Inspired by actual events

I love it! Some of the lines are hysterical! I particularly loved:

“As if I need to invest time and study in learning about fairy tales! I don’t need to study that nonsense to know that it’s nonsense. I know what it all means because… if it didn’t mean this then I couldn’t sneer like this. I know exactly what’s right and wrong, and unless the Bible says that everything I believe about morality is true, then it’s a sexist, homophobic, gharish monstrosity of evil.”

“Nobody should tell another person what to do, so I’m telling those pro-lifers to shut up and stay out of it. They’re entitled to think that abortion is unjustifiable homicide, but believing that something is unjustifiable homicide is no reason to try to have the law changed to stop people doing it! You’re just a bunch of men trying to control women. Apart from those of you who are women. And forget the male celebs who support us.”

I lurved the new person comments – I so loved them! That particular issue is really peeving me off right now on my own blog.

Glenn, there simply is no intellectual case for Christianity beyond claiming fairies exist. Of course I have never examined the intellectual case for Christianity, but thats because there is no point in examining the case for something which consists of no more than claiming fairies exist. This is no circular reasoning btw, you are just rationalising your position using clever sounding arguments.

Followed the link here from Tom Gilson’s site. This gave me a genuine LOL moment. You are now in my reader.

Mockery is solid logic don’t you know. Even Richard D knows that.

I guess I will be the first to present an alternative view, even though the blogger did not solicit one.

I know that there are a lot of Christians who “check their brains in at the door” and thus make easy targets for such an attack on themselves. It was Ghandi who said “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Yes, a lot of bad has been done and is being done “in the name of Christ”. Let me first off apologize on behalf of the Christians out there who do not uphold the very teachings they proclaim, myself included at times.

I find it harsh to proclaim that anyone that believes in God, or a “sky daddy”, is “childish and stupid”. Surely you don’t claim to know all that there is to know in the universe. Let’s just say that of all there is to know, you comprehend 10%. That’s all the knowledge in all the books in all libraries in all the world. Languages, math, science, chemistry, physics, quantum physics. 10% is generous would you agree? So of that 90% that you do not know; is it possible that there is a “sky daddy?” I submit that it is at least possible. So when you say that those who are investigating the possibility of a God in the universe are “childish and stupid”; you are basically stating that you are a god who knows all there is to know and that those investigations are futile.

Your analogy of Jesus being likened to a zombie is not a fair comparison. Yes, you clarified that it is not the same as the “Hollywood depicted zombie” but if that is the case, what kind of zombie is left? A zombie is defined as a soulless corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, which is not how the Bible depicts Jesus raising from the dead. I know it is your definition, but let’s stick with how most of the world defines things. Humorous, maybe, but strong argument it is not.

Now about your argument of “EW”. Is Christianity itself bad, or is it the people that make up Christianity? This argument is used frequently to say that “Christians are evil” and “Why would I want to be a part of that group?” It is easy to point out how bad someone else is in order to make oneself feel better. The problem is, as humans we are all capable of such evil regardless of whether we wear the Christian banner or not. To be fair and balanced in your argument, let’s not forget Lenin, Stalin (3 million executed on record, estimates of up to 60 million under his regime), Hitler (30-45 million), Mao Zedong’s regime (40-70 million deaths attributed), Mussolini. The point here is to show that as humans we are capable of terrible acts of evil, thus the need for God. We will destroy ourselves if allowed. I encourage you to actually research this more before posting one-sided statements. Be open to both sides, and try to view the world through a different lens.

Regarding the Bible, with its “carnage and slaughter on every page”. Really? How can you make that statement if you haven’t actually read “every” page? How can you argue against a book that you haven’t actually picked up to read in full? Yes, I understand you don’t want to “invest time and study in learning about fairy tales” but it is childish to make comments on things you know nothing of. It is important to know the facts before making arguments/statements about said facts. But hey, people under the Christian banner do the same when arguing about evolution and how it was “impossible to have evolved from apes” when the fact posed is “that we share the same ancestry as apes not direct descendents of apes”, is that right? Yes, there are some stories in there that seem impossible to believe, “talking snakes”, a man living in the belly of a great fish, people walking on water, etc. But Hollywood comes out with garbage all the time and I bet that doesn’t stop you from going to watch the “zombie” movies. You probably don’t believe in zombies, vampires, and werewolves, but are willing to check out those kinds of books or movies. Why? You state that you “know what’s right and wrong” yet are also obviously concerned just for yourself when you say you want to “get a little action”. I guess that girl/guy means nothing to you and it is okay to treat them like scum in your world of right and wrong. I’m not trying to say I am better than you, I’m just hoping to get you to think about your statements. Let’s reason these things out.

As you moved into ethics I had a hard time wading through the argument. I will probably come off as an elitist with this statement and endure the firing squad, but I don’t believe that everyone’s view of God is the right one. Yours, for example, in my opinion is not correct. You are an atheist who describes God as one that “drinks the blood of his enemies and encourages men and women to strangle their enemies with their own guts and butcher entire civilizations without so much as batting an eyelid”. This is your worldview of God. I must say that if it were the only picture of God in my life, I would consider myself an atheist too. We must challenge those who make choices “in the name of God” to see if indeed God instructed them to do so in the context of His morals displayed in the Bible. I am reading a book that tells the true story of two men who committed an atrocious murder of a mother and her baby girl “in the name of God”. They believe God instructed them to do this, and I have to ask myself “Does the Bible support this type of action today?” Morality is set within each one of us, because God has placed it there. We use the Bible partly as a map to wade through this life. So, no, I don’t believe that God commands “suicide bombings” or believe that God justifies all sorts of relatively different practices. God is absolute and his law fits every genre, culture, or society. My advice is don’t let a rotten apple spoil the whole bunch. It seems we would probably agree on the same objective facts regarding common morals, but attribute the source of those morals to different origins.

I wish I had it in me to speak toward the abortion issue. To be honest I have not researched it enough to officially form a view/stance on the issue. It would take more time for me to do that, which I am out of at the moment. One thing I did note is that you stated earlier, “Not every atheist is the same you know”, implying that you aren’t like those other atheists that do evil things. Well I wish you would hold that same view towards Christians on the topic of abortion. Not every Christian is out blowing up abortion clinics. Your choice of words like “those Christians” and “those pro-lifers” are blanket statements that you are in opposition to if the tables were turned. To say that all Christians view abortion as “unjustifiable homicide” is a naïve statement.

But there is another naïve comment you made. You say there is no God because of the “rate of child abuse in the catholic church by clergy being the same as the rate of child abuse among the public”. I’m not sure how to address that, really. Again, another blanket statement follows “you support child abuse if you point out any statistical information to me” or, in other words, if you try to defend this statement.

I sense a narcissistic attitude on your confidence of this argument.

Please consider what was written above. I welcome your feedback, not your insults.

Damian, nice attempt at “divide and conquer”!

Dignan, this blog post is a parody of the many bizarre arguments that I have seen at this blog and elsewhere by confident visitors who think that this sort of approach really is a great way to humiliate and “defeat” Christians online.

It’s nice to see that you see through it too!

“You Christians think that just because you can’t disprove God then he must exist! When will you guys ever learn to think logically? There is zero evidence for your God, and I don’t have to prove he doesn’t exist because any idiot knows you can’t prove a negative, and therefore God doesn’t exist!”

“All these arguments have been refuted so many times. Look at the evidence, and no I’m not going to share my sources with you or explain why they fail!”

“What kind of Medieval moron believes in absolute morals? Everybody knows morality is relative and subjective. There are no moral “oughts” in this universe. People who believe that kind of stuff always end up killing, indoctrinating and abusing other people, and those things are downright WRONG!”

🙂

Hello Glenn-I have nothing intelligent to add except OMG -great article!
Incredulity covers a multitude and I mean I multitude of inconsistencies LMAO.
Cheers,
Mike Godfrey

Strawman much?!!
Putting together “typical comments”, as if they all appeared in a single post, especially by including patently stupid and intentionally pejorative statements which imply that the “poster” knows what he/she is talking about without needing to read and understand the Christian Bible may be amusing, but, it seems to me, adds nothing whatsoever to mutual respect or understanding among believers and non-believers. This would be especially ironic, inasmuch as several of the responders here have suggested that people sincerely interested in dialogue should be fair and open minded. Having said this, I must, in fairness, identify myself as an atheist, who has arrived at that understanding of the reality of his present existance after extensive study and debate, over a period of many years. Like most atheists (but certainly not all) I began as a member of a major Abrahamic religion (but not Christianity, born in this country and raised and educated here. English is my cradle language. Over the years, I have studied fiorst my birth religion, later msot of the other “majors”, several of the minors, and, eventually, come to the personal conclusion (belief, if you will) that no deity exists, let alone one that requires/deserves any attention on my part. Since I am fully comfortable at this point in my life (age 72) with the belief that when I die I will cease to exist or, at least, return to whatever state of existance I may have had before my conception, it appears that I do not have (or have as yet not discovered) a “God-shaped hole” in my heart or psyche. It aslo seems that I have not required guidelines or “laws” of behavior dictated by any scripture to have arrived at thoughtful and kind ways of dealing with my fellow human beings and other living things.
Were it not for the fact that many of my Christian brethren have frequently found it necessary to remind me in public and in private that I am doomed to an eternity of horrible torture for having failed to hear and accept “the good news” of their (quite varying) chosen religious sects, I would be quite content to ignore them and continue to support their right to freedom OF religion, if only they would equally respect my freedom FROM religion. Unfortunately, this is becoming progressivley less the case (at least here in the USA) as my life has proceeded.

Oh, and Christianity is really just a rehashed Mithra legend.

And to prove any of the above points: some guy on YouTube said so.

One has to admit that “Christians” are just as bad as anyone else, and usually worse. I once made a list of names, but I cant find it now, but it included such things as; spawn of satan, the devil, wife beater, rapist, pedophile, child beater, abuser, idiot, fool, clown, pervert, etc

Whilst I might be an idiot/fool/clown – I am certainly not any of the others. I was quite surprised to find posts on a forum “Geoff is a rapist, he admitted it” – stuff like that.

I thought it might be a mixture of sad and amusing to Google around for some examples. Not hard to do!

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1331672/pg1

If you dont want people making fun of your beliefs, dont have stupid beliefs.

You people believe in an invisible sky daddy and a jew zombie. Case closed.

http://mashable.com/2009/12/15/1-in-6-cell-phone-toting-teens-have-participated-in-sexting-study/

“Good sense”, I guess the invisible sky daddy zombie knows best. Doesn’t he? What the hell is wrong with nudity? Really?

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/10/14/well-said/
“An invisible sky daddy didn’t save all those Chilean miners;”

and

They may have been relying on Jesus to help them but stupid religious sheep are reading it wrong. It’s more like Jèsus from Logistics. Not the fictional zombie.

http://www.nunutv.com/whats-the-point-of-saying-the-god-always-existed-why-not-just-admit-you-dont-know-like-the-rest-of-us/

I start off by telling them the following:
What a crazy religion you practice.
1) You believe in a magical sky-daddy
2) You believe your sky-daddy has a zombie son and a ghost for a friend.
3) You tell us your sky-daddy loves us all
4) Your sky-daddy needs money – he really does
5) Your sky-daddy loves us, but if we don’t kiss his a*s, he will burn us in eternal agony
6) Your sky-daddy really loves us.
After that, I take after them for the laughlines in the bible. Talking snakes. Talking donkeys. All the good stuff.
They are delusional people, better left alone. I mean, do you provoke the monkeys when you go to a zoo? Same thing.

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/relativism-or-human-rights/

Once we bring our gods, etc., into justification of moral actions we open ourselves up to worst sort of moral relativism. And we ignore our won ability to use moral intuition and logic.

http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/can-science-shape-human-values/

To ignore objective facts and use “scriptural” or “divine” command arguments can only – at best reinforce intuitive reactions which can in some cases be very bad (eg racism, homophobia), or at worst lead to complete moral relativism where anything can be “justified” by one’s tame god, religious leader or ideological/political leader.

http://religiouscrossroads.tribe.net/thread/74a03d91-57d8-4c08-9942-ebf57ab4ae9c

If I claim that Invisible Death Spiders from Dimension X are telepathically controlling you, you don’t need a degree in ‘Invisible Death Spider’ studies in order to challenge the claim.

There is no logical support for any god.

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/1185-why-do-atheists-try-to-be-authorities-on/

Richard Dawkins points out that to talk knowledgeably about fairies, one doesn’t need a degree in fairyology. No more does one need a degree in theology to criticise irrational beliefs. Read the Nicene Creed (if you can find the ‘correct’ version) or the derivation of The Trinity . See if you can do either without laughing or shaking your head in disbelief.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18832
“Having a degree in a religion is like knowing all the lines to all the Star War Movies. It is a degree in BULLSHIT!”

I don’t think anyone really doubts that I could do this for a while, so let’s just all agree that these are not straw men, OK?

Glenn,

How long do you think it would make to make a list of Christians making the mistake of (2) on the internet?

I don’t think the Dunning Kruger effect is limited to atheists…

I really don’t think so. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been present Pascal’s Wager as if it was it was all anyone needed to hear, or told atheism was wrong because if there was not God there would be no morality and everyone would go around killing everyone, or (my very favourite) asked why there will still monkeys if we evolved from monkeys (or the modern equivalent, where does information come from, oh, not I’m going to define information, oh, in that experiment the information came from the people that designed the experiment, show me experimental evidence that wasn’t designed by a person then I’ll believe…)

Usually, the people who are loudest in presenting their beliefs are the people that have spent the least time thinking about alternatives. It’s easy to yell when you’ve never considered the possibility you might be wrong.

“Christians use the same dumb arguments and are as insulting as atheists.
ERGO THERE IS NO GOD!”

Sorry about that.

Matt:
“We can all tell these stories, the question is why the atheist community so often publishes stuff like this and then turns around and says “straw man” when others point it out. This seems at times to be a concerted passive aggressive strategy.”

Which “side” in these discussions of the existance or non-existance of the Abrahamic God is the more often guilty of ad hominem/pejorative/sneering/lack of any understanding of the arguments under discussion depends at least in part upon which side is “receiving”.
I.E. If one is a Christian apologist, comments like those cited above will far outweigh those in support. Conversely, as I suggested, every one of these can be readily observed in reverse on atheist/agnostic websites. It seems fair to say that whereas atheists are frequently going through the emotional turmoil brought on by trying to “escape” from one’s birth religion (including alienation of family, friends, and the larger social network represented by many churches), the majority of believers (particularly so-called fundamentalists) are seeking the only affirmation of their faith that they can achieve in this life by trying to convince as many other folks as possible that they “have it right”. It seems to me that both camps in this discussion are decidedly “passive agressive”, albeit for different reasons. On the one hand, we non-believers are frequently approached, both publicly and privately, whether we are interested or not, and on a frequently aggressive basis, to “hear the good news” and accept Christ as our personal savior. On the other hand, most atheists (at least in my experience) have no particular brief on whether or not religionists choose to practise their particular faith, providing it is carried out in private or in other appropriate circumstances, such as a church or other event, wherein people can choose to ignore that observance. Imposing religious ideas on the public under circumstances in which people cannot “change the channel” or not attend (i.e. religious displays on public, tax supported properties/opening “prayers” at school or governmental activities/etc.) is, in my opinion, also passive agressive. It has been my repeated experience that many Christians, at least in the U.S., see an atheist’s
objection to any of these public activities as “an attack on Christmas/the family or “persecution” and limitation of the believer’s freedom OF religion, rather than their own attempts to abrogate the non-believer’s freedom FROM religion.
If these alledged representative posts do not fit “strawman”, they certainly seem to represent “tu qouque”.

OK Harvey, so freedom of religion is enough then, since it involves not being forced to belong to a religion. Freedom FROM religion is a linguistic trick to make it sound like freedom of religion implies much more. The turn of phrase need not have been invented. If you’ve got freedom of religion, then you’ve got enough. What more could you want? It’s better to keep things clear.

[As you will know already, the constitutional ban on imposing religion applies to congress passing legislation, but for the sake of not picking irrelevant fights and going off on tangents I’m letting that slide, so let’s imagine that it applies to each and every citizen in some way, as you seem to think.]

Nobody has the right to freedom from being exposed to things they don’t like in public. Instead of talking about religious people keeping their religion in private, let’s turn it around for the sake of accuracy: The public square is a place where people are free to express themselves (which, you have now said that you agree with, which is encouraging). If any particular atheists don’t like religion, then those atheists can go in private where they won’t be troubled by pluralism.

Harvey, your nudity example absolutely misses the point here for two reasons. Firstly, it has nothing to do with my statement. I referred to being sheltered from things on the grounds that one doesn’t like, and bans on nudity have to do with decency, not with what people prefer to see or not see.

Secondly, it misses the point because we both know the constitutional principle we’re referring to: Forbidding the action of government to impose a religion, or to stop people from freely exercising a religion. That’s all.

No imposition, no prohibition. That’s the issue, and you’re introducing a third claim (actually a lot of people do it): No allowing people to be exposed to a religion in public when they don’t want to see it.

Now, using government property to hold a religious service must be assessed based on whether or not it amounts to an establishment of religion. That’s it. Anyone who thinks it does amount to such is more than welcome to make their case. No problem. I realise how hugely convenient it would be to introduce the idea that those in public who don’t like religion ought to be shielded from it. That would certainly speak to the issue of having a religious service on the steps of city hall – the trouble is that it has nothing to do with the two principles int he constitution: Establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of a religion.

Freedom of religion (in terms of those two principles) is enough. Asking for freedom from religion has nothing to do with your rights. If anybody’s non religious outlook is fragile enough that they need a government mandated right to freedom from religious expression, then you need to ask why.

So again: You have two principles to appeal to: If you think anything amounts to a government imposition of religion or a government suppression of the free exercise of religion, then you get to appeal to the right to freedom of religion.

If those principles don’t protect you from something, then go to a private space where you don’t have to see it.

God isn’t real because if he were, he would have given me what I prayed for!

Matt:

How a blogger (or several such) may have chosen to “dis” a Christian apologist on an atheist blog is neither relevant to any actual dialogue, nor is it a surprise, given our propensities as imperfect human beings. Ad hominem arguments seldom, if ever, carry any intellectual weight. Moreover, although this is really in no way a defense of such behavior, atheists have no “authorities” or generally accepted “apologists”. Richard Dawkins’ writings and opinions regarding the existance of a deity happen to coincide largely with my own, but he in no wise “speaks for me”, nor would I refer to him as an authority in my discussions with believers. Since atheism has no “Scripture” and no doctrines, let alone any organized establishment like the various recognized religions, there is nothing to “defend”.

LOL. IF ONLY!
I wish god and christianity were like this! THAT WOULD BE ASSUME! I wouldnt mind fighitng zombies or some bloodshed–thats why I love videogames.
UInfortunatly that is not the christian god, nor is it anything like an \atheist logic!
But hey, at least in some abstract since, you were able to see some of the absurdities of religion, and laugh at it.

“UInfortunatly that is not the christian god, nor is it anything like an \atheist logic!”

Josh, I’m glad that you recognise that this is not the Christian God. However, if you think that this kind of attack on Christianity is not made by any atheists, then you might want to try using Google. 🙂

Something funny happened at school recently which reminded me to get around to making a post in this section.

Some people insulted my favorite band, AILD because they were in his opinion a “silly christian metal band”. I simply told him this is no problem, because God does exist and the bible is trustworthy, and the fact that they hold the correct view on a highly controversial and incredibly important issue should be something to be celebrated. Next thing I new, I was up for a little “form-class debate”, me against him and about six of his friends.

The next day, I came to school with the kalam cosmological argument up one sleeve, the argument from Fine-Tuning up the other, and the moral argument tucked into my sock for good measure. I gave the cosmological argument first, and this is what followed.

In response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument: “Hey Christian, did you know some of the ancient pharaohs heads were a bit elongated? This proves that they were aliens! haha! What do you have to say to that? >:]”

LOL!

Well if the Egyptians weren’t aliens then we wouldn’t have the Stargate stories, would we? I mean, how long did the American government think it could hide this from the public?

Anyway, all Christians are stupid and all atheists are smart, especially if they were once Christians. I mean, we all know that the IQ goes up the minute it is no longer suppressed by religion. It works in reverse, too. Any atheist that becomes a Christian immediately loses functioning brain cells. Aren’t there MRI studies to prove it?

Of course, my ideas are identical to all internet skeptics, especially the American ones.
/sarcasm

Well Andy, that’s a summary of modalism, not orthodox Christianity.

But the original author of that description doesn’t strike me as someone to let picky things like accuracy or having at least a modest understanding to he position one is criticising get in the way of a good laugh. But given its association with the infidels website… yeah, kinda makes sense.