Blog Archives
Plain Stupid
Mark from Proud Atheists (who I’ve bashed in a few recent posts; boy, I need some new reading material!) has just made an argument against the use of billboards to advertise for Christianity. He posts this picture of an atheist billboard contrasted by this video highlighting the use of billboards for Christianity. Then, he asks two questions to close the post:
* We already know about Christianity. Will the Christian billboards prove the divinity of Jesus?
* Will a billboard depicting “The Flintstones” make the show any more valid or real? We know the Geico cavemen on billboards weren’t really cavemen.
My head is reeling from the stupidity. When you argue against something a certain way, you have to first make sure that your own position is immune from the same criticisms. Atheists in many countries have posted billboards. The purpose is to bring more atheists into the fold, to let the unbelieving community know that they are there, and to foster community among unbelievers. And, perhaps, to instill some doubt into the heads of the believers.
Pretty much the purpose of theistic billboards in reverse.
Therefore, the same questions apply in reverse:
- We already know about atheism. Will the atheist billboards prove there is no God?
- Will a billboard depicting atheistic arguments make atheism any more valid or real?
Of course, I’m the theist, I’m making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on me, yada, yada, yada. But I always point the atheist who says that to Romans 1, because it neatly predicts and answers this type of argument:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
In their sin and rebellion, atheists are effectively supressing the truth. God is plain in the things that are made, but atheists seem to want more than that. They want to see the hand of God in something. The problem is that they’re not looking for it precisely because of the rebellion against God in the first place! Paul drives that point home in the next part of the passage:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
As punishment for their rebellion, God has given them over to their lusts and allows them to continue suppressing the truth. The more times you sin, the easier it gets. The quieter your conscience becomes. Eventually, it seems that God hardens your heart and you become completely immune to further evangelism (2 The 2:11).
But, when someone dares to counter your claims about God with the truth that Jesus is risen, as these billboards are attempting to do, it becomes necessary to attack this campaign. When a Christian does something like this in faith, God will reach out to the hearers of the message and reveal himself. The pangs of conscience that result in unbelievers like Mark are necessary to quiet. Thus, the attack and belittlement of the effort.
Seems like it’s more effort than it’s worth to be an atheist. Let’s pray that they submit to the Lord before it’s too late.
Things God Can’t or Won’t Do?
The more I read Proud Atheists, the more I get the impression that its writer, Mark, is a spoiled child. Somewhere, in the all the confusion and doubt that often inspires people to walk away from their faith in Christianity, we get the idea that God owes us something. God owes us nothing.
Modern Christianity seems to give us the impression that God owes us something. Chris Rosebrough, who studies and critiques the purpose-driven church movement, thinks that a follower of modern Christianity is defined thusly:
Someone who has made the decision to be an emotionally well adjusted self-actualized risk taking leader who knows his purpose, lives a ‘no regrets’ life of significance, has overcome his fears, enjoys a healthy marriage with better than average sex, is an attentive parent, is celebrating recovery from all his hurts, habits and hang ups, practices Biblical stress relief techniques, is financially free from consumer debt, fosters emotionally healthy relationships with his peers, attends a weekly life group, volunteers regularly at church, tithes off the gross and has taken at least one humanitarian aid trip to a third world nation.
Notice that it is all about what God can do for us: giving us purpose, removing fears, granting a healthy marriage with a better sex life, recover from all hurts, habits, hang ups, relive stress, relieve debt, etc. Rosebrough laments this definition, because it applies to a broad category of people who are not necessarily Christians. He says:
Tradgically, the “Jesus” that is presented in the sermons that promote this definition of being a Christ Follower isn’t the savior of the world who died on the cross for the sins of the world and calls all nations to repentance of their sins and the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the Cross. Instead, the “Jesus” that is presented in these sermons is a “life coach”, a training buddy and the supreme example of an emotionally well adjusted risk taking leader who lived the ultimate life of significance and purpose. This purpose-driven “Jesus” is there to help you achieve what he achieved and invites you to follow his examples and methods so that you can be Christlike too.
Since modern Christianity has failed in teaching its adherents that humility, repentence, and submission to God are all necessary to live a life like Christ, it is no wonder that the critics of Christianity raise the objections that they do. These objections are based primarily on the assumption that God actually owes us something. If you start with the idea that God owes us nothing, then most of these objections disappear. Read the rest of this entry
Why They Left the Faith, part II
John W. Loftus recently made a post detailing why he and the Debunking Christianity staff left the Christian faith. I posted brief answers to the dilemmas that Loftus touched on here. At the end of the post, Loftus invites more deconversion stories in the comments. I thought I’d look at some selected deconversion stories. Starting with Lee, who said:
I left because I could no longer believe the old testament “laws” actually came from God . . . they’re too primitive, too unjust, too much like witch-doctoring. And my realization came when I was doing my regular “read through the Bible” routine. “Wait a minute–I don’t believe this–this can’t be true . . .” and then the whole house of cards came tumbling down.
Starting off with argument from outrage. By what standard are OT laws “too primitive, too unjust, too much like witch-doctoring”? By modern standards. That means the underlying assumption here is that our society is right, and their society is wrong. Reading between the lines, Lee seems to be saying that they would have been better off if they were more modern–like us. This is known as cultural imperialism.
To understand the OT laws fully, we need to understand the context of the society in which they were written. Compared to other ANE cultures, the OT laws were head-and-shoulders above what the rest of Canaan was practicing. If you were a citizen of the Palestinian region in the time of Mosaic law, you wanted to be an Israelite.
Paul Copan has a great article answering this objection here. Read the rest of this entry
Summary View of Why They Left the Faith
John W. Loftus from Debunking Christianity made a post summarizing why he and other members of the DC team left the flock. Most of these are fairly typical objections to Christianity.
- Loftus left because he couldn’t reconcile the Genesis creation account with the scientific knowledge.
- Robert Price left because of New Testament textual criticism.
- Exapologist left because of the failed prediction that Jesus would return to the generation to which he spoke.
- Ken Pulliam left because there is no cogent explanation for the Atonement.
- William Dever left because of biblical archeology.
- Bart Ehrman left because of the problem of evil.
The trick is that none of these alleged problems are irreconcilable. Read the rest of this entry
A Few Things Atheists Should Know About Christians
Mark from Proud Atheists has compiled a handy list of things that atheists should know about Christians. I thought I’d take a peek at the list. It is an interesting way to peer into the mind of the average atheist, to see what he thinks of the average Christian. I bet that he completely misunderstands us, as per usual. Let’s see if I’m right. Read the rest of this entry
This Made My Day
I read this comment from Omninerd.com, and it made my day. This is my favorite part:
And if you plan on defining your atheism as some mere “lack of belief”, this is not satisfactory. People and their positions are not defined by what they are not. That’s a really clever way to get out of blame and the burden of proof for your claims against theists and theism, but it’s just sophistry.
This I agree with whole-heartedly. Atheists are lazy debaters. Instead of making the positive assertion that there is no God (which they all believe), they insist on defining atheism as a lack of belief in any god. As to why they do this, the writer hit the nail on the head. They do it because the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. Therefore, by simply saying that they don’t believe in God (treating this as a given, not an actual claim), they are circumventing the need to actually prove that there is no God, something they know they can’t do.
The responses about to this, all from atheists, are very instructive. I especially like this one, from the most open minded skeptic of the group, obviously:
I stopped reading after that first sentence. Wrong! Religion is a superstition. Atheism is the lack of belief in any superstitions, ie: god/s and/or religions. Based on your first sentence I will assume the rest of that statement is as just as rediculous and not worth the time and effort to read it. Nice job.
Religion is superstition. Okay. The writer actually addressed your points in the body of the comment, but you wouldn’t know that since you didn’t actually read what was written. Gotcha. But theists are the close-minded ones.
This one is classic atheist:
What a wonderful display of Christian ignorance and bigotry. Way to go retard.
Name calling: what you do when you have no actual response to the argument. How is what was written an example of ignorance or bigotry? You got nothing except name calling? Cool.
Then, of course, there was Brian Sapient trying to clarify that he doesn’t believe that all theists should be locked in mental institutions:
I believe that theism is similar to a mental disorder. In some cases (note some, not all) people who believe they speak to God and that God speaks back are suffering from grandiose delusional disorder. I believe that certain anti-psychotic drugs could help people who worship a god. In some cases a theist could be helped with a therapist. In extremely severe cases a person might be best treated for their theism by receiving in patient treatment at a care center set up for such a delusion. Society doesn’t treat theism as a mental disorder because it has reached a degree of normalcy, otherwise it qualifies under current diagnostical terms as a delusional disorder.
This is why I don’t respond to Sapient anymore. He’s not worth the effort. Sorry that the writer mischaracterized your position, Brian. He thought you wanted all theists locked up in an institution, and clearly you only think some should be locked up. Duly noted.
There was one long reply, which I skimmed. It seemed to me that the reply simply quoted the original comment, and then told the writer he was wrong as a matter of course. Naturally, the writer is wrong because he is a theist, and we all know that atheism is the correct worldview. No reasonable evidence is given to back that claim up, it is just assumed wholesale and all dissent from it is labeled as unreasonable, bigoted, or ignorant. Nice arguing, atheists!
Atheists Redefining Morality
I’ve often said that atheists have a penchant for redefining terms. The most frequent use of this tactic is seen by redefining “faith” to mean “belief without supporting evidence.” Faith is trust, no more and no less. It’s repugnant to see former believers continuing that redefinition, even though they know better.
But atheists, by their own reckoning, are also free to not only redefine established terms but also free to redefine morality. This is because they are no longer “shackled to a Bronze Age mythological belief system.” The comments to this post from Daniel Florien serve to show just how far this can be stretched. Read the rest of this entry
Criticizing Church Spending
There is much criticism for the way that the modern church spends its money, both from our side and from the other side. Much of it is well deserved, I can assure you.
For example, Pastor Rick Godwin of Eagle’s Nest Christian Fellowship in San Antonio, TX came under fire for this in 2007. According to church records, the pastor, staff and families took charter flights for travel and the bill came to $143,000 for the first seven months of the year. Church funds were used for gifts to elders, including a $2,600 for an Armani suit and $2,518 for a Cartier watch. Independent auditors expressed concerned over how the church handles its finances, and advised that they not speak to the IRS without a lawyer present.
Christian Valley Christian Church in Jonesboro, AK, is spending $925,000 to double the size of its existing building.
Ed Young has gotten it from Chris Roseburgh on our side, and Daniel Florien from the other side. Full story here. Young allegedly owns his own private jet, a Falcon 50 valued at $8.4 million. Young’s estate is valued at $1.5 million. He is paid an annual parsonage of $240,000 on top of a $1 million salary. Young answered the charges, but not the satisfaction of most.
Tony Morgan announced on his blog that the folks at Clark ProMedia are going to begin marketing holographic technology to churches. It will enable churches that have multiple campuses to view a 3D image of their pastor delivering the sermon. It will be as if he is right there in the building. I can only wonder how much it will cost to implement, and where the money could be better spent–like missions to Haiti or Chile, maybe?
Churches, especially the mega-church set, do not always spend their money well. That cannot be argued. Other examples abound, like this one (also from Unreasonable Faith). Though warranted, the criticism works in both directions.
While church monies could be better spent on things like missions rather than holographic technology or private jets, I think it’s just as valid to consider how the critics are spending their money. Atheist organizations have some really interesting pet projects on which they spend their money.
The Atheist bus ad campaign initially cost $213,914. But the activity has gone viral and is now spread all over the world, which probably has multiplied the cost at least tenfold–and I’m being extremely conservative here. Mariano from Atheism is Dead critiques the campaign in these essays. Could this money have been better spent? Perhaps on the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders?
What about Michael Newdow, who has spent years in federal court attempting to get “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we trust” removed from the currency. He also sued unsuccessfully to stop references to religion and God from being part of President Bush’s second inauguration as well as President Obama’s inauguration. What if his time was devoted instead to helping people in Haiti or Chile?
Of course atheists will side with me that it is ridiculous for Godwin and Young to spend church money the way that they did (and probably still do). But I know for a fact that they will not agree with me that the bus campaign or Newdow’s lawsuits were wastes of both time and money. Consider Vjack mulling over becoming more vocal as an atheist by wearing atheist t-shirts and displaying bumper stickers. It’s not directly related to the bus campaign, but it does have similar overtones.
As for Newdow’s lawsuits, they are a self-evident waste of time and money and little more needs to be said here. But, atheists are supporting Newdow in his efforts. Vjack characterizes this issue as “too important to abandon.” The comment section over at Friendly Atheist is alive and well with many who support Newdow. Obviously, Hemnant supports Newdow as well–saying that the lawsuit has merit and hoping that someone will be successful with it (if not Newdow).
So, I think it’s fair to say that neither side seems to have the big picture in mind. Opponents are quick to criticize church spending, but their own spending habits are highly questionable. Meanwhile, as the atheists are always fond of pointing out, thousands of children will die today of starvation. Holograms and private jets won’t save a single life, but neither will bus ads nor will striking “God” from Pledge and currency. And while mega-church goes look forward to their tithes bringing in a hologram and ignore the pastor’s private jet, atheists will defend Newdow’s activities and the bus ads as important and necessary. Neither side will see the forest through the trees, and that is extremely sad.
This Makes Me Happy
Many theists, myself included, argue that God is self-evident. There is much positive evidence all around us, in the form of creation itself, for the existence of God. The fact that the world operates on natural laws, the evidence for fine-tuning of the universe, and the very fact that there is something rather than nothing all point to the fact of God. Atheism is not a default position that one arrives at for lack of theistic evidence. It is a willful, moral decision that one makes, and then spends the rest of his natural life supressing the knowledge of God in rebellion.
Much of the published critiques of the New Atheism have focused on their arguments. But, Jim Speigel is changing that. In his new book, The Making of an Atheist, Speigel makes the case that I just alluded to: that atheism is a willful and moral choice to rebel against a self-evident God.
The Evangelical Philosophical Society interviews the author and reviews the book.
It makes me happy that an author has finally stopped critiquing atheism’s hollow and unconvincing arguments and attacked the reason why there are atheists at all.
I think that people need to hear some of these things. I think that more authors need to paint atheism as a moral choice. Or, more appropriately, a choice made because the person actually lacks morals to begin with. Rather than learning what is acceptable to God, the atheist desires to go his own way and make his own morals. I see this repeatedly in exchanges with atheists: “Why is homosexuality immoral?” “Rape isn’t a moral issue.” “Adultery is acceptable if both spouses are into it.” “What’s wrong with incest?” (All statements I’ve witnessed atheists making.)
I’ve generally noticed that a common thread runs through most “moral” reasoning that comes from atheists. Freedom to have sex with whomever one chooses, free of any restrictions. For example, the ongoing objection in this post on courting from Daniel Florien seems to be the fact that Mary and Ted will have no sexual contact, including kissing, until they are married. Why is that a bad thing, exactly?
I have two posts in the works related to the thesis of Speigel’s book. One is on the atheist penchant for redefining terms. When did “faith” start to mean belief despite evidence to the contrary? And another specifically relating to the utter decline of sexual morality in the atheistic community is on its way. Can you believe that many atheists think incest is perfectly all right given modern birth control?
Despite statements like that, atheists take exception to the portrayal of atheists as immoral. Now, where would anyone get the idea that atheists are immoral? Certainly those that don’t believe in God, monogamy, or prohibitions on incest are fine and upstanding pillars of morality.
Jim Speigel’s book should be very interesting indeed!
This is Weird . . .
Fail Blog titled this “Church Sign Fail:”
All I see is truth. No fail here at all.
Back Rome Again 