An atheist must be immoral–why quarrel?
Both logic and evidence show I am right!
Their claim to their “moral” conclusions? Illusions!
With no god to guide them, what’s “wrong” in their sight?
Imagine a fervent believer–his fever
For ultimate justice gives glory to God;
An atheist view of what matters just shatters–
No bedrock to build on, just fragile facade.
An altruist Christian has learning, concerning
His real motivation–the state of the soul!
The ignorant atheist doesn’t–he wasn’t
Informed of the true, supernatural goal.
The soul is the crux of the issue, not tissue;
The corpse is mere husk–that’s the common conceit–
The Christian world-view states it clearly (or nearly):
“Our bodies are meaningless pieces of meat”.
My aggregator threw a discussion at me–what are the tangible ways a non-believer can’t help as much as a believer? In particular, a commenter is accused of a failure of imagination if he can’t see that he is mischaracterizing atheists. He responds, in part:
Not really , i have a great imagination and I tried to imagine any way possible for why an atheist would want to give to charity to support a meaningless piece of meat (that evolved by blind chance and chemical interaction ). In a world without ultimate meaning, purpose or hope I can’t logically see why it would have any meaning at all.
Terrific imagination, but apparently is unable to imagine the world he actually lives in, the atheists that actually surround him (or, perhaps, avoid him).
But… I get it, now. I finally get it. See, he also explains his own view:
Rationally and logically speaking, the state of someone’s soul is much more important then anything in this finite realm. That’s not an emotional statement , that’s a statement that just makes common sense .
And it makes perfect sense. Both he and I would say that my family, friends, and loved ones (and by extension, theirs, and theirs, and theirs, and so on through the whole world) are important because of who they are in my life, because I love them, because they are so important that culture has contrived whole religious systems to enforce their importance. But he puts that importance in their souls, and my own worldview rejects the prescientific concept of an animating soul (or any other sort) as not needed to explain any observations of our lives. And in my rejection of the soul, this guy sees rejection of meaning, of importance, of love.
But the thing is, it is him who sees the body as a “meaningless piece of meat.” From his view, without the soul, that’s what it is. It is as if he thinks that, without a soul, our babies would not giggle, our toddlers would not laugh, our young teens would not get their hearts broken, our whole lives would be zombie-like shuffling. Either he thinks we are blind to the wonders of life, or (much more kindly) he simply thinks we are wrong on the whole “soul” thing. Which the biologists and psychologists would be a bit surprised at.
But since he has a wonderful imagination, it must be that atheists are blind.