Part 1 and Part 2
Part 1: Timothy McVeigh as “Christian Terrorist”
Part 2: Introductory Conclusion
Part 3: How To Be Ethical Without a God
Part 4: Threats and Promises / Punishment and Reward
Part 5: Selfish Morality
Part 6: The Alien Rape Voyeurs
Part 7: The “Problem of Evil”
Addendum: The Desperation of the Deicidal, Memetic Eugenics and the Evolutionary Watchmen, part 1 and part 2
In part 1 I noted that the Barkerian ethic, Dan Barker’s arbitrary moral commandments, are clearly not authored to function in the real words but was a tool by which to besmirch Christians. I further suspected that it was a window into Dan Barker’s appeal, however un or sub conscious, appeal to one or two of atheism’s consoling delusions: the consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability and the consoling delusion of absolute autonomy.
Based upon that which we considered in part 1 it may be that Dan Barker and some other atheists are attempting to get away with that which they want to get away.
Why else condemn people who are perfectly moral (metaphorically speaking) simply because Dan Barker personally does not approve that upon which they premise their moral behavior? What business is it of his?
Let us further brainstorm: what if there are people who are morally, emotionally, societally, culturally, evolutionarily—call is what you will—immature enough that they do need threats of punishment and promises of reward in order to motivate them towards moral behavior? What is it to Dan Barker or atheists in general? Why not leave them alone to continue being perfectly moral? Why badger them with your self-appointed superiority? Why bother them with your self-preferential premise of critical thinking, rational, reason, logic and other atheist consoling delusions?
This is where memetic eugenics comes into play: selecting breeding of thoughts, cultural characteristics, beliefs, etc.
Allow me to generalize that stated that atheists in general, and the militant and activist sorts in particular, have come to consider themselves arbiters of evolution. They seek to determine, to direct, to maneuver evolution towards their ends. They appear to consider themselves the watchers. They are the eyes of the blind watchmaker. They are the watchmen—but who watches the watchmen?
They claim, for example, that religion, theism, supernaturalism, etc. are, as will all things good, bad and the ugly (such as rape) byproducts of evolution (this is so even of completely contradictory observations: see Skell’s and Wiker’s comments in the hyperlink to rape). They claim that religion, theism, supernaturalism, etc. assisted in our survival and (just like rape) but are now, so they have determined, outdated and must be discarded. Evolution, of this sort, is no longer to function on natural selection but unnatural selection—human imposed selection. They are attempting to do this via dictating child rearing, co-opting science and generally demonizing and dehumanizing anyone with whom they disagree, etc.
Certainly, the atheist talking points on this issue include reference to 9/11, evil done in the name of “religion,” outdated cosmogonies, superstitions in general, etc,. etc., etc. while, of course, failing to account for the same when it is done by atheists and premised upon atheism (see From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist part 10 and part 11).
Yet, why it is the business of atheist living in the safety, comfort, freedom and overabundance of food and money of first world countries to tell people in third world countries who are eating grubs, dying of commonplace ailments and living in huts that they better get with the program? Or for that matter; who are they to tell the same to their fellow first worlders?
Who are they to promulgate the view, as stated by Dan Barker,
Darwin has bequeathed what is good…abortion is a blessing.
There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares…what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t [matter] the Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.
Or as stated by Dr. William B. Provine (Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University):
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear—and these are basically Darwin's views.
There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind.
There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me.
There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.
[Incidentally, how evolutionary biology implies any such things is certainly mysterious. It appears to come down to Dr. Provine’s admission that “I hated the idea of human free will.” He certainly found a self-servingly convenient way to do away with it then—he co-opted science in order to do away with what for him was a philosophically troubling problem. And to what does this lead him? “ultimate moral responsibility is nonexistent.” He thus concludes that “Blame is useless…It just creates a horrible system of criminal justice.”]
Lastly, let us note that, as per Dr. William B. Provine misosophy, the whole issue is a non issue as 1) Dan Barker serves up condemnations without providing a premise beyond his personal preferences and 2) Dan Barker is a strict determinist who does not believe in free-will.
Thus, 1) his condemnations are not only baseless but impotent—emotive and polemical, yes but baseless but impotent nonetheless—and 2) he is condemning people for doing that which they are destined, fated, biologically/biochemically predetermined to do.
As he states it:
I happen to think that we have the illusion of freewill…I’m a strict determinist. We are natural creatures. The material world is all there is. We actually don’t have what we would call libertarian freewill…I am a determinist, which means that I don’t think complete libertarian free will exists. Since we don’t know the future...we have the illusion of free will, which to me is what “free will” actually means
Let us note two points before concluding: 1) he, again, positively affirms God’s non-existence and absolute materialism, “The material world is all there is”—please prove it and 2) he notes an entry in the Barkerian Dictionary wherein “free will” does not mean “free will” but it means “the illusion of free will.”
The desperation of the deicidal is that in their quest to commit deicide they are sacrificing the cogency of their thought process; they are literally becoming more and more incapable of logically connecting one thought with the next. Where it not for their amen chorus of adherents, their enablers who are all too please to have fuel added to the fires of their own rebellious unbelief, they would be more widely recognized for the cacophonous concocters of chaotic corruptions which they are.
So, there you have it: those whose ethical system are based on threats and promises are biologically/biochemically determined to do that which you do, Dan Barker is biologically/biochemically determined to refer to them as morally bankrupt and make a living by besmirching them, I am biologically/biochemically determined to write about it, you are biologically/biochemically determined to comment on it and then we die—carpe despero!
 During his debate with John Rankin
 During his debate with Paul Manata
 Provine, W.B. 1994. Origins Research. 16 (1): 9.
 Julie Geng, “Prof Denies Human Free Will,” The Cornell Daily Sun, August 30 2005