Lying to Show Moral Superiority

Today we saw two good examples of Christian morals.  Both were intended to prove how much better are Christian ethics than atheist ethics.  Both were lies.

Let's start with Victor Reppert, a PhD philosopher and Christian.  He has been trying hard recently to make atheists out to be communists, complete with the guilt and moral responsibility for communist atrocities.  Well, actually he has been making these clams for years.  Despite many efforts to explain that people do those things because of their ideologies, and atheism is not an ideology in itself, he continues to say the same stupid things.  He knows it's not the truth, but apparently, one of his goals is to show that Christianity is better than atheism from the perspective of morality.  I discussed this in my previous post.

Now, apparently in a concession to the idea that ideology is what motivates people, he is trying to equate humanism to communism.

Actually, Marxism is pretty humanistic, if you think about it. - Reppert

Well, Victor, if you think about it, your education in philosophy should have taught you something other than "theism good - atheism bad".  But let us not accuse you of thinking about it.  You can look up these things on the internet and read all about any ideology you may want to learn about.  If you did that, you would discover that humanism is a far cry from communism.  The centerpiece of humanism is human rights, something that communists have shown little concern for.  But little details like having a basic understanding of various ideological world-views will never get in the way of your lying for your faith, will they, Victor?

And then there's Bob Prokop, who's not a philosopher.  He's just another apologist for his faith who is no less willing to lie.

I was especially struck by this passage: "I am very sorry if a crocodile eats a man, but I can't reproach the crocodile. He is not a moral being. So no reproaches can be made to the communists. Communism has destroyed any moral sense in them. They boasted they had no pity in their hearts." (my emphasis) I thought, now where had I read something similar to this not long ago? Then I remembered. It was right here, on this website. It went something like this: "I love life. I’m living life to the hilt, pretty much guilt free, primarily because my ethical standards aren’t as high." (again, my emphasis)

Question: How far is it from "no guilt" to "no pity"? - Prokop

He is referring to a passage from John Loftus, in which he explained that he was free of the guilt associated with the additional burden of guilt and obligations placed upon believers by their religion, such as the responsibility to pray, to tithe, to evangelize, etc.  But Bob chooses to take the low road, and present Loftus' words, out of context, as simply lacking in ethical standards.  And he expects his readers to conclude that he is ethically better than Loftus?  Well, I have no doubt that many of them will.  Just not the ones who are honest and able to think critically.

So we have two cases of Christians who, in their effort to prove the moral superiority of Christianity over atheism, have succeeded in showing that their own moral standards are dubious.  They both take the attitude that the ends justify the means.  If they are willing to lie for their faith, what other moral transgressions might they be willing to commit?  Do they approve of the genocide of the native Americans?  Of the execution of apostates and witches?  Of the torture of supposed heretics under the inquisition?  Of the molestation of young children by members of the clergy? 

If they think that atheists should bear responsibility for the crimes of other atheists who don't even share their ideology, then surely these Christians should bear responsibility for the crimes of their fellow Christians.  And along with that, they must admit that the morality they so vehemently defend doesn't live up to their claims of superiority.