Foolish Christians Mythdefining Atheism

“Atheism is a Religion and a Belief System like Abstinence is a Sex Position.”-kia

((Reposting from earlier. It’s weird that some people still don’t get it. Enjoy. -kia))

Passing on a wonderful post refuting an all too common ‘meme’ and theme of some Amateur Internet Christian Apologists like this James fellow.

image

(By the way, the picture of the jackass is from James’s original post. Great way to encourage respectful, open conversation, eh?)

https://thei535project.wordpress.com/

The original post was a classic example of the type of ‘mythicism’ and intentional misinformation and misdefinition used by these much less than Christ-like Christ followers to defend the indefensible by destroying strawmen definitions of their opponents.

It seems that for most of the post,  James, or whoever he copied from, was repeatedly confused between atheism and scientific naturalism. They are NOT the same. Atheism is only a position of non belief in God or gods. Nothing more.

Not being atheist myself but being recently deconverted from Christianity, it still upsets me that these Pseudo Apologists can get away with such dishonesty and utter BS.

Anyway, enjoy the take down.
-Kia
————–

image

The Foolishness of Atheism: My Thoughts
BY GODLESS CRANIUM on JULY 29, 2016 • ( 0 )

https://godlesscranium.com/

Depite what a few less than reasonable “fans” of this blog may think, I am always up for hearing the other side of the story and weighing opinions and evidence that disagree with what I believe about Christianity.

That said, please join me in welcoming my friend in hyperspace and the blog’s resident atheist contributor back from his hiatus.

Have a good weekend everyone. God bless.

James

The floor, as they say, is all yours GC…
————-
I recently read a blog post on this very blog that had my jaw hanging to the floor. In my opinion, it was inflammatory, and did nothing to progress the conversation between atheists and theists.

In fact, not only did it do nothing to progress the conversation, but it completely misrepresented what atheism is.

Luckily, James has given me the opportunity to respond to that article with this post. So thank you to James for allowing me to post this rebuttal on his blog, and you are always welcome to do the same on my blog in the future.

https://thei535project.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/the-foolishness-of-atheism/

You can find the original article I’m writing about here by following the link. Also, whether you’re a theist or an atheist, please feel free to leave your thoughts below.

Let’s get started.

Atheists are fond of claiming that their way of thinking is logical, reasonable, and intellectual. They maintain that they are open-minded and refer to themselves as free thinkers. Unlike Christians, who are allegedly delusional, irrational, blind, and absurd, atheists consider themselves utterly rational, sensible people who follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I hear you.

Look, not every Christian is illogical and irrational and the same can be said of atheists. I’ve had my fair share of arguments with atheists on all sorts of social issues and I assure you that irrationality isn’t something that belongs specifically to the theist.

Yet atheism says that everything came from nothing. Atheism says that an explosion caused exquisite order. It says that random chances produced precision and that life popped into existence in nature from non-life.

Sometimes I despair that the point will never be made, but I’ll try to explain it once again – atheism says NOTHING about how life began. It says nothing about the human eye. It says nothing about evolution. It says nothing about morals.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God(s). That’s it. That’s all it is.

Now you can ask an atheist what they believe on all of those subjects.

For example, an atheist may believe in the theory of evolution because of the scientific evidence, but that has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with science and what that atheist believes on that subject.

You see what I’m saying?

When theists falsely frame atheism, it does absolutely nothing to progress the conversation.

Nothing.

Theists get pissed off if I tell them what they believe. If I tell one non-Catholic that they eat a wafer at communion, they would rightfully tell me they do not. If I continue to misrepresent that position, then I’m being disingenuous.

In order to have a meaningful discussion about religion or the lack thereof, we need to stop misrepresenting the stance of the other side. It does nobody any favors and only stokes anger and resentment.

When atheism is stripped of pompous proclamations and arrogant allegations, its naked soul is seen for what it really is: weak, illogical, unscientific, and worthless.

Again, atheism says nothing about science. It’s worth is different for each individual, just as it is to Christians.

For some, atheism is to be ignored. They don’t want to talk about religion. They frankly don’t give a damn about religion. They just lack belief in God(s) and go about their day.

For others, religion interests them. For others, religion angers them. For others, they agree with religion but simply don’t believe in a God(s).

There are all kinds of atheists, just like there are all sorts of Christians.

So instead of making blanket statements, please just ask the atheist in question what they do believe in and why.

The answer might surprise you. And that’s where real dialogue begins.
———-

Advertisements

136 thoughts on “Foolish Christians Mythdefining Atheism

  1. Thanks for the link Mike as I don’t follow J. For obvious reasons. (Boring)

    I did leave a comment, which natch is in moderation. It was polite.

    I thought GC put up a reasoned and fair post.

    I’m puzzled why a non-believer like you gets banned yet GC can write about atheism. Or maybe I’m not. Cardinal sin. Not that you are atheist, you have challenged authority. Woo. Hoo. Big mistake.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. James puzzles me. Is he deliberately deceitful? He makes a great play of being open to discussion yet we know that in the past he has deleted factual comments that show him to be in error.

    Then he plays the martyr card. As I said I am puzzled by the guy.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I guess I’m in a class by myself. I’ve never been banned by James and he always responds to my comments. At times, he does display a bit of superciliousness, but nothing I can’t handle. Perhaps it’s all in the way one approaches the conversation?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. KIA Atheism, or the non-belief in God is an even more ridiculous version of atheism than simply denying the existence of God.

    KIA Atheism reduces the human being to the level of cat, dog or protozoan all of whom possess the same non-belief in God.

    So the atheist is left with but two monstrously ridiculous points of view:

    1. Everything just happened all by itself.

    2. The atheist seeks intellectual safety equating himself to all lower life forms.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Som, atheists don’t have to prove a damned thing. Your the ones who assert that your God did it. I don’t know is a perfectly reasonable and honest thing to say if you really don’t know.
      But to say “godidit” with no way of proving it… Now that’s ridiculous

      Like

      • KIA,

        I never said atheists have to prove anything.

        If you want to understand what I said, I invite you to read my comment.

        You people are so intellectually vacuous that you have to hallucinate your opposition and then argue against your own hallucination.

        So, for you, is it Door 1, everything just happened all by itself, or Door 2, you equate yourself with lower life forms so you can say you don’t have to prove anything?

        Liked by 1 person

          • KIA,

            You don’t get to hallucinate Door 3.

            There are only 2 doors.

            From my point of view, however, it is absolutely necessary that I prove that God exists.

            Notice how I have the courage of my own convictions and you are left hallucinating nonsense because you don’t.

            Liked by 2 people

            • I don’t know is an honest answer when you don’t know. You dont get to hallucinate that you “know” things you don’t.
              Now about that proof and direct linkage that it was your particular god of the Bible who created everything?
              You’d win a Nobel prize…

              Like

              • KIA,

                “I don’t know,” is another one of your cop outs because you refuse to face reality.

                The existence of God IS knowable, both through common sense (simple reasoning) and scientific discovery.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Now you’ve pulled me into this “discussion.”

                No … God is NOT knowable except in a person’s mind. There is absolutely NO way to prove a god (any god) exists.

                Like

              • Hi nan… he’s bluffing. He has no way to prove by scientific inquiry that God, his particular god actually exists in reality. Do you som?

                Like

              • Theres a difference in the brain interpreting physical sense input and what you’re referring to. ‘Reasoning yourself to truth’

                Like

              • KIA,

                Don’t get started pontificating on your hallucination of what you think the mind is.

                Focus, Dude!

                Stop hallucinating and stay focused!

                The points being:

                1. If you don’t believe in God, you absolutely must believe that everything just happened all by itself.

                2. That KIA Atheism reduces the human being to lower life forms.

                That’s it!

                Deflecting and hallucinating about what is or is not knowable, or what the mind is or is not is just useless, a waste of time.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Actually, you are a prime example of the topic of the post. You seem to doggedly want to nisdefine atheism as the positive assertion that God does not exist, or at least push people into a corner that if they don’t know or cant provide a provable alternative, that your God must exist by default without you having to prove your assertion that your particular God exists and created Everything.
                Sorry, you don’t get to wiggle out of proving your claim that God, not just any God, but your god of the bible specifically exists and that he or it created Everything.
                Not letting you change the burden here and james isn’t here to delete comments or hold them in moderation.

                Like

              • … If you don’t believe in God, you absolutely must believe that everything just happened all by itself.

                Sorry, SOM, to believe an imaginary, invisible entity was the genesis of everything is, as you put it, “total, absolute nonsense.” There simply is no basis in fact to believe such a being exists. How did everything come to be? I don’t know. But you can be assured I don’t attribute it to some guy in the sky.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Not an atheist… Again! And again, atheist do not assert anything! They don’t believe. Your job is to present evidence so they can. Capice?

                Like

            • Som said, “From my point of view, however, it is absolutely necessary that I prove that God exists.”
              —-
              Actually it’s worse than that. You need to not only prove that some god actually exists in reality, AND that God is YOUR particular god of the Bible And that everything was created by him, not just some amorphous, nameless, faceless, mental masterbatory delusion of your mind.
              You need to prove that it was YOUR God that “did it”

              Liked by 1 person

    • And som, make no mistakes. It’s not the ‘prime move’/ God of the philosophers you are burdened with demonstrating having creates everything. It’s the God of the bible specifically as a Christian you need to prove created and sustains everything when you assert your Particular “godidit”
      Good luck with that 🙂

      Like

      • KIA,

        Christianity, like atheism is a religious faith.

        Faith, by definition cannot be proven.

        Since atheism cannot be proven (you state categorically that atheists don’t have to prove it) it is, by definition, a 100% faith-based belief (or non-belief for those who identify with lower life forms).

        Like

        • By the way, not an atheist here, but how can ‘non belief’ and lack of faith be as you said ‘religious faith’?
          I think you intentionally and knowingly misrepresent atheism (by the way, check the Bible for ‘bearing false testimony’) in order to deflect from your own responsibility to “give everyman an answer”. Because you don’t have any answers other than “godidit,prove he didnt”
          Weak witness that no one would believe but the weakest of minds. (I was once a fundy pod person)

          Like

          • KIA,

            By definition, anything that cannot be proven , is a matter of faith.

            Equating yourself to lower life forms simply so you can bury your head in the sand, is the way you, and people like, practice their faith.

            Like

              • Still waiting for that scientific inquiry that can prove your particular god a)exists b)created and sustains everything and c)is not just in your head

                Like

              • (Crickets chirping in the background) and ‘reason my way to truth’ sounds an awful lot like no evidence… just surmise get and coming to conclusions based on philosophical mind tricks.
                Mental masterbation.

                Like

              • KIA,

                I’ve proved the existence of God all over WordPress and on my own blog many, many times.

                The reason you are still waiting for me to prove the existence of God is because you’ve got your head in the sand.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Hilarious. You’ve proved gods existence, your particular gods existence, by scientific.evidence… That God, your particular God exists. Not evidence that you can fit into your bias to suggest or reason, but actual physical evidence of gods existence? Your particular God?
                Bullshit.
                One more time won’t hurt. Try spilling the evidence here?
                “Always ready to give an answer”?

                Like

              • KIA,

                In this discussion, there is no, “my particular God.”

                That’s just hallucinating nonsense so you don’t have to deal with reality.

                In secular discussions such as this one, there is only one God, the Creator.

                His existence has been proven through common sense (simple reasoning) and through scientific discovery.

                Liked by 1 person

              • You as a Christian are not serving a generic God. You give Testimony and witness for the specific God of the bible and Jesus his son and the Savior. You don’t get off nearly as easily as that. Muslims, Jews and many other types of theists would disagree that the generic God you are trying to distract me with is the same as the biblical God you actually serve and are leading to.
                Sorry, won’t work to do the ground level with one concept of God then finish the roof with a totally different one than what you have supported down below.
                Not falling for it

                Like

              • Ah, but you said you “know” and can “prove” that God, not just any old god, but the god of the Bible exists by scientific inquiry and actual evidence.
                Are you now begging out and admitting you don’t really know except by faith, and can’t prove except by faith?

                Like

    • 1. Why is this not at least a possibility?

      2. Since we know evolution happened why am I more important than an amoeba? I have no problem accept that everything has as much right to life as I do. I don’t find it intellectually safe, I find it intellectually factual. I have not reduced humanity, theists have falsely elevated humanity, much to the detriment of this planet. Life consumes life and we all depend on each other for survival. Even the top of the food chain must die and provide energy for the bottom. I find it rather beautiful, but that’s an aesthetic decision. Even if I found it abhorrent it wouldn’t change it from being true.

      Like

  5. Ah I see Dan has chimed in over at James’ site. Dan is very knowledgeable about scriptures that demean non believers. He frequently cites them arguing that all non believers are fools, depraved and can’t do anything good and only think of evil. Of course this is all based on Scripture.

    But Dan chooses to believe Scripture where real world evidence strongly suggests that either Scripture is in error or at very least speaking in hyperbole. To say that every act of non believers is evil and depraved bears no resemblance to the reality of the world.

    However Dan loves to quote Romans 1 which he sees as definitive proof that the real world evidence points to ‘God’. But does it? Look at suffering, look at birth defects, look at natural disasters, look at disease – surely this points to a world created which is indifferent to humanity rather than one created specifically for humanity.

    When we look at the known universe we see that the vast majority of it is hostile to life. Instead life has emerged in a tiny part of the universe, this implies that the universe was not ‘created’ with a view to life. Rather instead life clings on in a very fragile way only one supernova away from destruction.

    The history of the earth with various disasters that wiped out most of the life such as meteorites or massive volcanoes again suggests that things just happened and was not designed, otherwise God does indeed work in mysterious ways (code for no signs of God, but we will believe anyway).

    A person like Dan is so blinded by his worldview he only looks at the evidence with his conclusion already reached. Otherwise he would admit that there is zero evidence for the flood which of itself is enough to disprove the Bible.

    Still it was refreshing to see another commentator ‘David’ seeking to keep James honest. I will be interested to see if James answers David’s questions, as usually James tactics are to say something like “I’m not playing your game” when the discussion starts going against him.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I’ve seen Dan over there a couple times. Typical Christian wanna be apologist just like james and the David over at applied faith.
      David is new to me. Seems to possible be a deconvert.

      Like

      • Dan annoys me even more than James. Dan is thoroughly judgmental when I challenged his understanding and interpretation of the Bible he replied that I knew ‘zero’ about the Bible. That sort of statement is just plain silly. Any Christian who claims that folk like us have no understanding of the Bible are speaking based on their bias and clearly have discarded rational judgement.

        I think Dan sees people like us as demons who ‘know’ Scripture and in his worldview use it in a distorted way to mislead Christians.

        The problem with DAn is that his apologetics is 100% based on quoting the Bible. But that makes a big assumption that the Bible is a divine book inspired by a divine being. However Dan provides zero evidence for this and takes it as a given. So when I pointed out to him various biblical promises that clearly were not fulfilled in the lives of Christians he accused me of taking the Bible out of context. I asked him to explain how I was taking the Bible out of context but he would not and then James banned me.

        So DAn continues to quote verses like ‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.’ (Psalm 14:1) and thinks such a statement of itself is beyond dispute.

        How do you reason with a person who accepts the Bible as 100% true but is not prepared to consider legitimate arguments against his position?

        In his world view we are all ‘without excuse’ because that is what Romans 1 tells him.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dan appears to be just as dishonest and unchristlike as James. I agree, the old “context” excuse is ubiquitous. When you ask them how it is out of context? Silence, crickets, banning and abuse. Its really all they have

          Like

            • “… it has to be that way, otherwise it doesn’t make sense” the very definition of confirmation bias. How bout we just stop with “it doesn’t make sense” and deal with that?

              Like

            • Wife and I have been reevaluating Isa 14 and Eze 28. No big bad satan to be found. Only a poorly disguised insertion at Eze 28 vs 14 and 15 that have nothing in common with the verses before or after, addition of annoited cherub in vs 16 not withstanding

              Like

    • When we look at the known universe we see that the vast majority of it is hostile to life. Instead life has emerged in a tiny part of the universe, this implies that the universe was not ‘created’ with a view to life. Rather instead life clings on in a very fragile way only one supernova away from destruction.

      This was just superbly said Peter. Honestly once somebody starts quoting any holy book as any evidence about how the universe works I’ve lost interest. Truth should be derivable even without the Bible. We should be able to throw the Bible away and any memory of it and lock one copy away in a vault somewhere. Then give ourselves a few hundred years of searching for the nature of the divine, and write a book about it. Then we take the Bible out of the vault, and if it matches the new book then maybe we have something. lol Whatever truth might be written in the bible, we should also be able to verify without it.

      Like

      • Thanks Swarn. Yes if there was one true God then we would expect revelation of that God to spring up naturally throughout the world. Instead we see overwhelmingly that it is local culture that dictates what people believe.

        It is only now, 18 months after escaping religion, that these obvious conclusions are becoming clear to me. I realised that decades of religious worldview conditioning had impacted on how I thought about issues.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Good analysis by GC here. I think though that there are some important reasons missing in regards to why atheists talk about religion.

    1) In many cases beliefs of theists do not remain personal. They try to have it intrude in education, law, and policy. Thus many atheists, including myself feel it is important to critique how this influence can be both alienating and harmful to those who do not share the belief.

    2) Religious ideas also influence equality. In the U.S. there is a long history of religion being used to justify slavery, oppression of women, segregation, denying marriage equality to mixed race couples, gay couples, etc. This is not to say that all elements of the religion are harmful, but there are ideas within the religious dogma that can be, and people of conscience should, I feel, oppose those ideas through written word and through actions.

    3) Some religious ideas are harmful even if kept personal. Particular when it comes to raising children. Religion (even if you argue misinterpretation of scripture) has been used to justify hitting children and hitting one’s wife. There is tendency in fundamentalist thought to dehumanize in the name of making all followers to be vessels of God, the Holy Spirit or whatever. Then there is also the practice of instilling fear in children through the frightening consequences of being a non-believer, a sinner. Fearful images of devils and hellfire. I use Christianity as an example, but other religions do similar things, even if it’s being reincarnated as a cockroach. We know what fears does to the brain in children. We know it makes the amydala more active and diminishes higher brain function. There is a good deal of psychological evidence to show that this is child abuse. And such abuse can also be used on adults as well. So atheists often have to address these things, because even many more moderate theists do not.

    4) Then there is the simple matter of raising atheist consciousness. Atheism is the default human position. We are not born with any beliefs in the divine and so it shouldn’t be surprising that one might continue to feel that way. For much of history such attitudes were met with violent opposition from the mainstream religion, and it’s important for the atheist to have a voice as much as anybody else now that we are free to do so. For me part of that voice is demonstrate that scientific reasoning can lead to morality just as easily or perhaps even easier than theism can. Theism can teach you rules, but science actually requires you to understand why an action might be considered moral or immoral and as such is much better for separating practices which actually cause harm and those that do not. Also I think it’s important for atheists to speak up to demonstrate that beauty, joy and morality also make as much sense in a godless universe as one with a God. This is important. If you want to really see who is making a better effort to understand the other one, I think the atheist understands the theist much better than the other way around. I’ve never been too religious, but I get it. I understand why some people find comfort and peace in it. I even understand why some people get enthralled by it. It’s fantastical and magical and there are unseen forces at work that can do powerful things. There are epic stories where human and divine work together to defeat forces of evil. We can all appreciate the joy of magic. But as James Randi says, the difference between a magician and a preachers is that the magician admits openly its not real, the preacher sells it as such. So some atheists like to talk about how their world view has brought them joy. I have felt more joy as an atheist than I ever did as a theist in fact. It’s easy for me to understand why a theist gets joy from their beliefs, so why should a theist find my joy so unfathomable…I don’t know…but this is very often the case.

    Anyway this all probably tl:dr, but I hope I added a little to the discussion.

    Like

  7. Hi KIA. I thought I posted 3 additional comments on your post yesterday, but don’t see any of them today at all. Are they in moderation for some reason? It’s weird that they aren’t there because I know I submitted them. I mean my first response to GC is there, the one that you replied to. A bit depressing because one was rather lengthy.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: New Weekly Post: “Best of the Best” on Friday  | The Recovering Know It All

  9. “You don’t get to hallucinate Door 3.
    There are only 2 doors.”

    The logical fallacy of The False Dichotomy defined.
    That’s the problem when arguing with a lot of Christians, especially the more fundamental ones. They can’t think period. Their entire worldview is predicated on a heap of logical fallacies. When you don’t know how to think, and you refuse to learn how to think, nothing that anyone is ever going to say to you, that doesn’t conform to your logical fallacy-laden world-view is going to get through. It’s literally like talking to a brick wall.
    I’ve even had conversations like this with other theists who are not fundamentalist in anyway. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of a man named Barry over at anotherspecturm wordpress, but it’s fairly similar. Actually, he says he’s a “non-theist Quaker”. What does he believe? Good luck trying to figure that out. Try getting him to nail down a perspective or give a position on something, and then point out the logical fallacies they’re predicated on or how he’s blatantly contradicted himself from post to post, then suddenly, everything turns into a metaphor. He’s a lot more polite and cordial and is much more open to dialogue that a mrsmcmommy or a silenceofmind (what a perfect handle don’t you think?) but the end result is still essentially the same. In the end, talking to him is tantamount to talking to a brick wall. I’ve pointed out his false dichotomy errors in the course of a single conversation in 3 successive posts. Didn’t faze him a bit and kept right on making the same one! I give him some leeway because he claims to be on the Asperger’s spectrum and that he’s neuro-divergent so I take him at his word. But my goodness, the poor man couldn’t think his way out of a paper bag.

    Liked by 1 person

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s