Tag Archives: Atheism

And now for something completely different: an atheist professor of theology

Posted on by
7

Gerald Robinson is an atheist who teaches theology at Toronto’s Trinity College. It will surprise no one to learn that he is an Anglican who attends an Anglican Church of Canada parish where, no doubt, he feels quite at home amongst like-minded clergy.

He has written a book called Theology for Atheists; we can only assume he is angling to become the next ACoC Primate.

From here:

Award-winning Toronto architect Gerald Robinson is an adjunct professor of theology, in the divinity faculty at the University of Toronto’s Trinity College.

He’s a member of the Anglican congregation that worships in Trinity College Chapel and regularly attends services in the chapel. He calls it his parish church, his “go-to” place to worship. So what is he doing socializing with atheists in Scallywags, a Toronto pub?

Robinson is also an atheist who describes himself as an Anglican/Atheist/Christian—a description that must raise many eyebrows. Some will dismiss it as contradictory, incomprehensible.

Robinson says Jesus never claimed to be God, that nowhere in the gospels does he make that claim. Free Jesus from the doctrinal cluttering, and he is still the “greatest teacher the world has ever known,” whose message of peace, love and tolerance is sorely  needed by a troubled world.

[….]

In his 168-page book, Robinson addresses such subjects as heavenly warfare, faith or reason, and miracles. He raises such questions as: Can atheists have a theology? Do atheists have souls? Can an atheist be a Christian if he or she denies the divinity of Jesus?

He answers with an emphatic “yes.”

To his credit, he has one thing right:

As an Anglican, he suggests that the Anglican/Episcopal Church makes the lowest demands for conformity of belief and could lead the way.

The way where, one wonders?

hell

Why we believe what we do

Posted on by
6

In his book Rage Against God, Peter Hitchens makes the point that both atheists and theists believe as they do simply because they choose to do so. In the case of atheism, it is generally a choice made from self-interest: if we admit that God exists we must also admit he might very well require something of us, something we may not wish to give.

Mainline churches have incorporated and refined this whole process, especially when dealing with the gay issue. The Anglican Church has produced endless papers, theological reflections and conversations on why, for 2000 years, the church had it wrong. All a learned smokescreen designed to conceal the real reason: compared to the general population, there is a disproportionately high number of gay clergy who wish not only to continue living with their same-sex partners, but to have their employer’s approval of the arrangement.

The same principle applies vicariously: people like Tony Campolo and Michael Coren who used to oppose gay marriage are now all for it. Not because the arguments have changed, but because condoning the lifestyle of their gay friends affords them feelings of fuzzy comfort – our contemporary substitute for love – whereas disagreement, however truly loving, can be so….. well, unpleasant, intolerant and hurtful.

None of this is new, of course: Peter Hitchens wrote about Aldous Huxley’s view of it here:

The  interesting bit , for this part of the argument, begins at the bottom of page 269, where Huxley is discussing the reality of the ‘meaning’ which we like to give to the world and our actions within it.

‘This is a question’, says Huxley, ‘which, a few years ago, I should not even have posed. For, like so many of my contemporaries, I took it for granted that there was no meaning’…

‘…I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…

‘Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know *because we don’t want to know*(my emphasis). It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless…’

[…..]

‘No philosophy is completely disinterested. The pure love of truth is always mingled to some extent with the need, consciously or unconsciously felt by even the noblest and the most intelligent philosophers, to justify a given form of personal or social behaviour, to rationalize the traditional prejudices of a given class or community.’

Canadian Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings

Posted on by
6

The atheist who made the complaint against prayer was awarded “$33,200 in compensatory damages, punitive damages and costs”. Leaving aside the devil and his minions, being damaged by prayer must surely be a unique experience. What trauma could this hyper-sensitive disbeliever possibly have experienced to be worth $33k in compensation? Did he burst into flames like a vampire in sunlight? If only atheists could be dispatched that easily.

The Supreme Court ruled that “the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief” and, by reciting a prayer, it favoured Christianity – a right and proper thing for a civilisation founded upon Judeo-Christian morality to do; right and proper for a civilisation that is not bent on its own annihilation, that is. By the time we have finished driving God out of Christendom we will have nothing left but a howling wilderness, as Peter Hitchens puts it. Let’s hope no atheists are offended by that.

From here:

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the municipal council in the Quebec town of Saguenay cannot open its meetings with a prayer.

In a unanimous decision today, the country’s top court said reciting a Catholic prayer at council meetings infringes on freedom of conscience and religion.

The ruling puts an end to an eight-year legal battle that began with a complaint filed by atheist Alain Simoneau and a secular-rights organization against Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay.

The court ordered the City of Saguenay and the mayor to stop the prayers. It also ordered the city and Tremblay to pay Simoneau a total of $33,200 in compensatory damages, punitive damages and costs.

Atheist files human rights complaint because school favours Christianity.

Posted on by
7

From here:

An Ontario school is fighting a human rights complaint over its Christian life centre and relationship with Habitat For Humanity.

In November 2013 – in his second action against the District School Board of Niagara – Rene Chouinard filed an Ontario Human Rights Code complaint arguing the board “continues to exhibit preferences for Protestant Christianity” at its facilities.

Chouinard, an atheist father, signalled out Eden High School in St. Catharines, Ont.

His complaint said the board has “continued to allow other missionary organizations, including Habitat for Humanity, to operate Christian mission activities within its programs.”

The school also has privately funded Spiritual Life Centre, which Eden’s website says provides a “meaningful program to assist in the development and support of Eden’s students through a rich array of life activities.”

That centre describes its mandate as “leading students to learn of Christ and live for Christ.”

A hearing on the complaint was held before a human rights tribunal in St. Catharines on Monday
The tribunal adjourned to rule on the issue of Chouinard’s standing – whether or not he has the right to take the complaint to tribunal. That written decision is expected to be made shortly.

“I have a kid in one of those schools,” Chouinard told QMI Agency after the hearing. .

Chouinard wrote in his complaint the board’s activities exposed him to abuse and “character assassination in the local media and community.”

Among other effects, he alleges are that there has been harm to his three children in that they have perceived Christianity as the norm and “concepts of non-belief were not respected.”

He is seeking $50,000 in compensation from the school board to run a long-term media campaign promoting the validity of secular humanism.

Chouinard is complaining that “concepts of non-belief were not respected.” If he is an atheist, he believes that God does not exist: he has a belief – admittedly, not a particularly rational belief, but a belief nonetheless, so the missing respect does not apply to him. An agnostic can claim “non-belief”, not an atheist.

Canada’s laws and standards of morality have their foundation in a Judeo-Christian understanding of how the created order works. If Chouinard can’t cope with this, he should relocate to a country where atheism is the state religion; he would feel more at home. North Korea comes to mind.

Richard Dawkins thinks it is immoral to allow Down’s syndrome babies to be born

Posted on by
7

From here:

Richard Dawkins, the atheist writer, has claimed it is “immoral” to allow unborn babies with Down’s syndrome to live.

Having finally noticed about himself what others have known for years, he went on to say:

“Apparently I’m a horrid monster for recommending what actually happens to the great majority of Down Syndrome foetuses. They are aborted.”

Few atheists, including Richard Dawkins since he regularly tells anyone who will listen what he thinks is moral, are willing to live with the consequences of their beliefs. Without God, there can be no objective morality; without God there is no human essence, no common human nature; without God, we choose what we become, our essence is defined by that choice and the choice is arbitrary, as is the morality which results from the choice.

Richard Dawkins has chosen human feelings as the measure of whether a person is really a person; a foetus does not feel – supposedly – so, as a non-person, it is disposable. From a Christian perspective, a person is made in God’s image at the time of conception; that perspective makes Dawkins’ view – horrid and monstrous.

One consolation is that the Dawkins horrid monster atheistic persona is but a tepid copy of that enjoyed by murderous 20th century practitioners from Stalin to Pol Pot: they systematised atheism, imposed it on everyone they could and drove it to its inevitable, foul conclusion.

Atheists coming out

Posted on by
4

“Coming out” is all the rage these days, so it comes as no surprise that atheists have decided that it is time for them to reveal their inner vacuity, to boldly proclaim their Nietzschean nihilism, to do what the naturalistic predeterminism to which they unwillingly adhere compels them to do: disabuse those of us who still cling to the idea that life has meaning.

atheistsFrom here:

“Sometimes things need to be said, and fights need to be fought even if they are unpopular. To the closeted atheists, you are not alone, and you deserve equality.”

So goes the rousing speech from the American Atheists president, David Silverman, in the opening moments of the first US television broadcaster dedicated to those who do not believe in God, Atheist TV.

A series of testimonies from prominent atheists then follows.

“It’s one of the best decisions I’ve ever made in my life and I completely advocate people ‘coming out’,” says Mark Hatcher, from Black Atheists of America.

“Coming out” is how many atheists in the USA describe what remains, for many, a very difficult admission to make publicly.

Richard Dawkins the secular Christian

Posted on by
5

From here:

I would describe myself as a secular Christian in the same sense as secular Jews have a feeling for nostalgia and ceremonies,” said Dawkins.

[….]

Dawkins grew up in the Anglican faith but became atheist in his teens. Last year, he said in an interview with The Spectator that he could be described as a “cultural Anglican”.

Someone claiming to be a secular Christian is about as sensible as someone claiming to be a boiled kipper.

The fact that Dawkins also sees himself as a “cultural Anglican” appears – to me, at least – rather less oxymoronic since the recent divorce between Christianity and Western Anglicanism; it’s common knowledge that many North American Anglican bishops believe themselves to be boiled kippers.

Is Atheism Irrational?

Posted on by
2

In a recent interview, Alvin Plantinga suggests that if, as atheists claim, materialism is true, our beliefs, including the belief that God does not exist, are unreliable. The real reason for the popularity of atheism amongst those who should know better is that refusing to believe in the existence of God is, as Peter Hitchens agrees, simply a choice  – and not a particularly rational one – made by atheists because they don’t want God interfering with the way they live.

The whole interview is well worth a read:

Thomas Nagel, a terrific philosopher and an unusually perceptive atheist, says he simply doesn’t want there to be any such person as God. And it isn’t hard to see why. For one thing, there would be what some would think was an intolerable invasion of privacy: God would know my every thought long before I thought it. For another, my actions and even my thoughts would be a constant subject of judgment and evaluation.

Basically, these come down to the serious limitation of human autonomy posed by theism. This desire for autonomy can reach very substantial proportions, as with the German philosopher Heidegger, who, according to Richard Rorty, felt guilty for living in a universe he had not himself created. Now there’s a tender conscience! But even a less monumental desire for autonomy can perhaps also motivate atheism.

Atheists force cancellation of Operation Christmas Child

Posted on by
8

A “perturbed parent” – one parent, by the sound of it – has convinced fellow atheists in the American Humanist Association that giving Christmas presents to poor children in the Third World is tantamount to proselytising: the AMA has threatened to sue a school for taking part in Operation Christmas Child.

By preventing the giving of these Christmas gifts, atheists are engaged in their own twisted brand of evangelism: they are ramming home Richard Dawkins’ cheery view that in our universe there is “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Surely there must be some parents “perturbed” by that?

From here:

A South Carolina charter school has canceled its annual Christmas toy drive after a group of self-described humanists complained that the project violated the U.S. Constitution and accused them of bribing children to convert to Christianity.

Renee Mathews, the principal of East Point Academy in West Columbia, S.C., said the annual Operation Christmas Child project was halted because the American Humanist Association threatened to sue the school.

“We received a letter saying we had to cease and desist immediately or they would take legal action against us,” Mathews told me.

[…..]

[T]he American Humanist Association decided to intervene on behalf of a perturbed parent.

“The boxes of toys are essentially a bribe, expressly used to pressure desperately poor children living in developing countries to convert to Christianity, and are delivered with prayers, sermons, evangelical tracts and pressure to convert,” read a letter the AHA sent to Mathews.

The AHA said a public school cannot affiliate itself with a group like Operation Christmas Child without violating the Establishment Clause.

 

Atheist mega-churches

Posted on by
2

From here:

It lookAtheistMegachurchesed like a typical Sunday morning at any mega-church. Hundreds packed in for more than an hour of rousing music, an inspirational sermon, a reading and some quiet reflection. The only thing missing was God.

Dozens of gatherings dubbed “atheist mega-churches” by supporters and detractors are springing up around the U.S. after finding success in Great Britain earlier this year. The movement fueled by social media and spearheaded by two prominent British comedians is no joke.

On Sunday, the inaugural Sunday Assembly in Los Angeles attracted more than 400 attendees, all bound by their belief in non-belief. Similar gatherings in San Diego, Nashville, New York and other U.S. cities have drawn hundreds of atheists seeking the camaraderie of a congregation without religion or ritual.

[…..]

Jones got the first inkling for the idea while leaving a Christmas carol concert six years ago.

“There was so much about it that I loved, but it’s a shame because at the heart of it, it’s something I don’t believe in,” Jones said. “If you think about church, there’s very little that’s bad. It’s singing awesome songs, hearing interesting talks, thinking about improving yourself and helping other people — and doing that in a community with wonderful relationships. What part of that is not to like?”

In the spirit of Richard Dawkins, who regards himself as a “cultural Anglican”, these atheist churches have adopted the aesthetic of Christianity while discarding the truths that produced the aesthetic. For the most part, Western Anglicanism has done much the same thing.

Such a fraudulent, self-indulgent wallowing in feelings whose significance have been robbed of all meaning and to which one is not entitled, is an interesting testimony to the foolishness of a movement which claims to be entirely rooted in rationality.