The Priest and the Atheist

[Deborah]

The Priest and the Atheist

A while back in southern England, near Hove in East Sussex, across the Channel from Dieppe, an old priest sat on a bench looking across the rocky shoreline towards the rising sun. Said priest was enjoying the beauty of God's creation when a young man rode by on a skateboard. He stopped in front of the priest and said

"Hey old man, you a priest?"

"Did the collar and the black coat give me away?" chuckled the old man.

"Yeah. Why you sittin' there? You sick?" "No, I'm just enjoying God's beautiful creation." "God" slurred the young man, "There ain't no God!"

The priest nodded and said, "Will you be here tomorrow on your skateboard?" "Yup, why?" "I want to bring something to show you". "Cool. Later pops" and off he rode.

The next day the priest was on the bench when the young man rode up. The priest patted the bench beside himself and the young man took a seat. After he took a deep breath, he looked the young man in the eye and said "Here's what I wanted to show you". Out of a large canvass carrier he removed, slowly and reverently a painting. It was astonishing in its color, its clarity, and its artistic expression. The boy gasped and said "awesome! Who painted it". "No one" said the priest. The boy said "that's stupid, someone had to have painted it, it didn't just happen".

The priest grinned, pointed at the just risen sun, and said, "neither did that".

[Prodigal Son]

very nice.

[SUGAAAAA]

yup


did you write that yourself?

[jenna]

Another excellent answer to does God exist.

[Man from the Neptune]

Clever...although it probably wouldn't convince any othe atheists I know,

[FFC]

No, but it might make em think, eh?

[MarkyMark7]

Love it!

[mrpinz]

I live in Brighton and Hove, and what a ridiculous story that is. Proves nothing.

[Jac3510]

Of course it doesn't prove anything. But I, for one, would hate to live in a world where beauty doesn't really exist. It's a particular sad world when love, goodness, beauty, majesty, etc. are all simply reduced to "boo/hoo-rah." In an atheist's world, the mutilated corpse of a decomposing raped and murdered child may be just as, if more, beautiful (or disgusting) as that sunrise. It's all just a matter of who is doing the looking.

Sad.

[Savedbygrace]

In an atheist's world, the mutilated corpse of a decomposing raped and murdered child may be just as, if more, beautiful (or disgusting) as that sunrise. It's all just a matter of who is doing the looking.

So, let me get this right... Atheists think "decomposing raped and murdered child[ren]" are more beautiful than a sunrise? I'm just glad that I'm a Christian - and in a relationship with an atheist, so my viewpoint is a little broader than yours.

Jac, I'm a new member, but I think you need to rethink your position on the views of atheists. As in, WHO THE HECK besides you and a psychopath would actually think up that example? I noticed you included "or disgusting" in your example - does that mean that an atheist might think that your disgusting example might be "more disgusting" than a sunrise? I'm confused.

[zoegirl]

His point, although Jac please correct me if I am wron, is that an atheist has no grounds for beliaving one thing beautifuland one thing atrocious.

Where is the root of beauty and ugliness in a atheist worldview??!?!!? If humans are just animals, and animals occasionally mutilate the offspring of another population member's young, then why the outrage?!?!?

LIons who take ovr a pride will often kill cubs from the previous male. Even wild horses ocassionally do this. If we are just animals, then a stepdad who abuses his children can be justified in preferring his own children to thoe of the joined marriage. Why not? We are just animals in the athiest workdview. The stepdad,after all, is protecting his genes from the competitors.

According to naturilstic anthropological models, humans raped during the process of our evolution. So how can we now proclaim rape and murder as *ugly*? Or too elaborate further, the only reason that we now consider rape to be ugly is that it is the *current* evol;utionary solution. That's it. So if, in 100 years, 1000 years, or however many years, if those peole with those genes are more successful, then we ould have a human population with rapists and murderers as being the norm.

Now, I'm sure most atheists DON"T view rape as beautiful....but the point should ultimately be,....WHY don't they and do they, in their worldview, have ANY justifucation in holding to that view. Or holding it against any body ese who DOES find rape enjoyable?!?!

I'm sure your husband/wife doesn't hold that rape is beautiful, but that does not negae the contradiction in his/her views. And although it is nice that you are broad -thinking in your marriage, I hope that you challenge him/her in his thinking.

If an atheist holds that our bliefs and our morality is in our genes, then who are we t judge their genes holding tht rape is enjoyable?!?!

[waynepii]

Oh come on! Do we really believe that an atheist has no moral compass? Simply treating others as you'd like to be treated (aka "The Golden Rule") is a pretty good start. A refinement would be to treat others as they'd like to be treated (aka empathy and compassion).

True, the Golden Rule is stated several times in the Bible, but it is also in a number of even older texts, so it's not solely a religious concept.

Frankly, I have more respect for someone who treats others with compassion and respect because it's the "right thing to do" than just because they'll "go to hell" if they don't.

In fact. I am concerned about relying heavily on Holy Texts to define morality - there are a lot of very harsh punishments prescribed for relatively minor offenses. It would be all too easy for a pastor to convince his flock that God really wants them to enforce the punishments. After all, that is what the Taliban is doing.

[zoegirl]

Oh come on! Do we really believe that an atheist has no moral compass? Simply treating others as you'd like to be treated (aka "The Golden Rule") is a pretty good start. A refinement would be to treat others as they'd like to be treated (aka empathy and compassion).

True, the Golden Rule is stated several times in the Bible, but it is also in a number of even older texts, so it's not solely a religious concept.

Frankly, I have more respect for someone who treats others with compassion and respect because it's the "right thing to do" than just because they'll "go to hell" if they don't.

In fact. I am concerned about relying heavily on Holy Texts to define morality - there are a lot of very harsh punishments prescribed for relatively minor offenses. It would be all too easy for a pastor to convince his flock that God really wants them to enforce the punishments. After all, that is what the Taliban is doing.

Wayne, that's fine for you....but how do you justify condeming a poerson who *doesn't* follow that rule? If, after all, we are just animals, why *do* we need to ofllow the golden rule...other than the fact that some of us realize that there is a payback for doing so, or some idea of emotional compassion.

If someone, however, did not regard these as rational or they are not as emotionally , who could blame them? If they are smart enough to avoid the consequences of the current established morality, then there are no moral absolutes that says they are in the wrong.

I have no problem saying that most atheists are pretty moral with regard to some basic tenets....I don't agree that this has anything to do with their worldview. Or, better stated, their worldview doesn't really jsutfy their penalizing others for not following the golden rule. I'm sure that, on the whole, they are very nice people and would be just a disgusted by the picture that Jac presented.

Again, if, according to the evolutionary model, those with that brutality of rapiong and murdering were able to outcompete and reprduc more, then there is nothing wrong with rape and murder and they become normal. And those who viw it with disgust who hold to a naturalistic philosphy cannot object to it with any real conviction. Those who outcompeted are now te established moral standard.

[waynepii]

Then how do bees manage to keep the hive running, food being brought in, the queen tended to, etc? Social animals generally have built-in behaviors that set "rules" for interpersonal relations. Science says these behaviors evolved to benefit the social group, you probably say they were designed in. Either way, it's built-in and except for the psychopaths among us needs only a little training during early childhood to reinforce and fine-tune. It doesn't require formal religion to operate.

I won't go into the brutality, rape, and murder in the name of God (Crusades, Spanish conquest of South America, Inquisition, ... ).

[zoegirl]

Then how do bees manage to keep the hive running, food being brought in, the queen tended to, etc? Social animals generally have built-in behaviors that set "rules" for interpersonal relations. Science says these behaviors evolved to benefit the social group, you probably say they were designed in. Either way, it's built-in and except for the psychopaths among us needs only a little training during early childhood to reinforce and fine-tune. It doesn't require formal religion to operate.

Wayne, you are continuiing to miss my point. If altruism ceased to be an advantage to bees, then it would stop. Those are the rules. Altruism is built in only so long as those traits remain advantageous.

In the model of of human evolution, altruism served and currently continues to serve as an advantage. But there is inherently NO VALUE to the altruism in and of themselves, only so far as to increase fitness or decrease fitness. YOu can have no say over the ugliness of rape if suddenly rape provides an advantage. Now while viewing rape as ugly DOES currently provide an advantage, this does not make the alternative view of rape being morally right inherently wrong. It is neutral in its inherent rightness or wrongness. We are under the whims of our genes and if the genes that are selected lead to "ugliness" and evil being more advantageous, then they will increase in the population.

I won't go into the brutality, rape, and murder in the name of God (Crusades, Spanish conquest of South America, Inquisition, ... ).

Wayne, this argument does not address the point over the worldview. Mankind has done tremendous atrocites. Of course those atrocities existed. This does not invalidate the point I am making. Mankind is depraved; we are capable of great evils, both in the name of religion and without. I can look back at those and explain them according to my worldview and understand the reason and source of the evil involved. What moral imperative allows you to declare those activites wrong?


Atheism has no moral imperative other than the current social decisions. The fact that you find rape morally disgusting is simply up to the whims of the genes of the population invovled. You say that other than the occasional psychopath, everybody tends to agree. But that is simply according to what genes provide the current selective advantage. Morality, according to atheism, is just the result of selective advantage. And so what does define beauty? Or makes one persons morality inherently more right than anothers? What right have you to call that person a psychopath? you just happen to be on the side that your genes match the selective advantage. Woe to the psychopath, then!! Just like the white pepper moth, they suffer under the selective pressures of the rest of society. Woe to you and to all of our daughters and sisters if the psychopaths eventually prove to have the selective advantage. Perhaps under another catastrophe, say a weird emerging disease, the psychopaths survive more than the rest of us. While their morality may be horrifying, hey, it's simply the eovlutionary solution.