|
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 self-evident. 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. 1. When 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 on convenience.” 2. Their 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. 3. The human 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 you. Michael _______________________________ RESPONSE TO THE ATHEIST REBUTTAL 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: "The a--hole" (Twice) "A--hole Christian apologist" "This sh-t" (My article) "F--k you Michael Caputo" The " --- Atheist" 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. IMPORTANT:
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: 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. Fortunately 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, on the other hand was unethical and "very" offensive toward me. So who is the immoral one? The greatest 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 self-justifying. 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 time. 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 best: rationalizing. 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. Michael ___________________________ 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 mistakes, ---. I sent you another private email and you published it before I did. -- and you knew it. Another ethical infraction... 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 anonymous. 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? Michael 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 his senses. 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 last post: “Once again, Caputo f--k you.” "A--hole..." (This is his last remark) Before the above, he again gave glaring evidence as to his “real” need to publish our private discussion without permission: a need to self-adulate.
“I
demolished his pathetic arguments in that debate...” I have written two articles that deal with this erroneous atheist propaganda. See below. 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 foundation. Michael
|