Tag Archives: Atheism

Atheists for church burning

Posted on by
Reply

Having no rational argument to support their belief system, atheists in Fort Bragg are resorting to a video that celebrates church and book burning to advertise an atheism festival. Christians, being considerably more civilised, intelligent and emotionally secure are not advocating burning The God Delusion or this in retaliation.

From here:

Atheists are using a music video that celebrates the burning of churches and synagogues to promote an upcoming atheist-themed festival at Fort Bragg.

“Rock Beyond Belief” is scheduled to be held on the parade field at Fort Bragg in March. The event was created in part as a response to a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association event that was held last year.

Here is the video (notice, I didn’t call it a music video):

Atheists offended by their own dogma

Posted on by
Reply

This billboard was removed from outside a Johannesburg church because an atheist was offended.

From here:

A church advertising campaign that depicted atheists as stupid has been banned by a watchdog in South Africa.

Officials ruled a billboard that suggested non-believers considered their existence to be accidental was likely to be found offensive.

[…..]

the ASA noted that it was obliged to consider the advertisement’s content after it received a complaint from a non-Christian member of the public.

Laying out its judgement on the matter, the authority stated that the complainant, Eugene Gerber, felt offended by the suggestion he was stupid.

The ruling stated: ‘In essence, the complainant submitted that the billboard offends him as an atheist as he does not consider his existence to be an accident.

‘Secondly, the depiction of a man with an empty head communicates that atheists are stupid.’

A few points:

First, I can’t see anything wrong with offending atheists. After all, Richard Dawkins has made a career out of offending Christians.

Second, if there is no God,  Eugene Gerber is a product of unguided evolution: an accident. An unfortunate accident, perhaps, but an accident nevertheless.

Third, a vast number of atheists, particularly the new atheists and those who have fallen under their spell, are stupid. They are incapable of applying the critical reasoning that they think demolishes religion to their own belief system: that is stupid.

Atheists have a piece missing

Posted on by
4

I’ve discovered why atheists are the way they are.

The clue was in one of my favourite twentieth century English novels, Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited,  where Julia is explaining to Charles the inadequacies of her husband, a crass American called Rex Mottram:

‘Rex has never been unkind to me intentionally,’ she said. ‘It’s just that he isn’t a real person at all; he’s just a few faculties of a man highly developed; the rest simply isn’t there.’

Rex had something missing that prevented him being a complete person. So do atheists.

Most people who believe in God don’t do so because they have been convinced by the cosmological – or any other – argument for his existence. They simply believe, using the same faculty of belief that allows them to believe in such things as the reality of the material world around them, the reality of the past, and the fact that minds exist other than their own. It is an a priori knowledge founded on evidence that is internal to the believer.

Descartes in his ‘Discourse on the Method’ knew that the second most certain thing to exist after himself was God and, although he used an ontological proof to verify this, it is clear that he simply knew that God exists.

That is the bit that is missing or deliberately suppressed in atheists: the ability to know God exists. It’s a shame, really.

Ricky Gervais tries to be funny by picking an easy target

Posted on by
2

From here:

Ricky Gervais has become a target for Christian outraged by his views on religion.

The unapologetic atheist is being targeted on Twitter by a host of believers who have taken offence at his view.

The Office creator, 50, has often spoken of his lack of faith, but his appearance on the cover of New Humanist magazine in a Jesus Christ-style pose has pushed a few over the edge.

For the shot, he uses a microphone stand for his cross, dons a crown of thorns and has the word ‘atheist’ daubed across his chest in blood red.

Like most atheists, Ricky Gervais is arrogant, egocentric, not as rational as he would like us to think and not particularly original or outrageous. If he were, he would have dressed up as Mohammed eating a pork chop swilled down with Johnny Walker.

It would be better for Christians to ignore the little twerp than be offended by him.

A list of Atheist Christmas charities

Posted on by
3

First of all, though, here are a couple – selected from thousands – of Christian charities that flourish at Christmas:

Angel Tree:
Angel Tree is a ministry of Prison Fellowship, delivering love in the form of Christmas gifts and a message of hope to children of prisoners. Angel Tree Christmas connects the parents in prison with their children through the delivery of Christmas gifts by local church volunteers who purchase and deliver these gifts and the gospel to children.
Operation Christmas Child:
Operation Christmas Child invites you to pack a shoe box with small toys, school supplies, other gifts, and a personal note to introduce a hurting child to God’s love. The small gifts of love and messages of hope through Jesus Christ are delivered to needy children overseas.

Here are a couple of examples of the good works over which atheists have laboured for Christmas:

Atheist Nativity sign:
The [atheist] group wants to place a sign that reads:
“At this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Atheists Attempt to Ruin Christmas:
For the first time in the history of Christmas at Palisades Park there were 13 individuals that entered the race for the 21 spaces available rather than the usual three. The unusually high demand for spots, especially by atheists, has sparked Santa Monica’s City Hall to implement a random lottery system to determine who would have access to the spots.

That process left the Santa Monica Nativity Committee with only two spaces on which they can put up only three of the usual 14 scenes. The lottery system that was used gave atheists a majority of the available spaces.

Notice any difference?

Christopher Hitchens misunderstands totalitarianism

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

I have one consistency, which is [being] against the totalitarian – on the left and on the right. The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy – the one that’s absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins of that are theocratic, obviously. The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do.

I think Hitchens is correct in defining totalitarianism as the enemy – although, “political enemy” would be more accurate. Where he misses the mark is identifying God as the supreme totalitarian.

In practice, the most evil totalitarians have been godless individuals who, without the restraints that fear of the Divine engenders, cavalierly visited murder and mayhem on their own people.

If the Triune God exists, as I believe he does, far from being a celestial tyrant, he is the creator of human freedom, a freedom which allowed humanity the choice of rebelling against its Creator to the cost of God himself in his atoning sacrifice on the cross.

If God does not exist, if the natural is all there is, the true tyrant is our genetic makeup and the molecules in our brains: they guarantee that no choice we make can ever be free of what they compel us to do.

Richard Dawkins is an incompetent atheist

Posted on by
Reply

According to Peter Mullen here:

Richard Dawkins says that David Cameron is “not really a Christian”. The fact is that it is only God to whom all hearts be open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid. So Dawkins has no means of telling whether Cameron is a genuine Christian or not.

We can, however, know that Dawkins is not a proper atheist – that is an intelligent atheist – from his own puerile writing and pathetic attempts at philosophical theology. For example, he writes: “Either God exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question. The existence of God is a scientific question, like any other.”

This is idiotic. Science investigates material phenomena, observable entities in the universe. No competent theologians or philosophers – not even the atheist ones – have ever declared that God (if he exists) is an object in his own universe. Perhaps there is no God, and intelligent Christians readily admit that there may be some legitimate doubt. But if the Judaeo-Christian God exists, then he is the maker of the universe and not an entity within it.

That is why science can make legitimate pronouncements on whether bigfoot, fairies, flying spaghetti monsters – and even Greek gods who were believed to be a part of the natural universe – exist, but not God the Creator, whose actuality is independent of his creation.

Atheists want to erect anti-Christmas message next to a nativity scene

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

A national atheist foundation plans to seek permission to hoist its own banner to join secular and religious Christmas displays on an East Texas courthouse square.

The display surrounding the Henderson County Courthouse in Athens includes a traditional Nativity scene, as well as multiple Santa Clauses, elves, wreathes, garland, trumpeters, dwarfs, snowmen, reindeer and Christmas trees, the Athens Daily Review reported.

[…]

However, county officials received a letter Monday from the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, which argued the seasonal display on courthouse grounds amounts to an unconstitutional endorsement of the Christian faith.

In Elmwood City, Pa., the foundation has proposed hoisting a banner that reads: “At this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

It is clear that atheists hate Christmas – the real Christmas – and are prepared to go to considerable lengths to try to make everyone hate it as much as they do. What is less clear is why, after strenuous efforts to make their case, they couldn’t come up with a statement of their position that at least makes sense.

If in your first sentence you trumpet that reason is to prevail, why, in your third, would you make a statement that is unprovable by reason – i.e. “There is only our natural world”?

Perhaps atheists are so smug in the certainty of their assumptions, that they have become incapable of examining them.

Survey finds that atheists are perceived as untrustworthy as rapists

Posted on by
1

From here:

Atheists are almost universally perceived as untrustworthy, and only rapists rate as low, a new study has found.

“Where there are religious majorities — that is, in most of the world — atheists are among the least trusted people,” said lead author Will Gervais, a doctoral student in psychology at the University of British Columbia. “With more than half a billion atheists worldwide, this prejudice has the potential to affect a substantial number of people.”

The study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, combines information collected from six different surveys.

This should not come as a surprise.

After all, if atheists are correct and there is no God, then trustworthiness is merely a genetic accident which would generally be overridden by the callous self-interest that inevitably results from natural selection – and who better to indulge callous self-interest than those who wholeheartedly embrace this view.

If atheists are not correct and there is a God, why trust a group of people who base their entire lives and behaviour on a monumental error of judgement?