The Desperation of the Deicidal, Memetic Eugenics and the Evolutionary Watchmen, part 1 of 2

True Freethinker has considered some statements made by Dan Barker during his debate with Peter Payne which I entitled Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs.

Any ethical system that's based on threats and promises is morally bankrupt…That is a morally bankrupt thing to do.

To begin with we must note that this is, of course, utterly arbitrary. Whether it makes good sense, whether you agree or not-it is arbitrary. This is, of course, Dan Barker's personal opinion and we should not be the least bit bothered by it. Yes, he quickly moves from an argument from personal preference to an argument for ridicule and embarrassment (against any who would disagree or disregard him). Yet, these are, of course, impotent besmirchments.

Note that, if we grant Dan Barker's assertion, since any ethical system that is based on threats and promises is morally bankrupt virtually every law of every clan, tribe and government that there has ever been-regardless of chronology, geography, theology or lack thereof-has been morally bankrupt since the tendency of law is to carry along with it the threat of punishment (as well as some degree of promise; of continued freedom, for example). This also applies to family, to parents. Since virtually every parent there has ever been has relied on a system of threats and promises virtually all parents there have ever been have been morally bankrupt.

It seems rather evidence that this Barkerian concept-as his entire concept of deeming rape to not be absolutely immoral by appealing to alien rape voyeurs-has nothing to do with reality, it has no relation to the real world in which the ethos is meant to function. Dan Barker has called the police to deal with protesters at the Freedom From Religion Foundation headquarters.
But why so that the police could say, "Oh, come on guys go away please. Oh, man. Come on now can you just go somewhere else? "No" oh well, goodbye"? No, of course, he wanted the threat of arrest, incarceration, a criminal record or even the use of a billy-club and pepper-spray to weight upon the decisions of the protestors.

It, therefore, seems rather evidence that this Barkerian concept has been concocted in order to leverage one or two of atheism's consoling delusions: the consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability and the consoling delusion of absolute autonomy. Why else would be specifically direct this imaginary ethos towards Christianity, heaven, hell, etc.?

Let us briefly note that he is presupposing to know why people do what they do-which he does not know. Even if there is a threat of hell and promise of heaven within the system to which the person adheres-he does not know. Note also that he is exhibiting a tremendous lack of knowledge of Christian theology since it does not propose, as he supposes, a works based concept of salvation, "_by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Why should it matter to Dan Barker why someone refrains from actions which he personally prefers to consider immoral? Is it not enough that they are refraining? I personally do consider it important up what premise they refrain but why does he care why you love your neighbor?

I would argue that, for example, the Christian ethic is absolutely premised on the ethos itself, or the ethos Himself-God, and the fact of His creation of human beings. The premise does not change.
An atheist premises their morality upon their personal opinions (call them epistemic determinations, call them logical conclusions of observing physical and emotional suffering and joy, call them what you will). The premise is not only arbitrary but tentative.
If I have good and absolute reasons for doing good then when I do not do good or do the opposite of good I am actually violating the absolute good, the absolute reasons, upon which I claimed to be good in the first place.
If I have no good or do have good but not absolute reasons for doing good then when I do not do good or do the opposite of good I am violating nothing at all.
[Let Dan Barker tackle other theologies as he will]

Thus, if Christians violate their ethos they are not only violating something, someone, absolute but are accountable.
Thus, atheists violate their morals they are not violating anything and are not accountable.

Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher, offered a very interesting and succinct observation in his post Are Atheists Evil? Bad Reasoning in Sam Harris (see that post's comments section 5.22.2007 12:26pm):

Imagine a situation in which A is in a position to impose his will on B (by raping and murdering her, say) and that A will "get away with it." (No one cares about B, they are far off in the wild, etc. We may imagine that A will die in a month from cancer.)
In this situation, does A have a reason not to rape and murder B, a reason to not gratify himself? If there is no God, and no surivival [sic] of physical death, what reason could A have? Because it is wrong in the abstract for A to rape and murder? That will strike A as a joke.
"You are going to oppose to my real and furious lust an abstract moral demand that hangs in the air with no way of being enforced??" This is one way to focus the question that people like Harris and Shermer apparaently [sic] don't grasp.

And let us add, "Barker."
This is one of the ways in which atheism makes evil worse: not only does atheism do nothing about evil, atheism turns evil into a very positive endeavor since the evildoer gets to enjoy themselves and if they are not caught by the legal systems of this world, they simply get away with it while leaving their victims to suffer-atheism offers no ultimate justice nor absolute condemnation.

In the next segment we will consider what Dan Barker may be up to-au fond.