An atheist tells the truth about christmas...

[Augusta]

**UPDATE**An atheist tells the truth about christmas...

This is a local news story here in WA. There is a video and news story.

Anti-religious sign at state Capitol raises eyebrows

 

[Marrow Man]

Ah, the great Dan Barker is at it again!

 

[Notthemama1984]

I personally say, "Go for it. It does not bother me."

 

[sotzo]

This is a local news story here in WA. There is a video and news story.

Anti-religious sign at state Capitol raises eyebrows

Isn't spending every waking moment attacking something you know doesn't exist called insanity?

 

[smhbbag]

Isn't spending every waking moment attacking something you know doesn't exist called insanity?

Yes, but they are not attacking God, for that would be nonsense in their view. Rather, they are attacking the people who believe in God and their belief, because that falsehood, in their minds, caused or exacerbated all the world's biggest problems. Even if you were to get an atheist to say he hates God (rarely done), it would be plain and obvious that his hatred is for the consequences of belief in him/her/it in various forms.

Though your comment may have been in jest, some Christians would actually view that as a legitimate critique of the atheist position, and it is not. In a real conversation with an atheist, it would be highly counterproductive, and the atheist would be right not to want to engage in further conversation, because his 'opponent' clearly has no understanding of his position.

 

[Zenas]

In the interest of free speech, they can do whatever they want. If they want to blaspheme God then they are free to do so, just as anyone is free to rebel. The consequences of what we do will come in God's time and it's not my place or within my ability to force them to believe or restrain their beliefs. The minute I condone that is the minute someone will try to do it to me.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Wesselius agrees with the state's decision to allow the atheist display and says to let the public decide what to believe.

Yes, yes, they have really proven there ability to make sound decisions lately. Haven't they?

 

[sotzo]

Isn't spending every waking moment attacking something you know doesn't exist called insanity?

Yes, but they are not attacking God, for that would be nonsense in their view. Rather, they are attacking the people who believe in God and their belief, because that falsehood, in their minds, caused or exacerbated all the world's biggest problems. Even if you were to get an atheist to say he hates God (rarely done), it would be plain and obvious that his hatred is for the consequences of belief in him/her/it in various forms.

Though your comment may have been in jest, some Christians would actually view that as a legitimate critique of the atheist position, and it is not. In a real conversation with an atheist, it would be highly counterproductive, and the atheist would be right not to want to engage in further conversation, because his 'opponent' clearly has no understanding of his position.

I disagree although I know where you are coming from based on Hitchens, Harris, and other strong atheists. Here is the problem with the view that they are attacking believers rather than God (or at least believers to the exclusion of God):

Replace "God" with the word "unicorn" (in fact, Gordon Stein, Dan Barker and others have actually debated using the word "blark" in place of God). The point here is that the atheist grounds his attack on the unbeliever on the basis of God being void of content...In other words,, it is just a term used, but it can be replaced by anything. Now, a term that has no content cannot be argued against, since it has no meaning. Yet, the atheist debates the theist assuming there is indeed content (otherwise there would be no debate other than ad hominem attack).

In fact, the whole "all of the world's troubles can be blamed on religion" assumes that there is a connection between God's reign and man's submission to that reign....that is content, and therefore, it cannot merely be the case that the atheist is attacking an unbeliever rather than God or at the very least the concept of God.

 

[Zenas]

The point that I think is being made here is that the atheist misdirects his attack if he truly does believe that the term "God" is devoid of content.

The typical position is that religion and man's submission to it is the root of evil in the world and, therefore, adherents must be attacked for that belief so that they will abandon.

If this is true, then the atheist is attacking the wrong object if, as they do, they attack the notion of God. Rather than saying there is no God, they should argue that you shouldn't follow religion. Assuming as the atheist does that there is no God, then there would still conceivably be adherents to religions or religious philosophies if, for no other reason, than habitual allegiance. Their proper attack should therefore be on following religions or religious philosophies; not on God as it so often is.

Merely restating the presumption that "There is no God" is not an attack on submission to religion, but is an attack on the object of religion. The object of religion is not what they have a problem with; after all it doesn't exist. What does exist in their materialistic and naturalistic view of the world is submission to religion. Why then do they attack the object of religion?

Foolishness and depraved stupidity.

 

[sotzo]

The point that I think is being made here is that the atheist misdirects his attack if he truly does believe that the term "God" is devoid of content.

The typical position is that religion and man's submission to it is the root of evil in the world and, therefore, adherents must be attacked for that belief so that they will abandon.

If this is true, then the atheist is attacking the wrong object if, as they do, they attack the notion of God. Rather than saying there is no God, they should argue that you shouldn't follow religion. Assuming as the atheist does that there is no God, then there would still conceivably be adherents to religions or religious philosophies if, for no other reason, than habitual allegiance. Their proper attack should therefore be on following religions or religious philosophies; not on God as it so often is.

Merely restating the presumption that "There is no God" is not an attack on submission to religion, but is an attack on the object of religion. The object of religion is not what they have a problem with; after all it doesn't exist. What does exist in their materialistic and naturalistic view of the world is submission to religion. Why then do they attack the object of religion?

Foolishness and depraved stupidity.

Yes, precisely, which is why I believe a formal, valid argument can be made to show that any argument the strong atheist puts forth which tries to show the world would be different if God did not exist automatically makes him at least an agnostic. This is because the atheist is allowing for a possible world in which God's existence is a possibility.

 

[ChristianTrader]

The point that I think is being made here is that the atheist misdirects his attack if he truly does believe that the term "God" is devoid of content.

The typical position is that religion and man's submission to it is the root of evil in the world and, therefore, adherents must be attacked for that belief so that they will abandon.

If this is true, then the atheist is attacking the wrong object if, as they do, they attack the notion of God. Rather than saying there is no God, they should argue that you shouldn't follow religion. Assuming as the atheist does that there is no God, then there would still conceivably be adherents to religions or religious philosophies if, for no other reason, than habitual allegiance. Their proper attack should therefore be on following religions or religious philosophies; not on God as it so often is.

Merely restating the presumption that "There is no God" is not an attack on submission to religion, but is an attack on the object of religion. The object of religion is not what they have a problem with; after all it doesn't exist. What does exist in their materialistic and naturalistic view of the world is submission to religion. Why then do they attack the object of religion?

Foolishness and depraved stupidity.

The attack on the object makes sense because the atheists want the religious adherents to submit to something else (Science, logic. reason, etc.) If one demonstrates that x does not exist, then hopefully the adherents will start to submit to something that does.

CT

 

[Zenas]

But then they're arguing for another non-material religious object. Rather than rejecting the non-material, aren't they then simply begging for a replacement of one non-material object for another?

 

[ChristianTrader]

But then they're arguing for another non-material religious object. Rather than rejecting the non-material, aren't they then simply begging for a replacement of one non-material object for another?

I have no problem with that characterization. An atheist might, however

 

[Randall Pederson]

Why am I not surprised? Having grown up in Marysville, WA, I came across a lot of people who were hostile to religion, not least of which were the public schools.

It's amazing how so many people are on a vendetta against something they don't believe in. My favorite atheist, at present, is Christopher Hitchens. I have never met someone who was simply atheistic; usually they adopt a kind of militant atheism. All you have to do is read Dinesh D'Souza's What's so Great About Christianity to see how foolish Hitchens really is.

 

[Zenas]

One of my good friends at law school is simply atheistic. He knows I'm a Christian; never insults me, demeans me, nothing. He just doesn't believe in God. Hangs out with me all the time though; even alters his behavior around me because he knows I'm a Christian so as to not offend me.

Not all atheists are "militant".

I want to have a religious discussion with him though, in order to determine why he's an atheist. My guess is he's not committed like Hitchens et. al. are.

 

[sotzo]

One of my good friends at law school is simply atheistic. He knows I'm a Christian; never insults me, demeans me, nothing. He just doesn't believe in God. Hangs out with me all the time though; even alters his behavior around me because he knows I'm a Christian so as to not offend me.

Not all atheists are "militant".

I want to have a religious discussion with him though, in order to determine why he's an atheist. My guess is he's not committed like Hitchens et. al. are.

I have atheist friends like that too and I agree...the Hitchens-esque types are few and far between. I've found that even if they do have a grasp on atheistic philosophy and the theistic arguments that they do not think religion is bad for the world. Rather, they see it as a different motivator for good deeds than a secular person would have, but that there can be cooperation there nonetheless.

 

[he beholds]

In my experience, atheists who were raised in the church, but have rejected her teachings, are militant. Atheists who have never learned much about God, and sadly but simply don't care, are not militant.
It's the former who seem to truly be angry at God, whom they claim to believe does not even exist. I think this supports the argument that everyone deep down knows that there is a God.

 

[BJClark]

Zenas;

One of my good friends at law school is simply atheistic. He knows I'm a Christian; never insults me, demeans me, nothing. He just doesn't believe in God. Hangs out with me all the time though; even alters his behavior around me because he knows I'm a Christian so as to not offend me.

I'm curious, how does he alter his behaviors around you? What doesn't he do that he would typically do around others?

Not all atheists are "militant".

I would tend to agree with this, just as not all Christians are radical or outspoken about their faith.

I want to have a religious discussion with him though, in order to determine why he's an atheist. My guess is he's not committed like Hitchens et. al. are.

So why don't you? What's preventing you from having such a conversation?

why do it in terms of 'religion'?

Everyone has 'faith' in something, be it themselves, work, money, science, God, whatever...

Given there are many things people put their faith in, and religion is based on faith in something..why not discuss it from that direction? what does he put his faith in? His intelligence? His abilities? money? Science?

If he has faith in his intelligence, what happens if he gets Alzheimer's; What would he then put his faith in?

Science? Science has yet to prove there is no God..(granted they have not proven there is, but that's beside the point--more of it points to a God than not)

So maybe instead of looking at it from the 'religious aspect' try bringing it up from the faith aspect..

 

[Zenas]

In my experience, atheists who were raised in the church, but have rejected her teachings, are militant. Atheists who have never learned much about God, and sadly but simply don't care, are not militant.
It's the former who seem to truly be angry at God, whom they claim to believe does not even exist. I think this supports the argument that everyone deep down knows that there is a God.

My buddy wasn't really raised in church. He's spoken of going to a youth group a few times, but I guess he figured it just wasn't his thing.

He has the uncanny ability to not take the majority of things personally. If I say something completely contrary to what he thinks, he'll either agree it's a good point but he disagrees, or just say nothing. He acts a lot like me in that respect (I don't take opposing views personally). I've found this to be a rare trait among non-believers; they often immediately take offense to the slightest disagreement with what they think, or, if you espouse something contrary to what they think you believe, they'll immediately correct you about your own beliefs.

I had a conversation with a militant "agnostic" buddy of mine earlier in the semester, and that was interesting. He corrected me about my own views, attempting to conform them to his idea of Christianity. He, being a history major, stumbled onto what exactly I was, i.e. a Calvinist, and just kind of shut down. It's like if you're not an Arminian premill Dispensational mega-church member, they don't know how to deal with you. This guy was somehow raised going to different churches. He says his father is a committed atheist though.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 12:08:12 EST-----

I'm curious, how does he alter his behaviors around you? What doesn't he do that he would typically do around others?

He can have quite a mouth on him sometimes, i.e. dropping the f-bomb, blaspheming, etc. He doesn't do it when he's with me and, if he does, he immediately apologizes. He's also careful to make generalizations about conservatives or Christians. He's careful in using his categories around me because in our discussions, I've let him know a lot about my political views and beliefs, and he'll even concede points he departs from liberalism, where I don't know if he'd be as comfortable doing so around others.

So why don't you? What's preventing you from having such a conversation?

why do it in terms of 'religion'?

Everyone has 'faith' in something, be it themselves, work, money, science, God, whatever...

Given there are many things people put their faith in, and religion is based on faith in something..why not discuss it from that direction? what does he put his faith in? His intelligence? His abilities? money? Science?

If he has faith in his intelligence, what happens if he gets Alzheimer's; What would he then put his faith in?

Science? Science has yet to prove there is no God..(granted they have not proven there is, but that's beside the point--more of it points to a God than not)

So maybe instead of looking at it from the 'religious aspect' try bringing it up from the faith aspect.

Timing. We always have something going on. He's invited to my wedding and I'm all but forcing him to come. I've given explicit instructions to the pastors that they need to give some form of gospel message during the ceremony, so I'm hoping that raises some questions with him.

He's a really interesting fellow and an extremely "nice" guy by human standards. With some, I'd worry as to whether they'd still be friends with me after a religious or faith discussion. I thought my militant "agnostic" friend wouldn't be my friend anymore after our discussion, but he still is. With my atheist buddy though, I don't think he'd get all too upset about it and I know he'd listen to me throughout.

One of the reasons I think he'd listen to me is I always try to listen to what he thinks (we talk politics a good bit). Although I always respond with (usually) a contrary viewpoint, I do listen to what he says before I respond and I think he appreciates and respects that. Through that, I think I've formed enough of a relationship with him that he'd at least hear me out if I was arguing for us to wear swastikas and grow Hitler mustaches.

 

[Thomas2007]

What a disgrace. It would be nice to find someone in State or local governments that have some gumption and stand up and refuse to engage in such illegal activities as this. This myth of neutrality is sickening, the State sponsored public display of atheism violates the Constitution. So, I disagree with many sentiments in this post, while the atheist certainly has the right to disbelieve in God personally, he has no right to a "seat at the table" of public displays in a State capitol building. And yes, I can and do affirm that without contradiction as being inversely applicable to Christianity.

 

[ADKing]

In the interest of free speech, they can do whatever they want. If they want to blaspheme God then they are free to do so, just as anyone is free to rebel. The consequences of what we do will come in God's time and it's not my place or within my ability to force them to believe or restrain their beliefs. The minute I condone that is the minute someone will try to do it to me.

But surely it is the magistrate's place to "restrain their beliefs" or at least the actions that proceed out of their beliefs. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13.4)

Just because we don't want the government to wrongly supress the true religion doesn't mean it isn't obligated to supress evil, such as blasphemy.

 

[Augusta]

**UPDATE** O'Reilly sparks national controversy over athiest sign.

Now O'Reilly has gotten this story national attention. Here is a updated story with video.

Gov's phones light up over atheist sign at O'Reilly's urging