Atheists Just Don't Want To Be Held Accountable!

"Atheists pretend not to believe in God because if Goe doesn't exist, then there are no rules! Atheists just want there to be no rules so they can't be held responsible for their actions!"


I've heard phrases like that at Christian youth conferences, at family dinners, on videos of religious debates... you name it, I've probably heard this phrase uttered in that context, and I cannot get over what a flawless example of Projection it really is. But, even beyond the projection, what really blows my mind about phrases like the one above, is just how ignorant the Christian making that statement has to be, not only about atheism, but also about Christianity in order to make a claim that atheists disbelieve in Yahweh as part of an effort to abdicate responsibility for our actions.


In order to make such a claim, you have to be a Christian who doesn't understand the gospel story. You have to be a Christian who doesn't understand that Jesus is a literal scapegoat, who has allegedly already had all of humanity's sins heaped upon him. You have to be a Christian who doesn't understand that the crucifixion story is Jesus taking the punishment for all of humanity's sins so that Yahweh can declare Christians to be blameless and admissible to Heaven upon their deaths. This is the ultimate abdication of responsibility! The biggest selling point in the Christian religion is literally that believers have a scapegoat who has absolved them of all moral responsibility. Believers no longer have to accept responsibility for anything that they have ever done in their lives, because they think that Yahweh has already forgiven them.  As a Christian, you can go out right now and set fire to an orphanage full of small children and then say "Don't worry, I'm going to heaven because Jesus will forgive me!"


Now, I'm sure that plenty of Christians would respond "Well as a Christian, I wouldn't WANT to do things like that!!" To which I can only respond: "That is precisely the point!" As an atheist, I don't want to do that either! The point is that Christians believe that their deity will not judge them for their actions, and atheists believe that their is no deity to do the judging in the first place. The only difference is that atheists recognize that morality is made by society and that we are answerable to each other and our society as a whole for our actions, while Christians want to claim that judgement is the sole purview of a deity who has himself abdicated his responsibility to pass judgement.

While Christians are busy saying "Only God can judge me!" while simultaneously believing that they are exempt from this judgement (making the phrase "Only God can judge me" a clever euphemism for "No one can judge me), atheists submit themselves to judgement by their fellow humans who (conveniently enough) can actually be confirmed to exist.

To put it another way, Christians believe that there is an "objective moral truth" but that morality is completely irrelevant because they are already forgiven for violating any and every moral dictate. Sure many believe that the Bible calls them to be "Christlike", but the salvation promised them as the reward for their belief means that there are no consequences for failing to answer the call, rendering the call to be "Christlike" entirely optional. Meanwhile atheists (as a general rule, although I'm sure there are exceptions) recognize that morality is a social construct, but also recognize that the society that established the moral codes can and will actually hold them accountable for their actions. One of the things that you come to understand when you realize that Yahweh and Jesus are mythical beings is that you have to take responsibility for your own actions, because you no longer have a devil to blame for your failings, nor do you have a mythical scapegoat to take responsibility for your failings.

*****

A few years ago, Reality TV star, and Exhibit A for anyone seeking to prove that "earning a Master's degree can't always compensate for your natural, inborn stupidity", Phil Robertson went on a ridiculous rant trying to prove exactly this point, that atheism is an attempt to abdicate personal responsibility. The rant can be read here if you have the stomach for it (Trigger Warnings for physical and sexual assault). But to illustrate just how ridiculous Robertson's claim is, allow me to reframe his rant to be about Christians rather than atheists:

"...two Christians break into another Christian’s home. He has a little Christian wife and two little Christian daughters. Two Christians break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. 
"Then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them, and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him, and then they can look at him and say, 'Isn’t it great that we don’t have to worry about going to Hell for our crimes? Isn’t it great that "Only God can judge us" and that God isn't going to judge us because we believe in Jesus? Isn’t it great that we’ll be forgiven by God, and if you’re a true Christian, you’ll need to turn the other cheek and forgive us as well, dude?’'
"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, 'Wouldn’t it be something if we were actually held accountable for our actions and couldn’t blame demons or the devil? But God works in mysterious ways, right? Sure, there’s right and wrong, but it doesn’t matter. God will forgive us as long as we repent and trust our lord and savior, Jesus Christ. We’re not perfect, just forgiven!'"

While an atheist can say "Those people will be judged by society. Humanity will judge their actions." What can a Christian say that is consistent with their faith? In fact, upon their death, what could Yahweh himself say aside from "Welcome to Heaven! Good thing you believed that my son died for you, otherwise I'd have to punish you for your actions! Fortunately, I'm really not that interested in morality just as long as you will stroke my ego and say how great I am!"? Two Christians could literally act out Robertson's entire rape fantasy parable, and - if their belief system were true - they would be held completely blameless.

In closing, if you have a problem with people adopting religious preferences in order to abdicate responsibility for their actions, your problem isn't with atheism, your problem is with Christianity and other religions that allow for scapegoating. The simple fact is that - in principle - atheists have at least as much justification for morality as Christians, and - in practice - atheists often have much more!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal Logic 101 – Part 3: Intro to Symbolization

So far, we’ve seen fairly short three-line proofs. For those proofs, writing them out longhand is fine. However, proofs can get much longer. Consider: Argument 1 1. If Clara will come to the party then we’ll have a good time. premise 2. Clara will come to the party. premise 3. If we have a good time then we’ll come home after midnight. premise 4. If we come home after midnight then we’ll sleep in late. premise 5. We’ll have a good time. from 1 and 2 6. We’ll come home after midnight. from 3 and 5 7. We’ll sleep in late. from 4 and 6 That’s only 7 lines with fairly simple sentences, and 3 applications of modus ponens, and we’re rapidly approaching the point where I think a lot of people – if they had to do i...
Read more

Formal Logic 101 – Part 19: Proofs in Predicate Logic (Part 2)

Last time we covered two of our final 4 inference rules (Universal Instantiation and Existential Generalization). Today we’ll be wrapping up the last of our new rules. Beyond this I have a couple posts planned for less-common situations, and then the series will be done. So let’s get to it. Existential Instantiation (EI) If you remember our last past, you might have a guess about how this next rule is going to work. EG let us go from Dm to (∃x)Dx, so EI is probably going to let us go from (∃x)Dx to Dm. If that was your guess, you’re basically right, however, EI is going to have some additional restrictions on how it can be used. To understand the need for these restrictions, I will present the following example where I will INCORRECTLY use EI by treating it exactly the same way as UI. Consider the following premises: Some numbers are odd. Some numbers are even. Let us say that “Nx” is “x is a Number”, “Ox” is “x is Odd”, and “Ex” is “x is Even”. Observe the following argument: 1. (∃x)(...
Read more

Formal Logic 101 – Part 11: Replacement Rules (Part 2)

Welcome back. Today we’ll be picking up where we left off with more replacement rules. Commutation (Comm.) Commutation is a handy step for dealing with “And” or “Or” statements, where the statement you have is close to what you would need to complete another step (such Modus Ponens, for example) but is not quite exactly right. I think the easiest way to explain this would be by example. Consider the premises: If the Sun is very Large but looks very Small, then it must be Far away. The Sun looks very Small, but it is very Large. Our symbolism would be as follows: 1. (L^S)→ F                Premise (P) 2. S^L                            P Now, instinctively, I think we understand that “L^S” and “S^L” mean the same thing, but as was stated in the introduction, formal logic requires you to show your work. Every step must be documented. It’s not enough to assume that th...
Read more