ynot

    Newer Older

    Photo kindly borrowed from Richard, Seanna, and Steve from the Humanist Association of Ottawa.

    Website: ottawa.humanists.net
    Original album: picasaweb.google.com/atheistbusottawa

    1. Truth in science 7 months ago | reply

      Just how ethical are humanist ethics?

      Atheists claim that they have an ethical and moral yardstick, and cite the Humanist Manifesto as representing the moral code of atheism.
      So is it true ?
      The Humanist Manifesto looks good at first glance, but like most proposals atheists come up with, when examined closely, it is full of holes.
      1. You don’t have to sign up to the H.M. to be an atheist.
      2. Even if you do sign up to it, there is no incentive to follow it, no reward for following it and no penalty for not following it. You are not going to be barred from being an atheist because you reject or break the rules of the Humanist Manifesto. It is not enforced in any way.
      3. It borrows its desirable ethics from Judeo-Christian values, there is no atheist moral code per se.
      Genuine, naturalist ethics is basically the Darwinian law of the jungle, the ethics of the H.M. is actually a contradiction of social Darwinism. The H.M. is not consistant with atheist materialist and evolutionist beliefs.
      4. By far the biggest flaw in the H.M. is the fact that it is entirely ephemeral. It advocates situational ethics and moral relativism. And that flaw makes it a worthless scrap of paper.
      Situational ethics is based on what people want or find desirable, not on any adherence to what is intrinsically right or wrong.
      A good, example of humanist style, situational ethics in practice, is the gender selection abortions now being blatantly carried out in abortion clinics in Britain. It primarily discriminates against female babies, who are especially targeted for killing, because most of the parents who want it, prefer to have boys for cultural reasons.
      The abortion clinics openly admit to it happening, and claim it is legal.
      The abortion act of 1967 certainly did not intend that, and the Government admits it was not intended.
      But the Government is still reluctant to do anything about it, because it is wedded to the secularist concept of situational ethics, i.e. whatever people want, people get. Any concept of intrinsic right and wrong has to take a back seat, to whatever is the spirit of the times. And that is an example happening right now, in a so-called democracy.
      The Nazi persecution of the Jews became popular through brainwashing of the public, and was eventually supported by a good proportion of the public.
      So Hitler cleverly used situational ethics to do what he had persuaded people was right and good.
      So, all in all, the Humanist Manifesto is a very dangerous document.
      It gives carte blanche to any so-called ethical values, as long they become the fashionable or consensus opinion. Whatever people want, people get, or what a government can claim people want, they are justified in giving to them.
      And for that reason it would not stop a Stalin, a Hitler, or a Kim il Sung, even if they had signed up 100% to abide by the Humanist Manifesto.
      In fact, the 20th century, atheist tyrants even called their regimes ... People's Republics. They claimed they were representing people's wishes, and thus carried out their 'situational ethics' on behalf of the people.

      What about the humanist/atheist ethics in so-called 'real' democracies?

      Whenever, atheists get into a position of power they change the law to suit their situational ethics. Then they can do whatever they want.
      That is what Stalin and all the other atheist tyrants did in their people's DEMOCRATIC republics.
      And the atheist thirst for blood does not cease when they live in the so-called 'real' democracies, it is simply sanitised by atheist inspired, situational ethics.
      They use their 'humanist' ethics to change the law, accompanied by 'newspeak' and propaganda.
      So that what was once considered evil, is not only made legal, it is actually turned around so it is considered a virtue.
      The wholesale and brutal slaughter, of the most vulnerable in society ... millions of unborn babies, is callously shrugged off as necessary, for 'free choice'.
      Of course murder is always a free choice for the killer, but only the dangerous, warped, atheist style, situational ethics could value a killer's free choice to kill, above the victim's right not to be killed, by making such murder legal.
      The callous slaughter of the unborn, which in most cases, was not even put to the people democratically (it was imposed on them by a handful of secularist politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats), is accompanied by the usual atheist lies and devious propaganda.
      So the secularists simply laugh off democracy, it doesn't stop them, if it gets in the way of their ideology, they just ignore it, like they do with science.
      "Democratic societies" what are they?
      Why ask the people? They are apparently not qualified to consider such difficult matters of right and wrong, like whether babies should live or die? You can't give those ignorant peasants, plebs and rednecks a vote on it, ... leave it to the secularist EXPERTS and their wonderful, situational ethics based on 'reason' and 'science'.
      We are told by the atheist moralists that the unborn baby is not fully human, it is only a blob of jelly, which has, and deserves, NO rights.
      And we are told, anyone who supports the rights of the unborn babies, not to be brutally ripped limb from limb is evil, because they are interfering with free CHOICE.
      So the atheist leopard certainly hasn't changed its lying, devious, brutal, and murderous spots, even in so-called real democratic societies. It simply legalises and sanitises evil and murder and makes it appear good.
      Then it can claim atheism is extremely ethical and virtuous, with its own, beautiful code of morals and conduct .... Yeah Right!
      Remind you of anyone?

      Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism.

      www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/14392060730/

      Science is the real enemy of atheism, not religion.

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts