THE RATIONALIZING, OBDURATE ATHEIST: MORE EVIDENCE OF ATHEIST ETHICAL INSUFFICIENCY
Some time ago, a well known
atheist wrote to disagree with me about my contention that atheism was a
major contributing factor behind the crimes committed by atheist dictators
such as Stalin. We debated the point respectfully until I finally felt that
I could no longer invest my precious time on a point that I believe is
Before concluding though, the man asked me if he could post our private
debate on his web site. I chose not to give him permission to do so, in
great part because I did not trust his motives. I got the feeling that he
wanted to publish to the world how brilliant he was, as opposed to his
stated reason: to show everyone that it is possible to have a civilized
debate without offensive language.
Lately I was shocked to find out that the atheist had chosen to go
ahead and publish our debate,
in spite of my not having given him permission to do so.
In fact in his Blog he admits having done so because he did not think I
would have minded.
The above decision, I believe, fits surprisingly well with what I was trying
to bring across in our discussion and it is very revealing of the weaknesses
intrinsic to the atheistic philosophy.
Mr. "_____ Atheist" appears to me to have had an urgency to post our debate
so as to spotlight and parade before his readers his superior
intellect. In fact, in the same Blog he gives ample evidence of this, by
writing that he felt that in our discussion he had done a "very good job" of
proving his arguments.
In his attempt to "self-adulate" the gentleman made the grave mistake of
compromising with one of a most common and fundamental ethical principles:
You do not post private discussions without permission.
In fact, not surprisingly, he rationalizes his decision to go ahead and post
our private discussion because, according to him, “I would not mind as there
would be no reason why I would.”
In deciding to do the above, the atheist has proven several of my points
without realizing it.
atheists conceive a code of ethics, their code is very “elastic.” It is
elastic because it is "self- made" and thus it is subject to change “based
code is also subject to "compromise" because the human mind, which is
essentially selfish and proud, will compromise when it is convenient
to the "self" and when the "human ego" gets involved.
mind is not only skillful at compromising; it is also skillful at
rationalizing its compromises.
The atheist saw an opportunity to elevate the self (Pride). He cared
little about my concerns (Selfishness). He compromised with “common” ethical
standards. (Elastic ethics). Lastly, he excused his decision to be unethical
with a deceptively logical sounding reason. (Rationalization).
This is what atheist leaders in communist Russia and other countries did as
well. They too had a “self-conceived” code of ethics. Their code of ethics
was also “elastic.” They too were infected with “pride.” In fact they had a
god-complex and believed that they could do no wrong. They destroyed
the lives of tens of millions and “rationalized” their actions with the
Machiavellian excuse that “the end justifies the means.” All of this was
mostly the result of being God-free and free from any fear of any Superior
Being who expects obedience to His Divine will.
We conservative Christians have a "God-given" set of ethics which allows
no compromise or rationalizations. Such a code is “rational” and
“beneficial” to self and others. In fact, our Code is especially
designed to protect others against people who for “selfish” reasons would
dare to trample the right of others and then rationalize such actions.
So you see, Mr. "--- Atheist," in deciding to be unethical, you have
actually proven several of my points with total clarity.
Thank you, Mr. atheist. It has , indeed, been nice dialoguing with
RESPONSE TO THE ATHEIST
I have just read the --- Atheist's
response to the above article and I am not surprised at his fury. His
unacceptable, unethical action has been made public and he now feels that
his image has being tainted; thus he is furious.
As I suspected,
the "seemingly" respectful approach he had used in our previous exchanges
(Highly uncharacteristic of militant atheists) was clearly not reflective of
reality. It appears that he was simply "adapting" to my
respectful approach. Unfortunately, he has now progressed to a delirious
attack characterized by vicious name calling.
Now we see "the real" "--- Atheist."
Of course, if
were "really" civil, he would have used another approach which would have
been more honorable: apologize! He chose, instead, to protect his
pride and go on a rampage.
This supports my
view that when militant atheists' pride is deflated, they will go on the
attack, with the intent of hurting.
The vicious terms
he uses to describe me and my article are typical of the terms used by other
aggressive atheists I have dealt with over the years:
you Michael Caputo"
rationalizes his forceful, offensive approach by saying that he is
fighting "fire with fire." I fail to see how; since I never used his kind of
offensive language with him. My approach was totally objective and
unemotional. Therefore, which fire is he fighting?
I have not and
will not fight fire with fire.
The fire that is now scorching his mind is more than enough. I hope he will
soon calm down and that he will finally have enough humility to accept that
he has been unethical and wrong. And if he does, (Privately is
enough) I will reward him with Christian forgiveness. If not, the article
will continue being read far and wide, until he does.
I EMAILED THE ABOVE MESSAGE TO THE ATHEIST BEFORE PUBLISHING IT, HOPING TO
END THE EXCHANGE. WHAT I WAS SIMPLY HOPING FOR WAS A SIMPLE "PRIVATE"
APOLOGY. I PREFACED THE ABOVE EMAIL WITH THE FOLLOWING:
"I am about ready to add the following to my article. Please read it and
Depending on your response, this altercation will come to an end...or it
will continue. It's up to you. Mike"
The man once
"again" broke fundamental ethical rules and published my private message (Preface included) without my permission, before I had published it,
and knowing that I was hoping not to publish it.
He then proceeds
to again justify himself by saying., "What I did was not unethical"
and continues to insist that I was the unethical one for not asking
him to take down his post.
Again his level
of self-justification abounds.
he admitted that he "could have chosen to
avoid foul language and an attitude..." Unfortunately, he goes on to again
try to "diminish" his guilt by saying, that he is kind and polite to
everyone he meets and that this was not the "real" him.
Well, Mr. ---
atheist, we would like to disagree. This is a part of you. It only
takes a seeming provocation and it pours out -- like a flood.
He then makes the
head-spinning remark that I should be the one to apologize to him, and
finally offers the ultimate
shocker: he points out that we Christian apologists have a backward morality
and that we insult, talk down, slander, lie about others.
He is obviously adding me to this group.
But I only pointed out his error so as to prove a critical point relative to
our discussion. I never lied about him, I never slandered him (I offered
undeniable evidence of his unethical behavior, which he repeated a second
time, not slander) I never lied about him, I never insulted him, and
I was never rude to him.
on the other hand was unethical and "very" offensive toward me. So who is
the immoral one?
mistakes he committed, though, were to rationalize ad nauseam the obvious
and to be so proud as not to admit serious errors. Even in admitting being
inappropriately offensive with his language, he continued
This kind of
engrained tendency at rationalization is an integral part of human nature.
Many atheists are unfortunately "saturated" with it and fail to see it,
or do their best to deny it.
But there is one
more rationalization at the end of his post that takes the trophy: he
insists that posting our private conversation without my permission was not
unethical because it only contained material that is being discussed all the
The man forgets
that he sent me an email asking for permission to publish it.
If he asked it's because he knew the
basic rules of ethics. Yet
he consciously transgressed them unabashedly by simply doing what he does
Well, Mr. ---
Atheist. I hope this has been a growing experience for you. It has
reinforced many of my views about the weakness of atheism and its inability
to support a solid ethical framework. I hope it did the same for you --
though you might not be willing to admit it.
THE ___ ATHEIST
SHOWS HIS OBDURACY AND UNWILLINGNESS TO SELF-ASSESS
The message below
was sent to him privately, again hoping for some softening of his attitude.
Wishful thinking… This Militant atheists is hard to the core.
You clearly do not learn from your
I sent you another
private email and you published it before I did. -- and you knew it. Another
And yet I am going to be
kind with you. I will show your ethical insufficiency to the world without
mentioning names. I will re-write everything and I will keep your name
You will know though,
and that will be enough.
I also have some new
surprises for you in regards to your insistence on Scandinavian morality.
So, who is being kind
and who is being nasty?
PS. At least you admitted you should not
have used nasty language. That was good, Ken... A nice apology and I would
have taken everything off of my site. Your pride got the worse of you once
again. Too bad...
I had given the man an olive
branch, in part for having admitted that his tone was not appropriate. I was
hoping that by protecting him from his own self-besmirching tendencies he
would have shown some gratitude and would have brought this offensive
exchange to an end. I was wrong.
His last message
shows no regret, no gratitude, not the slightest hint at having looked at
himself in the mirror. Instead he is more irate than ever, more bent on
rationalizing and projecting than ever and more offensive than ever.
I have shown the
man something he cannot comprehend: Christian love.
By keeping his name
anonymous, I am protecting him from being seen at his worst. I am still
hoping that once this period of irrationality is over he will come to see
that he was acting foolishly and out of control.
I do not want him to totally pollute his name by making people worldwide see
some of the spots in his character, which he may actually
choose to clean up in the future, once he comes to
Since my original
intent was to simply show the weaknesses of a philosophy and not the
foolishness of a fellow human being, and since this original intent can be
accomplished without mentioning his name, I will continue maintaining his
anonymity, though he does not deserve it.
By the way, this
is the language this "enlightened" and "civil" atheist has used in his
again, Caputo f--k you.”
(This is his last remark)
the above, he again gave glaring evidence as to his “real” need to
publish our private discussion without permission: a need to
demolished his pathetic arguments in that debate...”
He is referring in great part to his assertion that one of the
major evidences which indicates that religion is not necessary for people to
be ethical is the fact that Scandinavian countries are heavily non-believing
and yet they have good and just societies.
written two articles that deal with this erroneous atheist propaganda. See
Are Secular Societies Really Better Off?
I hope to
confront the distortions of another atheist that is pushing this
"evidence" in the near future. His name is Zuckerman, and like
Gregory S. Paul he specializes in publishing propaganda with little