Evangelical Atheism

November 24, 2008 Leave a comment Go to comments

Found an interesting article here, so for the full bit, go ahead and read it all.

Basically, here it is:  there are atheist groups around the country who are starting to put up billboards to promote their faith in…er….atheism.  

My favorite one is this one: “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”  That one is in Washington D.C. and Philly.  It is put up by the American Humanist Association.

Now, I am not criticizing this act of atheists across the nation, but I am pointing out the inconsistencies.  If I have heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times…”Christians try to push their faith on others.  It’s all about evangelism and that’s all they care about and we’re tired of hearing it…”  That’s why I think this might be the most hilarious movement by the atheist groups across America.  

It’s downright ridiculous just to be honest.  

At the same time, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., has hit at least nine states in the past year with billboards that look like they’re made of stained glass but say “Beware of Dogma,” “Imagine No Religion,” or — coming soon — “Reason’s Greetings.” The group also advertises on the liberal radio network Air America. One spot features Ron Reagan, son of the former president, who signs off: “Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist. Not afraid of burning in hell.”

I am okay with people being an atheist.  I mean, obviously I disagree with their position on almost all account, but this little movement is just basically downright childish.  

Organizers of such efforts generally say they aren’t trying to evangelize. Instead, they say their goal is to make the public more comfortable with the concept of atheism and give fellow nonbelievers a sense of community.

Hey, you call it not evangelizing….I call it evangelizing.  I totally hate whenever these movements try to disguise their ideas and concepts with a different name that seems to not be like Christianity.

So, here’s to you evangelical atheists:  I don’t care if you tell people about your non-belief, and even try to persuade them to come over to your side…but if you do, just call it evangelism of the masses, because that’s what it is.  Calling it by a different name, doesn’t make the action any different.

And here’s to you atheists who are great people who live the solitary life and try not to annoy anyone else by being arrogant and whatnot:  Thanks.

To Christians:  Spreading God’s Word is the most important task that we have as Christians, yet notice how you might have winced at some of the things said and done in that article.  I am all for evangelism…but we must remember that there are right and wrong ways to evangelize…and I’ll throw this one out there….try a relationship and not a billboard.

Advertisements
  1. scaryreasoner
    November 24, 2008 at 10:51 am

    There is no inconsistency. The atheists who say they “just don’t like Christians pushing their beliefs” are either a) not the same atheists as those pushing atheism, or b) have changed their minds due to the effects they see of Christians (and members of other religions) promoting adoption of their beliefs and so now they are not *only* annoyed by the pushing of what they perceive to be a load of crap, but are also finding it to be outright harmful and have decided to try to do something to improve the situation. So, it’s not inconsistent in any way.

    Basically, there are *exactly* *zero* good arguments to think Christianity is true. In 2000 years, Christians have come up with a grand total of *zero* good arguments. The arguments they do not just fail to be good, they are *laughably* bad.

    Christianity promotes the notion of faith, and makes the claim that faith is some sort of virtue. Exercising faith, as near as I can tell, is the act of deliberately attempting to be more certain about something than the evidence warrants. In this, it is inherently and inescapably dishonest, in that it involves you lying to yourself about how certain you should be about something. How in the hell is that a good idea if you’re are really interested in trying to find out what is actually true? It’s not a good idea, it’s a terrible idea, quite possibly the worst idea in the history of the human race. Faith is no virtue, faith is a failing, and it is *completely obvious* that it is a failing.

    If atheists try to promote atheism, it is only to combat the spread of the cancerlike stupidity and institutionalized blinkered ignorance that goes by the name of religion.

  2. November 24, 2008 at 10:57 am

    They’re actually promoting their organizations, not necessarily atheism itself.

    I thought this was a complaint from Christians all the time, that atheists aren’t doing anything to form into groups and help the rest of humanity. That’s all they’re trying to do here.

    It’s just a sign. And not an offensive sign.

    Sorry, but that’s free speech.

  3. November 24, 2008 at 11:16 am

    Morse, I’m not complaining about the sign. It doesn’t offend me. It’s just the fact that they don’t want to call it evangelism…that’s exactly what it is.

    Welcome back ScaryReasoner. I see you still hate religion.

    “Basically, there are *exactly* *zero* good arguments to think Christianity is true. In 2000 years, Christians have come up with a grand total of *zero* good arguments. The arguments they do not just fail to be good, they are *laughably* bad.”

    Really? I’ve yet to see anything that disproves Christianity. In fact, all of the arguments for Christianity I have found have been solid. Just because I don’t believe what you believe doesn’t make my beliefs untrue. Please, tell me, what about Christianity is so laughably bad? Simply asserting that faith doesn’t make sense to YOU is not a reason Christianity cannot be true. Please, tell me, why is it that Jesus couldn’t exist, or etc… What evidence is there that there are no good arguments. Simply stating that there are no good arguments doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. There are thousands of great arguments…

  4. November 24, 2008 at 11:35 am

    Is all promotion, by default, evangelism?

    I’m actually asking, I’m not sure how I feel.

    “I’ve yet to see anything that disproves Christianity.”

    The lack of physical evidence?

  5. November 24, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    What lack of physical evidence. Stating that the eyewitness accounts were written 60-100 years after the time of Christ because that’s what liberal scholars say doesn’t prove your point.

    I don’t think all promotion is evangelism…but promoting one’s worldview would be considered evangelism in my book…evangelism is defined by many as zeal for a cause…so everyone evangelizes in one way or another…

    But especially in regards to shaping someone’s worldview…I’d consider that evangelism.

  6. November 24, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    Even if the “eye witness” accounts were written sooner or even before the death of Jesus we could still easily disregard them. We do the same thing today with people who claim to see bigfoot or UFOs.

  7. November 24, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    “Exercising faith, as near as I can tell, is the act of deliberately attempting to be more certain about something than the evidence warrants.”

    I agree that your definition of “faith” is foolish. But your definition is faulty. Faith is being certain about something because of the evidence.

    I am “certain” this comment will appear because the evidence of other comments exist, and the form of how to post a comment is clearly shown to me. I don’t have to literally see (or is it hear?) how information is transmitted over the Internet. Certainly, I would seriously doubt that many people have ever literally seen the physical proof that the Internet actually exists. But we see the evidence of it. That’s faith–being certain because of the evidence. You can’t literally see the Internet, but you know it’s there because of the evidence.

    And the evidence for God far outweighs the “evidence” for no God.

  8. November 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Well, lookie there. I just had faith that my last comment would work after I clicked “submit.” And it did! I must be an idiot for believing that would work!

  9. November 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Oh well you look at that. That last comment worked too! What is going on here!?!? I can’t see exactly how everything about this blog works but it is!! I am just going to convince myself that it isn’t actually true. Yeah that’s what I’ll do. Yay for me!

  10. November 24, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Sisyphus Fragment…

    Yes, and UFO’s and bigfoot is usually just one person testifying to that fact one at a time. One can check into their arguments and find them faulty. As the only eyewitness, and discrepancies in the story, the obvious answer is to conclude that they are a bit…off. Was there one person who said, “I saw Jesus?” No, there were hundreds of them. Writings outside the Bible attest to someone known as “The Christ” being alive…and I don’t care if people think that Josephus’ writing is a fraud…anything to try to prove that Jesus didn’t existed will be used – without any proof. Simply stating that Jesus didn’t exist doesn’t mean that he didn’t.

    I again go back to my original thought about all of these issues…when someone wants to be a skeptic, they will excuse any shred of evidence no matter what.

    Jesus existed in the flesh…history attests to that fact.

    And, thanks for checking out the blog. Looked at yours and you seem peaceful enough 😉

  11. November 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    mrakers,

    Your point is moot because we don’t have eyewitness accounts. We have writings that talk about eyewitness accounts. Those aren’t the same thing. And neither would qualify as physical evidence of any kind.

    Now, history attests to the fact that there was probably an actual itinerant rabbi named Yeshua. But what it doesn’t attest to is his actual teachings, his actual parentage, or his ability to perform miracles.

  12. November 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    “Well, lookie there. I just had faith that my last comment would work after I clicked “submit.” And it did! I must be an idiot for believing that would work!”

    That’s not faith. That’s acting based on experience, observation and evidence.

  13. November 24, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    morse:

    How are they not eyewitness accounts? Stating that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts does not make them not eyewitness accounts.

  14. November 24, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    One thing I’ve noticed about many athiestic arguments on the internet: It’s easy to play the devil’s advocate, engaging in the Socratic method until the defending side hits a “false wall”. And once the defender hits such a “false wall,” the prosecutor feels a reassuring sense of correctness. The actuality is, the debate is limited by the knowledge of those involved in the debate, so the ground gained or lost for the sake of proving anything is inconsequential. It’s like beating a dead lolcat. Also, due to the fact that the question is so heavy and the evidence (for both sides) is so diverse and vast, most internet debate is fraught with the ever-increasing “Mr. Know-it-all” error. Human beings have an overwhelming desire to be right; therefore, it’s hard to admit it when you are wrong, or at least that you don’t know everything there is to know about how God doesn’t exist. In short, some debates *coughthisonecough* are better left to scholars who actually have the time to put all of the pieces together, or vet out inconsistencies, for us.

    Also, keep in mind that the tremendous burden of proof is on the athiests to show that there is, in fact, no God. Basically, if I WERE going to doubt the existence of God at this point in human history, I think it would make much more sense to be a doubting agnostic. At least they are honest in their assertion that they don’t know for sure.

    But as for me and my house? “We will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)

  15. November 24, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Oh, and I didn’t mean THIS debate at the cough section, as in this very blog post. I meant that to be in reference to the debate over the existence of God.

    Thanks for the article Ryan! 😀 (And Jacob for the “demonstration” haha)

  16. November 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    mrakers,

    They aren’t eyewitness accounts because they are all dated as being written decades after Jesus was supposed to have died, and we don’t even know who wrote them. You can say that you know, but the scholarship is in massive debate.

    “Stating that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts does not make them not eyewitness accounts.”

    Stating that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts does not make them eyewitness accounts. Although many apologists seem to think so.

    It’s a common apologist tactic. Just repeat something over and over, and eventually people may believe it’s true, regardless of the facts.

  17. November 24, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    This is where atheism completely ignores the evidence when it comes to dating. The book of Luke and Acts – obviously linked together – show that they are EASILY dated before 70 AD.

    The dates and scholarship are not under debate except by those who are completely against Christianity. There is absolutely NO proof of them being dated decades after Christ’s death. Some of the scrolls we have are dated so, but we of course don’t have the original scrolls…still, there are scrolls that are dated much earlier than atheists give.

  18. November 24, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    Do you even read what you write?

    They’re dated before 40 YEARS AFTER THE GUY IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE DIED.

    How is that anywhere near an eyewitness account?

  19. November 24, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    I say that because every dating that I have seen for Gospels and Acts put them around 100 AD or later…

    I never said that they were written in or even around 70 AD…

    My point is that the anti-Christian scholars date it well after its actual writing. My personal belief is that the Gospels were all written within 15 years of Christ’s death…by people who knew and saw Jesus. That classifies that as an eyewitness account.

  20. November 25, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Morsecode,

    Have you ever read Josephus (a Jew not a Christian) or Eusebius?

  21. November 25, 2008 at 11:58 am

    Yes.

    And besides the fact that Josephus partially contains a forgery, both do wonderful jobs at showing the existence of CHRISTIANS.

    I do not debate the existence of Christians. I debate the supposed actions, teachings, supernatural abilities and existence of the guy you call Jesus.

  22. November 25, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    It’s interesting to me morse that the only results that come up about Josephus and forgery are by the atheist community…

    Thus, to say that both sides see this as a forgery is total bologna.

  23. November 25, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    I’ve not searched for Josephus in atheist communities. Unless by ‘atheist communities’ you mean ‘non-evangelical-fundamentalist Christian communities”.

    But as I said, it doesn’t particularly matter if Josephus was a forgery or not. He wrote in 93 CE…60 years after Jesus was supposed to have died.

    If it was a forgery, then all his writings do is show that Christians existed. Which I don’t argue.

    If it wasn’t a forgery, then it only speaks to his personal faith. Josephus doesn’t claim to be a witness of Jesus or any of his acts. So his writings are no more valid as evidence than your personal faith.

  24. December 1, 2008 at 12:57 am

    great blog post man. looks like it got some good convo started. I also like your run4haiti blog. keep it up!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: