Belligerent atheists promoting death and misery as usual

From here:

Wisconsin officials are reviewing a complaint that the official state website links to an anti-abortion group with religious ties.

The organization is called Care Net, a faith-based group that caters to pregnant women.

The Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation says by linking to the site, the state is advertising evangelical ideals. Group president Annie Laurie Gaylor wants the link removed.

The link in question can be found here, and it points to this site, whose aim is:

As the largest network of pregnancy centers in North America, Care Net is committed to expanding access to the life-saving services and support provided by our local centers and to reaching the hurting and broken with the hope of Jesus Christ.

We work to accomplish this goal by promoting our network of centers and the Option Line call center, preparing our local centers to effectively serve their communities, and partnering with existing centers or like-minded ministries to plant new pregnancy centers in underserved areas.

As you can see, pretty sinister.

I have little doubt that if today’s coterie of benighted God haters had lived in the 19th Century, they would have vigorously canvassed to prevent William Wilberforce end slavery – because he was an evangelical Christian who had no right imposing his Christian perspectives on a secular parliament.

Cross at 9/11 Memorial upsets atheists

From here:

A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a “mingling of church and state.”

[…..]

The cross, which consists of two intersecting steel beams that were found intact in the rubble at Ground Zero, was initially constructed on a side of a church in lower Manhattan. The cross was then placed inside the 9/11 Memorial Museum during a ceremony over the weekend.

“The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross,” the group’s president, Dave Silverman, said in a press release. “It’s a truly ridiculous assertion.”

What is truly ridiculous is David Silverman’s objection to displaying the cross that was formed out of the two beams. If he is right and there is no God, the cross is meaningless and he is free to ignore it. If there is a God, particularly a Christian God, the cross is a symbol of God’s identification with people’s suffering and of the future resurrection; Silverman is free to ignore that, too. Either way, it is nonsense for him to cavil because a God he doesn’t believe in won’t run the universe the way he, Silverman, wants.

It’s amazing how much atheists hate someone they claim doesn’t exist.

 

Atheist chaplains for the military

From here:

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — In the military, there are more than 3,000 chaplains who minister to the spiritual and emotional needs of active duty troops, regardless of their faiths. The vast majority are Christians, a few are Jews or Muslims, one is a Buddhist. A Hindu, possibly even a Wiccan may join their ranks soon.

But an atheist?

Strange as it sounds, groups representing atheists and secular humanists are pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the chaplaincy, hoping to give voice to what they say is a large — and largely underground — population of nonbelievers in the military.

The atheist chaplains will, no doubt, console their faithful with the reassurance that if they are killed in battle, a great black nothingness awaits them. Don’t worry about losing a limb because worms will eat your mortal remains anyway, attached or not; and the framers of the just war theory based their ideas on a belief in God, so if they were wrong about God, there is no such thing as a just war and you might as well desert.

A real morale booster.

The delusion of secular objectivity

From here:

Lord Patten of Barnes, the former Cabinet minister and a practising Catholic, said that he felt he was regarded as “peculiar” over his faith.

His comments come amid a deepening battle over the freedom of religious belief, which last week saw a Christian electrician threatened with the sack for displaying a cross in his van.

Lord Patten, a Conservative peer who will take control of the BBC Trust next month, is the highest-profile political figure to enter the debate over what is seen as a creeping attempt to remove Christianity from public life.

But his comments angered secularists, who last night expressed concern that his faith could affect his ability to remain objective in making decisions.

Unfortunately for secularists, the only possibility there is for objectivity in making decisions is if a Mind exists that is higher than the human mind.

Otherwise all decisions are, at best, by definition subjective and at worst, meaningless mechanistic by-products of an indifferent universe, making the concern expressed by the secularists, by their own measure, of no account and Lord Patten eminently suited to his new position.

The foundation for objective moral values

A debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig on where moral values come from and whether atheists have grounds for believing in objective moral values.
The whole series is well worth watching. I am, of course, biased but it seems fairly clear that Sam Harris didn’t fare too well. He never came to grips with the problem of his tautological definitions of “good” and “evil”, preferring, instead, to eschew logic and employ the decoy of making emotionally indignant appeals to examples of our or God’s – the God he claims isn’t there – moral failures, along with other randomly selected red-herrings.
William Lane Craig, on the other hand, pounds his points home with remorseless logic.






Why are atheists angry?

It is strange that the members of the group that trumpets its appeal to reason alone for the explanation of why we are here, are inclined to share the characteristic of being irrationally angry.

Long gone are the days of enjoyable gentlemen’s debates, full of reasoned intensity and intellectual rigour – such as those between Bertrand Russell and Fr. Copplestone. Perhaps it is partly because  they lack the mental equipment of their predecessors or perhaps there is a deeper psychological reason, but today’s Dawkins/Hitchens spawned atheists seem more inclined to rage against a God whom they insist isn’t there.

Sometimes the anger is easily explained by the psychological problems of emotional reasoning, immaturity  and low frustration tolerance, but assertions such as those of Hitchens that God, if he existed, would be a “celestial dictator” or of Dawkins that God in the Old Testament is a “sex-obsessed, cruel tyrant” point to the uneasy suspicion that the new atheists disbelieve in God less than they hate him.

Perhaps, then, the explanation is that the new atheists share a common tendency for self-destruction: the impulse to self-destruction leads to a life of learning hatred for the Decider of eternal destinies and is expressed in the angry bravado of rebellion. Come to think of it, there is nothing new about that.

The Templeton Prize

The Templeton prize is supposed to honour someone who:

has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.

This year, the winner was Martin Rees, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University who “has no religious beliefs”, but occasionally attends Church of England Sunday worship – where he fits right in.

It might be possible for this to be more mixed up, but so far we have Rees who doesn’t believe in God, but attends an Anglican Church sporadically, winning a prize for making an “exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension”.

But wait, there’s more: real atheists like Richard Dawkins reckon he’s let the side down by “blur[ring] the boundary between science and religion, making a virtue of belief without evidence”. Meanwhile, Dawkins continues to believe, without evidence*, that the excogitations of the grey soup beneath his thinning curly locks are of a weightier substance than Mr Gumby’s flower arranging instructions.

* J. B. S. Haldane: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…. and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms”

A bible for atheists

Atheist, A. C. Grayling has written a book giving fellow atheists advice on ways to live a good life. Other than as an act of sheer hubris, giving advice on a commodity – goodness – which has no meaning for atheists seems particularly pointless. If atheism is true, the moral actions of humans are entirely predetermined by evolution, including Grayling’s writing of this superfluous book.

From here:

In The Good Book, Professor Grayling attempts to whisk together in one tome the wisdom of Ancient Greek philosophers, Confucian sages, medieval poets and the discoveries of modern science.

Without any reference to gods, souls or afterlives, it aims to give atheists a book of inspiration and guidance as they make their way in the world.

In place of the more well-known Ten Commandments, his atheist principles are: “Love well, seek the good in all things, harm no others, think for yourself, take responsibility, respect nature, do your utmost, be informed, be kind, be courageous.”

Professor Grayling, the president elect of the British Humanist Association, is unambivalent about the biblical mission of his work.

“The point about the religious bible is that it purports to give us some direction. It contains the commands of a divinity wishing us to live a certain way,” he says.

“In fact it has a message which is that there is one great truth and one right way to live.

“The modest offering of The Good Book is that there are as many good lives as there are people who have the talent to live them, and that people must take the responsibility for thinking for themselves and making that decision for themselves.

“What this book does is try and offer them resources for thinking about that.”

The Dulls

There is a website called the Brights where atheists can gather and feel at home in the Koinonia of unbelief. According to the site:

  • A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
  • A bright’s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
  • The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

Unfortunately, every encounter I’ve had with an atheist belies the rather arrogant epithet they have appropriated for themselves. Most atheists are more interested in the mindless, formulaic repetition of the creeds of contemporary atheism than in carefully scrutinising the consequences of their philosophical position: they really are not very bright.

This, in a way, is good news for Christians since it provides both the motive to explore the reasons why Christianity holds together as an explanation for the meaning of human life, and countless opportunities to give atheists a satisfying poke in the eye with the rationality of which they believe themselves to be the sole custodians.

Regrettably, the intellect of most atheists is insufficiently adroit to alert them to the fact that they have been thoroughly routed; this only lessens the euphoria very slightly.

Richard Dawkins evangelises the great unwashed

It’s a shame that he chose one of his silliest – and there are a lot to choose from – remarks to do it: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

 

This may appear cute at first glance, but beyond that it makes no sense. Atheism is the belief that no god exists; a person who believes in one god – or God – is not an atheist any more than a person who only eats pork is a vegetarian when it comes to cows.