"Duck Commander" Phil Robertson's Degenerate Anti-Atheist Rant Reveals He's Devoid of Morals, Humanity
At the Vero Beach Prayer Breakfast on Friday morning, Duck Dynasty "Commander" Phil Robertson - juiced on self-righteous indignation, waxed on uninterrupted about some kind of grotesque fantasy situation in which a family of atheists is bound, gagged and raped. That the “Duck Dynasty” clan leader had a national platform upon which to spew bullshit was basically an indictment of our whole society, and in my opinion - a further sign this society has lost its collective mind, judgment and reason. What this asshole basically allowed is that he has no concept of atheism, nor any of morality - far less humanity. He's demonstrated himself, in so many words, to be vermin.
“I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson said in the talk which was later broadcast on Christian conservative radio host Rick Wiles’ program, “Trunews.” “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. Then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them, and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him, and then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now, is there dude?”
“But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.”
Back up, butt brain. No atheist says "there is no right or wrong". What we say, as I repeated in my recent book ('Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'), and earlier from 'The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism' is that morality must be predicated on physical reality not an imagined supernatural one. It must be founded on practical ethics, not absolutist nonsense. This implicitly means a pure Materialist philosophy which also implies provisional ethics.
Let me elaborate on the first. As genuine Materialists, we can examine the astronomical evidence and determine that our planet is possibly the only inhabited one, at least in our galaxy - if not the cosmos. We can also ascertain that this terrestrial life is possibly all that exists in the cosmos and hence that we must strive to enhance and support it in any way possible. We should emphatically not squander what we have now, while awaiting a mythical afterlife. Nor squander the lives of others as this crazy co-pilot Andreas Lubitz apparently did - killing 148 people in the French Alps because he wanted to take out himself.
As Materialists we refrain from looking to any hypothesized deity for deliverance, or lay blame for human ills on some mythical demonic entity. On the contrary, Man alone is responsible for his actions and is the ultimate master of his fate. As Materialists, then, we maintain that Man need not suffer extinction as a species if he has the courage and vision to assume control of his destiny through the use of reason.
It isn’t necessary to wave a bible or the ten commandments at a Materialist, nor quote the "golden rule". The true Materialist, by definition, respects his fellow men and reveres all life, since he recognizes (through his philosophy) that they share a planet that may be unique in the cosmos. Thus, the true Materialist treasures and conserves the Earth's finite store of resources, since he comprehends that Earth also has one life to live - and there is no more after the existing resources are consumed.
If dunderhead Robertson knew any of this then he'd realize that his confabulated deviant fantasy of raping little girls and their mother not only flew in the face of atheism but common decency and humanity. Indeed, only a depraved pervert deprived of any humanity would come up with such an abomination in his feral mind. It, indeed, shows Robertson lacks any scintilla of humanity....or residue of morality.
Now what about provisional ethics? Any persistent observer of human social interaction will note that the vast majority of people are law-abiding and decent folk who naturally practice a common-sense, utilitarian ethics similar to what has been described. For proof, one need only look as far as the upstanding Atheist or agnostic who inhabits every community and who - though he disdains a deity, nevertheless treats his fellows with compassion and respect. No supernatural law or commandment ordains this behavior. Instead it is the conscious and deliberate recognition that the promotion of the welfare of others is directly linked to one's own welfare.
Unfortunately, what the religionists have done is to take the natural code of ethics most people follow and embellish it with a blizzard of superstitious precepts and injunctions. When these are stripped away one arrives at provisional ethics. As described by Michael Shermer ('The Science of Good and Evil'):
"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"
To fix ideas, in the case of the nun excommunicated several years ago, for saving a 27 year old mother’s life at the expense of her fetus, the moral choice was either to let the birth occur and see both mother and infant die, or prevent the birth (because of the mother’s blood pressure complications) and save the mother. She opted to maximize life chances for the mother as opposed to dramatically reduce them for both mother and child.
This is a perfect example of atheistic morality in action. Thus, in provisional morality the greater relative good is always chosen over the lesser one. In this case, two deaths with two life saving efforts represented the lesser good, while one death with one life saving effort represents the greater one.
In the case of Brittany Maynard's decision to end her life after being diagnosed with inoperable brain tumor, her choice to end her life was a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions. (Absolutist morality). Hence, the greater good here is her ending the suffering and degradation of her life quality rather than allowing it to progress to the stage she was unable to make any authentic choice.
In both cases and many others the atheist disdains and rejects morality that (in the words of Sam Harris): "pursues aims that are flagrantly immoral, in that they needlessly perpetuate human misery, while believing these actions are morally obligatory. " Adding that such "pious uncoupling of moral concern from the reality of human suffering" is unacceptable.
We see then that Robertson's portrayal of atheists as total scalawags and renegades with no moral compass is totally off base and in fact, insane. The atheist family he has raped and killed in his debased mental ideation then, must be seen as actually reflecting HIS own lack of morality and no one else's. We assess from this that his "morality" is debased and perverted since it would slaughter and rape those with a different life philosophy under the assumption they don't care and believe that "anything goes".
At root, not only is Robertson responsible for hatching such vile swill glorifying child rape and murder, but the media shares blame for giving this depraved piece of filth a stage on which to spout his degenerate fantasies - as a basis to supposedly condemn atheists.