Tag: atheists

Barefoot and fancy free – The gripping conclusion

I dropped by my nemesis’s site tonight – I was bored. It seems the barefoot bum has been spanked by blogger for breaching their terms.

I did consider flagging him as inapprorpriate – but I can’t remember if I ended up doing so… serves him right. He was a nasty piece of work.

“Blogger strongly believes in freedom of speech. We believe that having a variety of perspectives is an important part of what makes blogs such an exciting and diverse medium. With that said, there are certain types of content that are not allowed on Blogger. While Blogger values and safeguards political and social commentary, material that promotes hatred toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity is not allowed on Blogger.”

June 30, 2009

Questions from answers

No, this isn’t a post about Jeopardy. Have you ever seen a billboard that just didn’t make sense? Have you ever seen one of those billboards that came from a Christian organisation? Well, here’s one. So now you can answer “yes” to both those questions… It makes no sense to me at all – perhaps you can explain it to me.

Answers in Genesis even made this into a video advert on YouTube. I think they’re suggesting that if you’re not a Christian you’re likely to shoot people because you don’t really care about them – or that people who don’t believe in God are more likely to shoot you because they don’t care about you.

It’s just odd and pretty screwy. Though I’d expect that from these guys. They’re Christianity’s Richard Dawkins.

June 29, 2009

On foolishness

I’m working on my next sermon. For the night services at Willows on the 28th of June. Here’s the passage I’m preaching on – it’s in the context of a series on evangelism in the mornings… an imaginary Freddo Frog to the person who first guesses what direction I’m going in with this passage…

1 Corinthians 1
“17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]

1 Corinthians 2
1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[e] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.”

June 17, 2009

The Church of Google

A while back I mindlessly speculated that Google was just like God. At least there were certain similarities. I was trying to find an appropriate analogy for talking to geeks. Who incidentally, in my latest piece of theorising, are probably statistically more likely to be atheists despite a love for science fiction*.

Anyway, it seems there’s actually an atheist movement running round calling themselves “the church of Google” suggesting that Google is indeed the closest thing to God (Note: google chrome reckons this site is dodgy, and has blocked it (and search results it appears in on my site) so I’ve killed what was a link, and you’ll have to google it for yourself),.

Sadly, there is a page dedicated to “hate mail” filled with irate Christians. Like this guy.

“I’m sorry, but I must not only completely disagree with your little Googlism idea, but i must also call it insanely retarded. For one large reason, it was man-made. Not to say than any other g0d is not man-made, but as much as we are sure google exists and g0d does not, we are also sure google is a search engine not only made by two guys, but there is no opposition to the thought that it wasnt, where as to g0ds of any nature, are not man-made, but more on control/lead man. Another reason, the only thing google is made for, is to give information. Google has not created the world, man created google. To say google is g0d not only does make sense, but it has to be one of the most retarded things i have ever heard.”

*Based solely on the number of pro-atheism articles submitted and voted for on geek cesspools like Reddit, Digg, and StumbleUpon.

June 13, 2009

Where we go wrong

I’m going to do something odd for a second. I’m going to put on the “naturist” atheist hat. I watched this video (with a pretty strong language warning) of Christian comments about atheism on blogs. It’s disturbing.

Atheists are not stupid.

Peter Jensen put it best when he said that atheists and Christians have a lot in common – they reject all Gods, we reject all Gods but one.

If you start from the assumption that the universe is a product of chance, infinite time producing every possible result, then atheism makes the most sense. The whole argument comes down to that question, and both answers seem prima facie “logical” (if not, in atheist’s thinking “rational”).

So when you throw stones at all atheists on the basis of the intolerance of the few remember you may end up in a video like this – that shows a lot of Christians not “speaking the truth with love”…

Again, there’s a “strong and nasty” language warning on this video – but it’s coming from “Christians”.

Should we be worried if atheists take over the world? Personally I don’t think so. They’re not all Pol Pot or the Barefoot Bum.

June 13, 2009

“Evolution of Religion”

One of the arguments that atheists use that I don’t like is the accusation that Christianity is just plagiarism – taking bits common to other religions and applying them – as though its relative newness (2000 years compared to say Greek polytheism) means it’s just been able to “pick and choose” in order to colonise the infidels.

They always play it like it’s a trump card Christians have never considered… “Did you know that the obscure tribe from the middle of nowhere also have …?” Christianity is just a mish mash of other religious myths. A myth mash…

This is what happens when you dismiss any truth in any religion.

It’s rubbish. It’s one of those arguments where they need to put the “God hat” on for a minute and look at it from a believer’s perspective – just because something uses the same elements doesn’t make it a copy. Water is not a copy of carbon dioxide. Though both contain oxygen. While Cat Stevens may suggest that Coldplay were copying him by using similar musical notes in a similar progression to one of his songs – it doesn’t make it so.

So, this post about communion on the Friendly Atheist made me angrier than most.

While Atheists believe there is no truth to any religion adherents of those religions all claim that their’s is uniquely true – they can’t all be products of each other at that point. Though Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, and Mormonism to an extent claims to be a fulfillment of Christianity. The idea that common elements is a critique is wrongheaded.

If you’ve got an hour and twenty minutes then you should watch this lecture on the evolution of religion and get annoyed. Like I did. About ten minutes in.

That is all.

June 13, 2009

Nemesis

I think I officially have an online nemesis. And I’m unworried. The Barefoot Bum has written a couple more posts about how many problems he has with me – and refuses to post my comments. How beautifully ironic given that he suggested I’d edit my comments after he posted his rant.

Anyway, don’t bother commenting there. It’s not worth the angst. He’s certainly pretty sure of his faith. And pretty abusive.

In closing, I give you this statement based on my experiences posting comments on atheist blogs this week:

Atheist communities are a group of people united by nothing.

June 8, 2009

Barefoot and fancy free

Well, the Barefoot Bum doesn’t like me. He called me a very rude word (that I won’t repeat here – don’t click the link if harsh language offends) in his latest post. And an authoritarian to boot. A Nazi even. Seems Godwin’s law doesn’t apply when you’re a raging atheist. Neither does context.

He didn’t like this comment I put on the previous thread:

If God is not hidden and the “priest, prophets, pundits” are his chosen messengers then you have every reason to believe me and/or them. Why would God personally reveal himself to you because your logic demands it? That doesn’t make any sense. When does a subject ever tell their ruler what to do in that manner?

Because somehow that’s “authoritarian” and I’m a Nazi.

“Nathan is essentially demanding that I obey him (or his chosen priests & prophets) because he asserts that he speaks in the name of god, and he denies any obligation whatsoever to justify his authority. [bad language removed] If you want me to do something, then make me. All “subjects” can demand their “ruler” coerce them. So coerce me.

*I have no idea if Nathan will alter the content of the comment; he doesn’t strike me as being any more honest than he is intelligent. I’ve reproduced the accurately and in full, adding emphasis to the particularly [Again, Bad language removed] authoritarianism.”

Right, so I’m neither honest, or intelligent, I’m a fan of censorship, authoritarianism and a Nazi. This guy knows me well.

“But don’t think that you have any right to escape criticism and condemnation for your slavish submission to authority or your demand that I submit to your authority.”

Slavish submission?

Here are some thoughts on the matter.

  1. Writing something on your own blog does not make it truth.
  2. Writing something in the comments of someone else’s blog also doesn’t make it true – no matter how insulting or ridiculous you find their arguments.
  3. Declaring something loudly on your blog and having your commenting sycophants back you up also does not make your statement truth.
  4. Being insulting to people you’ve never met does nothing for your cause.
  5. Showing disregard for context without questioning the context and posting inflammatory posts about people you’ve never met also does nothing for your cause.
  6. Burying your head in the sand on any counterpoints to your opinion will never end well.
  7. Logical fallacies are only logical fallacies if you presuppose that your opponent is irrational and illogical.
  8. You will always win an argument if you set the parameters and the parameters naturally exclude the person you are arguing with.
  9. If God exists then it’s not up for us to set the parameters for considering his existence on natural law. If God exists the concept of “natural law” does not apply past what we are capable of observing.
  10. The Friendly Atheist is actually friendly by comparison to this particular atheist.
  11. If you remove the fundamental authority and evidential standard from any argument – it falls over. So you can’t ask a Christian not to argue from their understanding of the Bible, a Muslim not to argue from their understanding of the Qu’ran or an Atheist not to argue from their understanding of Science*. All are equally subjective.
  12. As a follow up point from point 11 – atheists expect Christians to familiarise themselves with science, and Christians often do so superficially which frustrates Atheists – but when it comes to the “theistic” evidence they’re only prepared to take a superficial understanding of theology to the table. Because that’s easier to refute.

*Capitalised to indicate usage as a proper noun not the verb.

June 5, 2009

Big red A

This symbol is not an indication of quality on the blogosphere but a declaration of atheism.

Just so you know. I found out because “The Barefoot Bum” deemed my propositions on atheism worthy of his attention. And ridicule. His link to my post read “another mole to be whacked”…

June 4, 2009

10 further reflections on atheism

Those of you who are friends with me on Facebook (and you’ll find a link to add me on the right hand column of this site) will know that my status yesterday was “is looking for a fight”. Well, I found one, a bit, over at the FriendlyAtheist. 

It’s an interesting site. I have some reflections from my discussions there that I think are worthwhile. 

  1. The vast majority of atheists come out of some form of theism – many of the commenters on that blog are former church goers from a range of denominations – there are also a bunch of Mormons. They see their atheism as a natural progression towards enlightenment. 
  2. American culture must be harder on atheists – they all seem so bitter and I suspect that’s largely because the culture of American Christendom is difficult. 
  3. “Good” and moral are different – Christians have made a mistake because of a semantic difference on the definition of good. While Christianity teaches that nobody – not even Christians – is capable of “good” behaviour – this generally means “behaviour that counts towards salvation” – for an atheist it means anything that would be considered selfless or moral. Atheists, as a general rule, seem very angry at the idea they are incapable of moral behaviour because they don’t have God. Which leads them to ask if it’s only God preventing Christians from living immoral lives. (Which was well considered in Andrew’s recent post…)
  4. “Strong Atheists” (those who believe “Absolutely, positively, there is no god.”) are apparently being taught to argue as though they are “Weak Atheists” (those who believe “I don’t believe in God because no one has provided me with any credible evidence that God exists.”) in order to shift the burden of proof to Christianity. 
  5. Thanks to Dawkins and co atheists continue to argue with a caricature of Christianity – and also put forward issues or challenges to Christianity that are considered and covered by the Bible as if they’re compelling evidence – and refuse to accept belief in the Bible on the basis of a history of bad translations, poor doctrine and bad application. For example – David Attenborough, the prominent nature documentary maker – argues that the existence of “evil” in nature (specifically a worm whose only purpose is to burrow into the human brain) is proof that God isn’t loving and doesn’t exist. This dismisses any theological thought put into areas like this – and in fact the basic Christian teaching of the Fall’s impact on God’s creation. 
  6. As a further point on that last one – when the Bible does speak to a “logical” problem atheists have with Christianity it’s rejected on the basis that “the Bible would say that wouldn’t it…” as though considering the issue is part of a grand scheme to dupe us. 
  7. Faith is seem to be a “superstitious logical jump” in the face of conflicting evidence rather than a conviction of truth without all the  evidence.
  8. Atheists hate being compared to Mao – but love comparing Christians to the Crusaders (or in fact any nasty people carrying out nasty acts in the name of Jesus). When you suggest that these Christians weren’t being Christian you’re guilty of breaching the “no true Scotsman” fallacy – when you suggest that their anger at the Mao analogy is similarly a “no true Scotsman” fallacy you’re told that Mao was not motivated by his atheism… is it just me seeing this as contradictory?
  9. A whole lot of bad teaching is coming home to roost – doctrinal clarity is important. Ideas like “God is love” that don’t speak to God’s wrath, holiness, or judgement have caused more harm than good. This is what happens when only part of the gospel is considered with another part swept under the carpet. 
  10. At the end of the day – my staunch “Reformed” understanding of evangelism and election means that I’m not in any position to convince those whose hearts are hardened to the gospel. The parable of the sower would tend to suggest that the standard atheist experience of a choked faith is natural and to be expected for many “converts”…  
  11. And a bonus point – “evidence” is seen to be some sort of magic bullet for atheists – but naturalism presupposes the supernatural – and as soon as something supernatural is demonstrably tested it’s no longer supernatural but just an undiscovered natural entity – God is, by definition, supernatural. He can not possibly be tested in this manner, because we can’t expect him to conform to our “testing” and act the same way over and over again… There are biblical examples of God being tested – Ezekiel and Gideon spring to mind – but these are of no value to this argument… because of point six. This link should take you to what I think is a nice little evidence analogy in one of my comments.

These reflections come from my experience and discussions on these posts. Feel free to critique my arguments or approach in the comments.

June 3, 2009

The Friendly Atheist

I’ve been reading a bit of the back catalogue of the Friendly Atheist, who is in fact a friendly atheist – it’s a same about his lunatic band of followers who deface every moderate post with comments about why Christianity should not exist… I’ve been doing this because I think engaging with just one or two posts from this sort of blog and getting all preachy in the comments is harmful. I like to understand context before I go off disagreeing (yes my specific atheist friends this is important to Christians…).

The Friendly Atheist, Hermant Mehta, achieved some fame ebaying off his time with a promise to visit churches identified by the winning bidder. He turned it into a book – which would no doubt be informative reading for anybody wanting to look at church practices from the outside. He also used his experience to write a couple of reflective posts – one about things about church that are annoying (and I agree with most of them) – as do many Christian commenters on the post (which is still getting comments almost 2 years later)… and this one – ten things Christians do better than atheists – which is a bit less friendly. I guess because both target the fringe parts of Christianity that I personally have struggles with… Which in itself is interesting. I think the “rational” evangelical arm of Christianity probably spends a lot of time agreeing with atheists and throwing stones at Christian brothers rather than focusing on the unity we have with our “irrational” fellow Christians. Which is pretty challenging. Especially in the light of passages like 1 Corinthians 1 (incidentally if you google the phrase: 1 Corinthians 1 biblegateway esv – the third result down is a page on the MPC website (dad’s church for the uninitiated))…

18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The more I grapple with, and try to convince my atheist friends of the rationality of the gospel the more I am convinced that this is the case – they’re going to read this and tell me I’m copping out for falling back on a proof text written in order to justify just this criticism – but that’s where I guess our “doctrine” of Scripture disagrees. If it’s a true representation of God’s intentions why wouldn’t the Bible say it?

Craig linked to the article from the Friendly Atheist I posted the other day, with a wise disclaimer encouraging Christians to be sensitive when posting – advice I perhaps failed to heed with my own comments – lest we give more ammunition to the disdain these atheists show for Christianity. It’s particularly pertinent advice given some of the “drive by” evangelism that happens in the comments on that blog – evangelism without relationship is pretty futile. As perhaps best expressed by this Friendly Atheist post of advice for Christians as they evangelise to atheists…

May 31, 2009

Sad

Nothing makes me sadder than this post on “the friendly atheist” and the tales of “deconversion” shared in the comments.

In short, he was much happier being religious. I think anyone would expect this, but the problem is that I don’t think he has found anything positive in atheism yet, and I think he’s finding it very depressing that there might not be a god. I don’t think that “better moral guidelines” and “seeing the universe as it is” can outweigh what could well be the loss of his entire family, at least not at this stage.

It’s sad that these atheists (the blogger in particular) – make it their life’s ambition to bring misery to people in the form of “enlightenment” – if they truly believe there’s no God – why proselytise aiming to deconvert someone and disrupt their family?

It’s also sad hearing tales of broken lives driven by broken understandings of Christianity perpetuated by broken people. There’s so much anger and anguish underpinning the genuine hurt many of these “deconverted” atheists feel having “wasted their lives”. It also seems many of them have been ostracised by their “Christian” families for doing so.

It’s stories like this, repeated time and time again, that make me angry and sad. For all parties involved.

I come from an Evangelical Southern Baptist strand of Christianity so I think our situations may be similar. I was truly a warrior for Christ – daily Bible readings coupled with prayer, tri-weekly Church visits and I made every decision in my life based on the Truth I knew from the Bible. Of course I was still a teenager at the zenith of my faith so my decisions can’t truly compare to those made about a spouse or career.

I was 22 when I told my mother that I no longer believed Christianity was valid and it initiated the single hardest time in my life. She effectively disowned me and we did not speak for several months. In her rage she told our extended family of my betrayal and even “outed” one of my friends to his own family. I was told that I was to no longer speak with my own brother.

May 29, 2009

Humble pie co

I subscribed to an atheist blog recently – just to see how the other side thinks. It’s called “the friendly atheist” and if this guy and his commenters are the “friendly” side of atheism I’m not looking forward to the unfriendly side. They’re generally sneeringly intolerant and arrogant – probably just what they say about most “Christians” (I put that in inverted commas because I’m talking about anybody who calls themselves a Christian)…

But this post is all about “questions which stump atheists” – the answer, from about 70 comments is “not much, we know everything”… and “Christians are dumb”… my favourite bit is where one commenter suggests his fellows eat some humble pie.

So, atheists (and I know at least two of you read), do you ever have doubts? I’m humble enough to admit that I don’t and can’t know everything. Are you?

May 27, 2009

Offensive offensive

Yesterday while I was thinking about Guerrilla Evangelism, it occurred to me that road safety ads could be easily edited to be ads about not leaving a decision about Christianity to the last minute. Death bed confessions only work for people who know they’re on their death bed.

This ad is slightly disturbing… so only watch it if you want to fully appreciate my argument.

Would you have a problem with an “offensive” ad like this – ie one designed to shock – being used to promote Jesus? I know a uni group copped some flack a few years back for dressing up as death and running around harvesting people with sickles.

I suspect imminent mortality is one of the only things that atheists find confronting.

May 25, 2009

I’ve run out of atheism headings

It seems to me that any time Christians (or theists) are critical of the nasty side of atheism we get shouted down as hypocrites. How can we pick on Dawkins, for how can we caricature them all on account of his vitriol when we had George W Bush as the public face of Christianity justifying unpopular wars with terribly out of context Bible passages? Or indeed or the televangelists et al who are a public bastardisation of the Christian message.

Is this a log v speck issue? Should we be trying to clear up the Christian brand (ie what the public think Christianity is) before we go charging at the bastion of angry atheism – namely Richard Dawkins and co.

Probably. Those loony fringes of Christianity are much better at garnering publicity than the mainstream evangelical orthodoxy. Like the woman in the US who kidnapped her kid because he has cancer and the State wanted to force him to undergo life saving medical treatment.

So long as that’s the public understanding of “Christianity” pushed by the media we’re going to have troubles criticising atheism because the public understanding of atheism is angry intellectual criticism of religious belief.

I actually started writing this post because there’s been a pretty angry response to that article in the LA Times the other day – and I wanted to talk about how angry atheists are, and how Dawkins seems to epitomise atheism, rather than being at its fringe.

That is all. For now.

May 22, 2009