It has certainly been some time since I’ve had one of these but the blog at atheist-stooges.com just begs for some critical examination, much like any typical redneck begs for a slap about the head. Now, the site in question is rather lengthy so it sadly won’t b e possible to go through all of it but I’m fairly sure you’ll get the gist of it pretty quickly.
From my own experience, there are at least two types of Christians. Firstly, there’s the type who aren’t so bad; the ones who pronounce all the world needs is love and that everyone should get along. They don’t try to shove their religion down your throat and are actually nice to hang around with. I know and like many people indeed who belong to this category. Then there’s the second group who really aren’t as pleasant not to mention intelligent; they’re the fundamentalists who cry out about fire and brimstone, that homosexuality is a horrible sin and protest continuously outside family planning clinics. Yes, these two groups are very different indeed – the beliefs of one seem to be based in peace and tolerance while the other is, from all indications, based in hate, spite and fear.
Atheist-stooges.com seems to belong solely to the second group, which should tell you a lot about it to begin with. Even the images chosen to be displayed at the start of the site (here and here) certainly let you know that the site has declined to go down the road of rational and reasonable debate but instead that of petty insults and name calling. But enough on that, this is already the third paragraph and I haven’t shot down any of their statements yet!
To begin with, the site seems rather hung up on the origins of Atheism which really is a large logical fallacy to begin with. Does it matter how something began or started as long as it is right or it works? I do not know how my car starts every morning but it works and that’s enough for me; as long as you know how to drive the thing then that should be enough for everyone else as well. It is only in cases such as scientology where a clear con job is at work where such origins come into relevance.
“The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon. But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin”
Someone in the comments section already said this but it bares repeating. The natural state of a human being is that of Atheism. When you are born, you possess no concept or belief in a higher being nor of much of anything else. It is generally only through your upbringing and life experiences that such beliefs are formed and retained, which is why religious beliefs are generally separated into geographical blocks or sections. There are areas of the world where Christianity is most common, others where Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam are the most commonly held beliefs. Now, if Atheism were not the default state of beliefs and that a higher belief was an innate part of who we are then these geographical boundaries would not exist, would they? Of course not, religious belief is generally dictated about how and and where you were raised.
“I will endeavor to explain how atheism had its origin by first directing your attention to a principle in the Bible found in Romans Chapter 9, verse 14.”
Of course, there are many tangents of discussion that could come from this alone. From how the Bible is a demonstratively unreliable document, to how the foundation of religion is ignorance (hey, how else do you think it all started? The Egyptians couldn’t figure out what the Sun was so they made up a religion stating it was a pushed along the sky by a giant dung beetle and then, later, changed their minds and decided it was Ra’s firey chariot. All religions started from the same foundation, an attempt by man to explain what was then unexplainable though the creation of myths and stories).
“In the entire chapter, He teaches that God is sovereign over the salvation and reprobation of humans – that God does not love everybody – that He decreed that some should be the objects of His eternal love and the rest should be the objects of His eternal wrath.”
That really sort of proves that god is a bit of a bastard, doesn’t it? Common Christian belief is that god is well and truly capable of loving and saving everyone but he simply chooses not to. Instead, he gets all sulky and pouts because some people just happen to not agree with him. I certainly don’t agree with everyone all the time (this blog alone is proof of that) but people have a right to believe in whatever they choose – and to choose not to believe in a god who, by all accounts, has the maturity of a ten year old seems fine by me.
“In order for satan to have endeavored to judge God, there had to be in place some type of opinion, philosophy, religion, charter or law by which he used to try to judge God. But God is not subject to anything. Nothing exists whatsoever that God is subject to or responsible to obey.”
I’m sure the Catholic Church would disagree with that one, considering their little supposed pact with god about holy dogma and all that. Of course, that last statement is impossible to begin with; any entity is subject to itself. God is subject to god. The judeo-christian god is the judeo-christian god and is bound by those same limitations. He’s not the various Hindu gods, he’s not Thor, he’s not Zeus. Therefore there are definitive limitations on what god could possibly be which means, therefore, there are things he is subject to. That’s one of the problems with atheist-stooges.com, it tries to use sound reasoning to explain it’s case but instead mishandles logic, ties it up like a weird pretzel and tries to pass it off as the truth. Which, of course, simply doesn’t work.
“God is not subject even to the most noble law in the universe – the TEN COMMANDMENTS – which He made for mankind, nor to any law made for the angels.”
Ah, yes. The Ten Commandments. Trying to pass off Old Testament law as being noble is somewhat odd considering that such texts decree that we stone to death anyone that attempts to do any work on the Sabbath and that it’s just dandy to deal in slaves as well as many other rather morally dubious things. The first episode of The West Wing dealt with this nicely, so I’ll let that illustrate the point I’m making. Personally, I’d say that golden rule from the New Testament would be far nobler (you know, ‘do unto your neighbour’ blah blah blah) but even that’s just a basic reiterating of evolutionary ethics.
“You will find those five principles at work in the hearts of every atheist. The conclusion that the One and only True God doesn’t exist cannot be derived except through deception”
Deception? That’s an interesting word to use, considering that all the evidence and known facts indicate that the Atheists are actually right. It can be demonstrated, for example, that the Bible is far from accurate and anyone who states that it is a literal record is speaking from a position of ignorance.
“Atheism didn’t receive its origin by a true absence of proof of God’s existence, because there has always been and always will be overwhelming proof to the contrary.”
I do hope some of that ‘overwhelming proof’ will be shared with the rest of the class since I certainly have yet to see any. In fact, I have yet to see one tiny shred of evidence which supports the existence of the judeo-christian god over any other deity worshipped in the history of humanity. Maybe we should all go off and worship The Mighty Thor? At least tales of his supposed exploits are being kept reasonably up-to-date (thanks, Marvel!).
The site also subscribes to some very common, yet still wrong, ideas such as that the United States of America was founded as a christian nation (it was founded as a secular one, accept it. That’s what the whole separation of church and state was about – I’m not even American and I know that, how does it escape a lot of U.S. citizens?). It also has a somewhat negative opinion of the Theory of Evolution which should be fun to take apart.
“Just to clean the palate of a century of evolutionists’ browbeating everyone into saying evolution is a FACT”
The Theory of Evolution is not a fact and anyone that tries to tell you otherwise doesn’t understand how the scientific process works. No scientist worth a damn would ever call it a fact, that’s for sure. It is a scientific theory, just like gravity is a theory or that germs cause disease is a scientific theory. The Theory of Evolution also has as much evidence to support as those of gravity and germs do yet you don’t often hear about anyone trying to argue against gravity, do you?
“Liberals’ Creation Myth is Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Which is about one notch above Scientology in Scientific rigor.”
Blatant falsehood. The Theory of Evolution is perhaps the most heavily peer reviewed and scrutinised area of study in modern history. And you know what? That review actually showed that Darwin was wrong about many things so the theory was tweaked and changed to better describe and predict natural events which is all part of the normal scientific process … and the Theory of Evolution still stands today, despite all the attacks on it mainly because of the mountains of evidence which supports it. Unlike hypothesis (which is a great deal different to a theory) like creationism which, last time I checked, has nothing to support it.
“We wouldnt still be talking about it butfor the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.”
I don’t know about anyone else out there but I certainly don’t hold to that. It certainly calls into serious question the habit of some to take the bible literally since the creation story in the book of genesis can not be taken literally and still meet with observable facts. It’s more simple logical processes and rational thought which disproves the notion of the judeo-christian god than anything else.
“This is why there is mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.”
Again, I do hope some of this supposedly vast amount of evidence is shared with the rest of the class because so far there appears to be nothing.
“Which is to say, evolution is the eminently plausable theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespere, and Ronald Reagan (among other things) all came into existence by pure accident.”
That should demonstrate that the author of the site fails to have a proper understanding of the Theory of Evolution and really, therefore, shouldn’t be taken very seriously to begin with. ‘Pure accident’ seems to be something of a continuing brainbug that creationists can’t seem to shake no matter how much the actual truth is explained to them. One of the great wonders of life is that it adapts to the environment around it and it is that adaptation which is the driving force behind evolution, not ‘accidents’ or whatever other term gets thrown about.
To make you really ponder in bewilderment, the site’s author goes on to blame Atheists for youth crime and the general poor state of the world right now. Of course, as with the rest of the site, no actual evidence or facts are brought forth to justify the claim but why should that stop anyone? Here’s a good phrase for you to consider and then chuckle at:
“Since atheists teach children against God’s morality, they have to in turn be teaching them to do the very things God says not to do.”
I’m an Atheist and I like to think of myself as a moral and generally good person. I help people when I can, I’m nice to those around me and people are generally nice to me in return. Oh? I’m nice to people and they’re nice back to me? Could that be the (oddly god-free) Social Contract poking it’s head up? Evolutionary ethics maybe? This actually highlights another brainbug that some folk just can’t seem to shake – the judeo-christian god is certainly not the origin of morality.
The author of the site also seems rather fond of the term “God-haters” in reference to Atheists. This is logically wrong on many fronts but I’ll speak from my own person perspective to save time. As an Atheist, do I hate the judeo-christian god? I can’t say that I do, the closest term I can think of in regards to my feeling on said deity is ambivalence. How to explain that? Let’s use an example … do I hate the purple unicorn standing behind me? No, I don’t and nor would it be even possible since that unicorn isn’t actually there, it doesn’t exist. Do I have negative regard towards Zeus? No, I don’t for once again, much like the Unicorn, he doesn’t exist except in books of Greek mythology and various comic books. What I do dislike and would like to see removed from humanity, however, is ignorance and a style of think which has it’s foundation in irrationality and superstition.
This site also links to a whole bunch of others sharing similar views so if time allows, maybe I’ll tackle them as well…