Tag Archives: Hedonism

Videos

Bill Maher mocks Carrie Prejean’s stand on marriage

11 Comments

Spotted this video over at Hot Air, posted by AllahPundit, who is an atheist. He is beginning to question whether atheism leads to great heights of moral behavior. You’ll recall that this is one of the factors that convinced A.N. Wilson, as well as the Wintery Knight himself.

Atheism maintains that the universe is an accident, that there is no objective moral standard, no free will, no accountability when you die, no ultimate significance to our actions, no after-life, and no one to whom moral duty is owed. Bill Maher is a committed atheist. Let’s see what counts as morality on atheism.

And here is an excerpt from AllahPundit’s comments:

A quickie from last night’s show displaying all the charm and subtlety we’ve come to expect, and surely the first time in his life that he’s had an unkind word to say about breast implants. There’s something cosmically apt about him attacking her: No one in American media better embodies the lefty paradox of libertinism paired with judgmentalism, therefore no one’s better qualified to prosecute her for the left’s capital crime of hypocrisy.

Why are atheists making moral judgments in an accidental universe, where their moral standards are just their own personal preferences, or at best the arbitrary conventions of their society? Why even attribute blame to Carrie Prejean if she doesn’t even have free will, which is an impossibility on atheism, since we are just mindless matter?

There are some things that other people do that I don’t like based on personal preferences. For example, I do not like people who spend a lot of time following sports or watching popular movies in the theater. But I don’t insult them for not complying with my preferences. And that’s all morality is, on atheism. Individual preferences and cultural conventions.

You can only judge others if there is an objective standard that is binding on this other person. What sense does it make to mock and deride people who have different preferences than you do? It seems as if atheists do believe in objective morality, however inconsistently. But only when judging others, never when judging themselves.

News

Sweden legalizes sex-selection abortions

Leave a comment

Story from Hot Air.

Excerpt:

Sweden has approved gender-specific abortions, allowing parents to rid themselves of an unwanted daughter in a closely-watched ethics case…

Last month, I noted the opposition of the abortion-rights group Center for Reproductive Rights to the same practice in China, where the state’s one-child policy makes gender selection more important for parents.  Sweden has no such restrictions; in this case, the woman already had two daughters and wants a son.  CRR opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, putting their fright over what they call “fetus rights” over their objections to gender-specific infanticide.

At least Sweden remained consistent.  Unlike the CRR, their decision reluctantly noted that the woman’s motivation was irrelevant if one accepts that someone can “choose” to end human life as a right.  One wonders whether CRR will protest this decision in Sweden as they do in China, extending their intellectual confusion over the nature of “choice” as an absolute right.

Keep in mind that Sweden is the most secular nation in the world. What did we learn from the responses to our survey of atheists that would explain why they would support such barbarism?

We learned that atheists believe:

  • There is no such thing as human rights or human dignity, objectively speaking
  • There is no such thing as moral values or moral duties, objectively speaking
  • The purpose of life is happiness in the here and now
  • There is no ultimate significance to any actions – it doesn’t matter what you do, your end is the same
  • Our actions are biologically determined, so we’re not responsible anyway
  • There is no after-life, no accountability after death for actions
  • Morality is determined by each person’s personal preferences, or arbitrary cultural conventions

On atheism, the weak have no objective human rights or human dignity, because people are just arrangements of matter, not creatures made in the image of God. On atheism, there is no purpose for the weak, such as the purpose of freely coming to know God, that would give them dignity and value, regardless of their social utility.

So, the strong can oppress the weak, even to the point of slavery or murder, in order to maximize their own happiness in the short time they are allotted to live. On atheism, why not? Why let anyone else offend you, burden you and diminish your happiness, if you can use force to silence or destroy them?

Commentary

Beware of government-run health care

Leave a comment

The Anchoress has an inspiring pro-life story posted here. I recommend you take a look. It is very important for people to take her point, that on the Christian view, God has a purpose for allowing us the opportunity to to love those who need love. The purpose of life is not to shove away the demands of others so that you can maximize your own happiness.

The first part of her post is a story about a mother who chooses to deliver a baby whom, she was told, would die shortly after birth. She goes on to have the baby, who is doing (mostly) fine. I recommend you check out the story. But there is another point that needs to be made about this story. Ask yourself – why was this woman allowed to choose to have her baby?

The answer is – because the government did not control her health-care decisions, as would be the case in a single-payer system. And in a single-payer system, your health care depends on radical secular-leftist social engineers. The same ones who fund useless embryonic stem cell research, because it is a sop to the pro-abortion lobby.

The Anchoress continues:

People who clamor for government-run health care should consider that once the taxpayers have given that power over the government, they – like AIG and all of the “evil banks” currently being talked down – will place themselves and their loved ones into the power of the government and their accounting sheets. The grandmother you think of as gold, may be so much tin, if she costs the government too much to keep alive. The husband you call your diamond becomes only coal to the bureaucrat.

And abortion…if you discover that the child in your womb is “defective” and decide you want to love it, anyway, that you want to allow your daughter a few precious minutes of life and love, give your son the chance to grow in the life he will have, you will be told you are unrealistic and selfish to burden the state and your fellow taxpayers with your absurd love.

One of the purposes of my blog is for Christians to realize the connection between public policies and their ability to execute their own Christian lives without interference from the secular state. The point that Anchoress makes above is something that we should all think through carefully. How many “social justice” policies do Christians vote for that will come back to bite us?

I blogged about Obama’s plan to outlaw the right of conscience of medical personnel, the abolition of voucher programs here and here, defunding of churches, discrimination against religions schools, and the secularization that results from socialism here. The left favors forced euthanasia and coerced abortions. And the left is willing to reduce costs by reducing the quality of care.