So the question has been raised to atheists: if life is the product of random chance and there is no divine authority and life is ultimately what you make it, then why do you care what people believe one way or another? Specifically in regard to a belief in God.
One response to the question is commentary on monotheism’s Apocalyptic “literalists” — people who sincerely want to see the world end and are actively trying to bring about its destruction.
Atheists see it as their moral duty to attack the root of such beliefs — which just happens to be belief in God. And it’s fair to say this is all part of the Atheistic consensus.
So atheists are literally trying to save the world … delusions of grandeur, anyone?
Time and time again I can’t help but notice the parallels between atheists and religious types: the bitter hostility towards anyone who doesn’t just choke down their ideology; the inconsistent belief system and subsequent rationalizations that sidestep the issue by exploiting our human emotions.
Let’s examine the so-called ‘facts.’ The [atheist] argument totally hinges on morality, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, that life has intrinsic value. But considering Science, that yardstick by which atheists tell us measures truth, has not provided meaning for the universe — logically, this must also apply to our very existence. So again, if life ends when you die, and the universe itself is going to ‘starve to death’ from entropy, or collapse in on itself from the big crunch, then what are you clinging on to? What does it matter if we all die in a fiery Armageddon? Why do you care that people disagree with you? Atheists have yet to answer such a question in terms of: materialism, logic and objectivity. Because when you get down to it, respect for life (the foundation of morality) has no objective basis — its all rooted in subjective emotionalism.*
* What I find fascinating is that this is such a source of contention for nearly everybody (again I’m referring to atheists and religious types). No one wants to believe morality is essentially irrational. But why should that be a problem? Why can’t we be content with morality as self-validating; its own reward? What I find ‘illogical’ is the fear of being illogical. Everyone wants to believe in the objective supremacy of their beliefs — from their taste in fashion & entertainment to their ideas about God, the universe and everything. Everyone wants to be perfect. And isn’t it so much harder to feel perfect when you know someone out there thinks you’re 100% wrong about everything. The tacit assumption is that we can only have world peace when everyone believes the same thing. However, I would argue our behavior has more empirical consequence than belief itself; actions speak louder than ideas. IF people would acknowledge their feelings of empathy and act accordingly — then all the differing opinions in the world could never kill anyone.
Theologically speaking I can relate to atheism, theism & agnosticism. I can relate to the atheistic belief that self-accountability and autonomy are our most noble goals; I can relate to theism because I believe an intelligent force surrounds us, and I can relate to agnosticism because this intelligent force must have aspects that are beyond my current comprehension … so why bother having opinions about it? I consider myself a Pantheist and it doesn’t bother me I’m a minority — it’s not my mission in life to make you believe I’m right — because I believe the distinction between truth and lies is irrelevant. However, I do believe in morality, and it doesn’t bother me my beliefs are inconsistent; I’m not concerned with being perfect.
** As far as those Apocalyptic “literalists” go — you might worry about ‘what to do with all those ‘CRAZIES,’ but I say there is no revolution; ***because you can’t change people with force, intimidation or name-calling. . . all that can ever accomplish is make them more fanatical. DALE CARNAGIE. VINDICATED! lol — what/ev,
EPILOGUE: Post Observations.
If you sincerely want to show people the error of their ways, specifically in regard to the Apocalyptic “literalist,” you’re not going to do it by calling them “EVIL” — all name-calling will ever accomplish is make them more fanatical. The best you can do is espouse an alternate interpretation of the Apocalypse and hope for the best. Like maybe start by pointing out the original Greek translation of “Apocalypse” LITERALLY means “lifting of the veil”; a disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind. Far from being a horrible experience, Apocalypse represents the revealing of the true nature of things. It ushers in an era of forgotten freedoms and unprecedented clarity. This “lifting of the veil” will set us free from the misery that has been a result of our ignorance in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception.