develop schizophrenia and split personalities.
3. Love your neighbor (but you can screw his wife, provided he doesn’t find out.)
4. Do no kill. (this rule makes an exception for people who have religion or called spiritualists or think science is probably not the best way to a future, there goes the innocent peace loving agnostic as well. Also, if the mass killing of some of the above useless, less than human creatures is needed to achieve the ultimate utopia – then by all means it can be carried out without guilt or remorse since the end result will be far more peaceful. Also note that this has been done in the past as well.)
 5. Also as a precaution, keep away the books from them that teach “do not kill, do not steal, respect your father and mother, love each other as you love your self, turn the other cheek if you are hit, forgive those who hate you” Such written content is extremely poisonous for their young minds and can make them dangerous. As an extension, people found to be reading such materials will be institutionalized in the sate mental asylum on emergency basis. *all expense to be paid by the government.
6. Teach your children how they could have been a naked, lice-rich, hairy fur ball with a large red bottom – had they been born before the last ice age. You can even show them illustrations, they tend to help them understand our animistic sides and traits.
7. Do not discriminate on race, gender, nationality or scientific beliefs. However if you see someone remotely showing any signs of faith, dogma or religion as well as dressing as a nun, you must take them as complete idiots – prone to cause universal doom and the extinction of the human race. In case they are educated you are to simply throw that fact in the basket and assume they are insane.
8. Since all wars in the past had been caused by religion and because it was the greatest threat to humanity, (surpassing the 20,000 nuclear warheads that could still blow earth to smithereens) all wars from now on will be fought on the basis of science, until and unless we make sure the future looks big enough for a small community of intellects. And please do not go to war if the other country thinks of you as “low level atheists”.
9. Any philosophy other than the atheist philosophy, is deemed heretic and will have to be proved scientifically for the acquittal of the offender.
10. All atheists should never swear by the name of “god” or anything resembling to it, phrases like
Holy god,
Holy mother of God,
oh Jesus!,
I swear to God,
God-damn it
O my God
Holy Shit
are to be replaced by
dear Aristotle,
dear mother of Aristotle
I swear to the earth’s gravitational pull
Darwin-damn it
O my electrons
Archimedes’ shit
etc, etc and anything else that you can substitute with it. Avoid using scientists names like Blaise Pascal, Johann Wolfgang Dobereiner, Louis Pasteur, Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman, Galileo Galilei, Thomas Alva Edison, Leonardo da Vinci -as they may twist the tongue in a long sentence and make you sound shutoo-pid, sorry!
So guys, to conclude is to say that the atheist morality is a twisted breed of common sense morals that atheists neither proposed nor they seem to follow them. They get them from us and they are never grateful. They propose false teaching in the name of reason, which I humbly have touched in this post. I think the atheist needs to stop blindly trusting his doctrine and do some digging into it.
A blind atheist and a blind religious person are equally at a disadvantage, the only catch is, at the end of time there is a slight – one in a million chance – that the religious person was right.
Will be back with more soon, folks
Take care

By John A. David

A student of theology, a bible teacher and a graphics designer. I ramble a lot about Christian faith, apologetics and atheism.

7 replies on “The Atheist Morality: A Parasitical Existence”

You’re arguing against a straw man and confusing atheism with something like logical positivism. Have you read Kant or Sartre or even Plato? Plato wasn’t an atheist but was rather suspicious of the idea that religion was of any use to morality.
Atheism is not an ideology, just the opinion one has regarding a specific metaphysical issue. It has given rise to a range of philosophical approaches to morality.

I’ve written about this recently on my own blog and would be interested if you could explain to me why Judaism, Christianity and Islam with their ‘higher morality’ all failed to condemn slavery.

N.B. Newton, far from being an atheist, was obsessed with the Bible and spent an inordinate amount of time trying to work out the date of the Apocalypse.

Atheism is an ideology since it tries to distinguish it self from other ones and establish itself in place of an ideology. Also Christianity, Islam and Judaism failed to condemn slavery not because their moral standards had defects but the fact that people never put in power the moral standard that should have been applied. You also have to give the weight to the fact that in earlier times, majority of slaves were prisoners of war and there were two options, either put them to death or use them as slaves and that is true of all slave harboring nations even the pagan ones. Slavery in the ancient world was almost global. I think you are replacing social behavior with a default “follow your religion philosophy”, it can be used in an argument but it is not practical since all philosophies can fail on general behavior and as you yourself quoted, only the philosopher would be virtuous but then again, how many philosophers ever condemned slavery or decided – not to have slaves, even in antiquity, which you quote and did they make a change? I looks to me, a straw man tactic but I do not think that is your honest intention.

I have a few friends who are atheists, and I don’t know if they will be pleased to read this post. May I know what is your main purpose in writing these, for the atheist reader? What would you think he would react upon reading your posts?

Nice blog, by the way! 🙂

I have atheists friends as well. 🙂 The thing is, this was written at a time when I was extremely angry at atheists for all the trash talk. I was angry at always being labelled as a fool, low-IQ person worshipping unicorns because I was a Christian. And I was tired of all the smug, mean debate tactics, I wanted to answer but couldn’t because most atheists were idiots too, like me.

So this was pretty much an outcome of that. I know its not the best of ways to say the things I wanted to say. I wanted to remove it but I have kept it here as a reminder to me and others about how not to treat everyone the same way. And I am not very proud of these words either.

After writing for some time like this, I stopped last year because I could not deny that I was lowering myself to the same tactics I hated so much. After a year namely a few months ago, I decided to start writing again, a fresh start with a much clearer mind than before.

Thanks for the like. Hope some of it was helpful.

I’m glad to hear that speaking as an atheist. I wholeheartedly agree that there are some atheists who go way too far and insult others instead of explaining politely and respectfully why they are atheists. And I’m glad you came to realize the words of this blog post don’t help either. I know I get extremely angry and resentful when I’m accused of being immoral or amoral only because I don’t believe in any sort of deity. I find it highly insulting for it to be said that no one can, could or will be a good person without a belief in a higher, supernatural power. Even people who have known the person for years and has proven time and time again through their actions that they are nice, good, moral people but get scorned the moment others learn they are an atheist. Both sides are guilty of intolerance and are unwilling to listen and understand one another. The words in this post highlight why the atheist doesn’t for the theist and your comment above highlights why the theist doesn’t the atheist. I think both sides view it as a personal attack because of how the one commenting doesn’t put that little bit of added empathy into their comment. And, both sides need to remind themselves it’s the ideas expressed in the doctrine and tenets that are being critically looked at not the believer themselves. Both also need to remember that actions speak louder than words or philosophies. More than one way does, in realty, reach the same end.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s