The god-man


An enthusiastic address given to the brightest minds of our age:

 

“My fellow atheists, If we are to dispense with the old understanding of the universe which is touted by the religious as a purposeful universe, proving that we can live a moral life without God is not a sufficient tactic, moreover it is delusional. We only need to destroy the idea of God in man. As soon as all men have denied God, a new era will emerge in which all things will be lawful. Morality will no longer be relevant; indeed, it will become incoherent. And, it will not help our cause.

This thought should not be a bother. We must face it with courage and unflinching steadfastness. Let not your heart be troubled, as has once been said. A new beginning will arise, and men will band together to consume from life all it has to give. Consideration for the past and the future will be discarded for the joy and happiness of the present. The universe will glorify the image of man and the man-god will at last appear. Moment by moment he will be driven with a sense of nobility and gratefulness being cognizant of the improbability of his existence and his privileged position. Conscious of the fleeting momentariness of life, he will not despair of his end, but will live life all the more, loving his brother without desire for accolade; a love which has heretofore been dissipated by thoughts of life beyond the grave. He will extend his conquest of nature through the sheer power of his own will utilizing the methods of science until all things are put under his feet.

But, let us not delude ourselves with the old and fallacious notions of morality. The god-man need not justify anything; indeed, who would he justify it to? There is no law for gods. Where gods stand, the place is holy. All things are lawful for the man whose very essence is the source from which the law emanates. We did not understand this before when we accused God of immorality. Can swine say unto the farmer, “what doest thou?” when the farmer does not eat the same slop in the trough nor reside in the same cage as they? Is the farmer immoral because he does not live by the rules of the swine?

Even so, men, not being used to forming laws, but only recognizing them where they find them already formed, ignorantly judge God by those laws. I repeat, there is no law for God or there would exist a being greater than He. So it is, that there is no law for the god-man, or there would be one greater than he. As it was for God, so it will be for the god-man. It is essential also to note, that neither is there any law to which the god-man can appeal that mediates between the contentions of men. If there were, clearly, there would be a God; and we would cease to be the god-man and become a slave. The very idea of God was tyrannical in nature. While we held it, we were never free. We must break free of these shackles.

Let us not think, however, that there is a new morality operating by the axiom “all things are lawful.” There is no morality. Consider, if you will, that in the absence of God, men who have realized their divinity can divinely approve their own actions. And, since no two men have ever agreed on every single issue, nor indeed has any man always agreed with himself, all actions of men are both divinely approved and disapproved. The same things, then, are holy and unholy at the same time. Do you not see, now, how the very concept of morality is incoherent? Therefore, let us leave it aside and quit trying to be “good without God”, for there can be no such thing. That thought is a product of our imagination and a delusion that indicates we are still holding on to some infinitesimal notion of God.

Brethren, may we move on into the next stage of evolution where everything is determined, and mankind can no longer be moved; an era without morality, an era without God, an era where there cannot possibly be any change, and thus no possibility of redemption. Let us accept things as they are and live in the bare nakedness of that honesty. Then, indeed, will the old conceptions of the universe fall away. And, let us accept neither delusion nor imagination to comfort us and quell our anxieties. For there is, now we know, nothing but us, and we must go on with courage.

Thank you and goodnight.”

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “The god-man

  1. Sincerely bizarre… but, a joy to read anyway. Of course, I complete reject your odd logic but certainly like the way your write it out. Thanks! Blessings always, Carley

      1. Okay, perhaps I’m missing something here — but my impression of this post is that the person who wrote it is indeed an atheist. I don’t agree with this point of view, but the writing itself is interesting and yes – refreshing. I appreciate the written word. Just because I don’t agree with its message doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the MANNER in which the message is shared. Carley

      2. Carley,

        I wrote it, and I’m not an atheist. I’m a Christian. I wrote it to show what a consistent atheist would look like (something atheists who try to be “good without God” aren’t being) and also to show the repulsiveness of their position, not the one they think they have.

        The atheist may disagree with the conclusion of the post but they are disagreeing with their own position.

      3. Well, I’m an atheist and I would not agree with this notion you present of morality. Without that plank being an accurate reflection of atheists, the rest of this fiction just falls into misdirected imaginings.

    1. Cedric,

      If you have a point, make it. But, your previous reply was incoherent and I deleted it. If you disagree with what I said, then make a case. But no more substitutional mockery. I don’t think I said anything you’d disagree with anyway.

      1. If you have a point, make it. But, your previous reply was incoherent and I deleted it.

        Sure it was. Sure. However, lurkers are just going to have to trust you on that point. They can’t read it for themselves.

        But no more substitutional mockery.

        You don’t like it when I take your complete statement and only switch the labels around to show up your assumptions. It makes you look bad. Not even dodgy algebra helps you.

        I don’t think I said anything you’d disagree with…

        You are projecting. You are simply making stuff out. If you want to find out what atheists say then why not be honest about it and quote, in full, current atheist material? Critique that if you must. Easy enough.
        Daniel Dennet has lots of stuff on youtube out there that’s freely available.
        So has Harris and Greta Christina and AC Greyling and Dawkins etc.
        Yet you make stuff up.
        Poor form.

      2. Cedric,

        There are atheists who think that morality is illusory. I’m not making up lies. My post is consistent with the atheistic worldview.

      3. No, it’s not. What we call morality is a function of our biology. You continue to believe in spite of much contrary evidence from reality that the rejection of belief in a god-sanctioned, god-delivered, divine objective morality that the only other alternative is immorality. You reveal substantial friction moving away from this belief-based assumption. It’s time to get over it.

      4. There are atheists who think that morality is illusory.

        Then quote them. Deal with the real world.

        I’m not making up lies.

        It’s completely made up. It’s all from you and you alone.

        My post is consistent with the atheistic worldview.

        The what?

      5. The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory. (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

        I am a law only for my kind, I am no law for all.
        Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

        “Existence precedes essence” Sartre, Being and Nothingness.

        Sartre is saying that there is no blueprint or nature man must live by. Instead, what he chooses determines his nature. There is no pattern to subordinate our behavior to, there is only what is… what exist… no morality.

      6. Maybe an analogy will help break through you false dichotomy: Daniel claims there is a divine ‘politics’ from which all of us derive our political sensibilities. But he happens to know the right one, the only one, because he has an ancient book of collected writings that reveal god’s word on the matter. He insists that if there is no objective divine ‘politics’ then there is only nihilism. People point out that ‘politics’ is simply a term we use to describe how people get along with each other and that there is a spectrum of behaviour that is quite subjective in its expression. People also point out that there is no one correct ‘politics’ and that the one he thinks is divinely revealed to him has earned by means of a lack of evidence no such exaltation. So his answer is that those who disagree with him must be nihilists because no sense of the term ‘politics’ can exist if it does not exist independently of the primates who use the term.

        Morality is a term we use to describe the concern of consequences of behaviours. It is not a free floating object that exists independently of the primates who use the term nor is this a necessary condition for the term to maintain a descriptive function. Those who see no good reason to think that you have undergone a special revelation about his term we call morality does not mean those legitimate and honest sceptics think morality (what the term means) is an unimportant consideration.

        Your willingness to hold fast to your false dichotomy means that you read your meaning into what various authors have written. This approach guarantees your continued confusion.

      7. “Morality is a term we use to describe the concern of consequences of behaviours.”

        Your morality is incoherent. I’m concerned that sex outside of marriage has bad consequesnces. Therefore, I declare that behavior wrong. You see no problem with sex outside of marriage and declare it to be right. The same behavior is both right and wrong. Your morality is incoherent.

      8. An intruder threatens my family with a gun so I hit him over the head and he dies.

        A neighbour says hello so I hit him over the head and he dies.

        You’re trying to suggest that the same behaviour cannot produce different moral results without being incoherent.

        It may be of benefit to put your head in a paint shaker and turn it on. Reason as an alternative seems to be particularly ineffective.

      9. My post is consistent with the atheistic worldview.

        The what?

        The position of the modern evolutionist…

        That’s nice. I don’t care. Atheistic worldview? Hello?

        (…Random quote from dead philosopher…)

        That’s nice. I don’t care. Atheistic worldview?

        Sartre is saying…

        (yawn)
        That’s nice. I don’t care. Atheistic worldview?

      10. Ah, I see what you did there!

        <I.There are atheists who think that morality is illusory.

        “Then quote them. Deal with the real world.”

        Yes, indeed. Give us these quotes from atheists who think morality is illusory.

        Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.

        Well, there’s the first fail.
        Morality is illusory? Nope. Ruse didn’t actually say that. He said something different.

        I am a law only for my kind, I am no law for all.

        Ah,Nietzsche! So where does he go on about morality and it being illusory?

        “Existence precedes essence”

        Morality is illusory? Hello? When do we get to the quotes?

        Sartre is saying…

        Yes, of course. Of course he is.
        There seems to be a distinct lack of atheist quotes proclaiming that morality is illusory.

        Plenty of atheists.
        Plenty of atheists on youtube.
        Plenty of famous atheists on youtube.
        Plenty of famous atheists on youtube talking about morality.

        Which of them can you quote actually claiming that morality is illusory?
        So far, your track record is not so good.

        Morality 1: Good without gods

  2. I was reminded of Carl Sagan, who said

    If you lived two or three millennia ago, there was no shame in holding that the Universe was made for us. It was an appealing thesis consistent with everything we knew; it was what the most learned among us taught without qualification. But we have found out much since then. Defending such a position today amounts to a willful disregard of the evidence, and a flight from self-knowledge.

    Of course, only modern atheists with good book sales are considered intolerant, strident and shrill, militant and immoral, nihilists.

  3. “a willful disregard of the evidence, and a flight from self-knowledge.”

    Do you mean the evidence that the universe began to exist, and that there was nothing before that? That evidence decidedly points to a creator.

    1. How do you know what existed prior to the universe’s formation, Dan? Stop pretending you do and take a page from the atheist’s handbook and repeat after me: say, “I don’t know,” when you don’t know something. The sky will not fall.

      But if the evidence we have for the space/time continuum to begin with the formation of the universe, then it makes no sense contrary to this evidence to suggest a ‘before’. And to conclude that therefore there must have been an agency of Oogity Boogity to organize he universe from nothing is just as incoherent. There is no evidence to suggest any such agency but lots of evidence that the universe is subject without any overt intervention to the reality in which it has developed.

  4. “proving that we can live a moral life without God is not a sufficient tactic, moreover it is delusional”
    What a stupid thing to say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s