Atheist Armaments

I seem to do more writing on other people’s blogs than I do my own!

First, in response to a blog by Dinesh D’Souza: Pat Robertson and I discuss Atheism (Which is kind of like two fratboys discussing childbirth), 2 comments (1 response to another commenter, and the other to the article)

Comment #1:

@Rita [Re: 11:25AM on Nov 20th 2007]:
“Since, it is only a theory, how in the world did you find a correct definition for it.”

Explain to me how Atheism is a “theory.” Christianity is the doctrine that asserts the existence of “God” / the Trinity. Atheism simply chooses not to ascribe to that assertion.
Think of it like this: If Christianity were Tennis, and I chose not to play Tennis - it does not follow that I am therefore playing something else. I could simply be *not playing anything*.

“…why can’t you give a plausable [sic] reason for your beliefs.”

The notion of God, particularly the Judeo-Christian God, makes no sense to me. I have read the Bible and I have attended church services before. They are both wrought with contradiction and inconsistencies. Consider this quote from Stephen Roberts:
‘I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well.’

“So, please explain where you have received your so called Atheistism.”

Atheistism — that’s a new one.
How do you “receive” Atheism? It’s a conclusion — like not believing in Santa Clause, or the Tooth Fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
When you say Santa Clause doesn’t exist, you aren’t “theorizing” that Santa Clause is imaginary, you’re rejecting the assertion that he DOES exist.

Re: Rita [10:28AM on Nov 20th 2007]
“When will you guys understand that this you are not atheist.”

By definition, one who does not believe in God is indeed an Atheist.
So yes, we are.

“That is being a blasphemer.”

Atheists are viewed as blasphemers by Christians, yes. We can agree on that. If you believe in Santa Clause and someone else does not, you would probably criticize them for not believing in something that is so obvious to you. But it doesn’t follow that they are “lapsed Santa believers.”

“…when the car swerved, or someone grab you at the corner just in time to keep you from being run over and being thankful”

In the latter case, I would thank the person who grabbed me and kept me from getting canned.

In the former case, I would probably thank my reflexes and all of the practice I’ve had driving for being able to maintain control of the car.

Just to give you context, my grandparents, whom I was very close to, have both died this year. Not *ONCE* did I consider that a god had any part in this. They’re both dead. Not in heaven. I won’t ever see them again, because they’re GONE. But I have accepted this and they metaphorically live on in my memories.

Comment #2 (same article):

On another note, I pose this to the Theists out there:

Based on these premises:
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God is outside of natural law and reality

I present these possible conclusions:
Your God is either
(a) a manipulative God that uses humans for entertainment (see below)
(b) NOT omniscient / omnipotent (see below)

The Christian myth goes more or less like this:
1. God creates the universe and everything in it.
2. God creates mankind in his image.
3. Man is tempted to the fruit of knowledge and then forever must be stuck in the moral battle of choosing between good and evil.

I ask: What’s the point? If God is omnipotent, why create the universe and humans? Because he’s bored and wants to be entertained (point A)? Because he wants to be worshipped (and is therefore committing the sin of vanity)? Given the book of Job, I would almost wager it’s out of entertainment (a), but definitely wouldn’t be consistent with a “Good” God.

On the other hand: if we were created with purpose (and not just for
entertainment) then we are filling some need. If God needs us for something, then he is not omnipotent (b). Or let’s say that God needs us to voluntarily choose between Good and Evil in our lifetimes. If God were outside of nature and reality (premise 3) and were omniscient (premise 2) then he should know past, present, future of our lives and (determinism or not) who we inevitably become. Why not just weed the bad ones out (as he frequently does in the OT)? If it’s because he DOESN’T know, then he isn’t omniscient (b).

Christianity has been around just under 2000 years. Before that there was Judaism, Zoroasterism, the Greek pantheon, Roman pantheon (effectively the same thing with different names), Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. etc. Islam was created AFTER Christianity was.

The only reason Christianity has somehow endured longer is because of good timing (when most of Eurasia had been settled and was more or less at peace) and because there were a few generations of shrewd individuals that were very effective at controlling large masses of people. If, 2000 years from now, people are believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that mean it was somehow a credible creation myth? What about if a book (or in today’s culture: website) was written and spread around for 2000 years? Same thing.

There is nothing particularly remarkable about the Christian Bible aside from the fact that there are some entertaining stories in the OT and thoughtful parables in the NT. I look at it the same way as I would a book about Heracles and one about Aesop’s Fables.

Second article: This article was entitled The Atheist Who Came in from the Cold, which was about an elderly man that adopted Christianity in his twilight years. He was criticized by some news media outlets (I don’t know which) as being senile, and D’Souza calls those outlets delusional.

What about Dan Barker? He founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He’s one of the smartest people in the world (a member of the Prometheus Organization, which is far more selective than even MENSA).

He was a die-hard Christian. When he was younger he wrote plays and songs that were evangelical. Until, I believe (and you’ll want to check on the exact age) his 20s. Around that time he came to the conclusion that none of it made any sense and freed himself from Christianity.

So are you going to play the “delusional” card on him for realizing religion is bunk? The “brilliant madman” card? He’s a little too young to be senile.