Per the urging of Sherry I have decided to update my blog (man I'm updating a lot right now) with a brief back and forth I had on a different blog. Basically I recently came across the Friendly Atheist blog that wrote about the prayer rug that I received a few months ago and wrote my own post on it. I read the atheist's post and it was just sad seeing that exactly what bothered me about it was so obviously happening. I then wrote a short comment hoping to limit the ridicule of Christianity.
My First Comment (Brian)
I’m a Christian and I received the exact same package. I can assure you that they don’t represent Christianity and it is nothing more than a scam. I actually wrote my own blog condemning it and the annoyance you feel is all the greater for myself as it is being done in the name of Christ…it makes me sick to my stomach and deeply saddened. I only ask that everyone remember that just because someone claims to be Christian doesn’t mean they represent Christianity in anyway.
This produced a couple of challenges to me from their readers...
HoverFrog Response
Brian said:I can assure you that they don’t represent Christianity
If it’s scammers masquerading as a church then get the law involved and stamp it out. If it is a church or even if it is Christians then it represents Christianity. It may be a brand of Christianity that you hate but anyone who claims to be a Christian does represents Christianity and builds up the stereotype.
Brian E Response (not me...coincidence)
@Brian - Exactly what tenets of Christianity are they violating? Yes, they’re using an optical illusion to ‘fool’ people, but Christianity has been using lies, deceit, fear, guilt and even torture on its members for centuries. As far as I’m concerned, this church is par for the course as far as Christianity goes.
The first comment I wasn't going to respond to because it actually doesn't make sense. It would like if I were an atheist going around saying there is a god, could some atheist group sue me for not properly representing atheism...thus no use to respond. However the second comment was one that I couldn't let slide. Thus I wrote the following response.
My Second Comment (Brian)
@Brian E - First, one of the 10 commandments says to not give false testimony. Thus if they are making a claim that this prayer rug (which itself has no scriptural logic behind it) can do something supernatural when it obviously does not, that person is giving false testimony. Thus my claim, that this is nothing but a scam and outside of Christianity, is quite obvious.
However, I would like to also point out the often confused situation that Christianity is hypocritical since it says you shouldn’t lie, but everyone (Christians included) do lie (or fill in any other sin). I guess the first thing to say is, yes all Christians are hypocrites…we all fail to do what Christianity says we are to do, but that isn’t the point of Christianity. Christianity is the acknowledging that we are sinful and thus asking and receiving forgiveness through Christ Jesus. I know writing that on an atheistic blog is probably just going to produce more ridicule, but that is the core belief of Christianity. For that reason those that claim to be Christian are actually stating that they are not perfect, sinful, and in need of forgiveness. Christianity offers two ways to heaven; (1) be perfect or (2) ask for forgiveness through Jesus. FYI – I don’t know anyone that is trying route (1) currently.
Now that you have challenged my statement let me challenge you’re logic. If I were to go on a killing spree in the name of atheism (one could picture me saying that since we are merely products of evolution it is vital to weed out the weak and strengthen our specie), would my actions then define atheistic principles? I certainly won’t hold you responsible for every action that someone holding to your beliefs does, so why do you do the same to me. Shouldn’t Christianity, atheism, and any other religion (atheism is a religion in the sense that it is a set of beliefs) only be held accountable for what the tenets of that faith claim and not the actions of those that claim to hold those beliefs?
Unfortunately there hasn't been any response to my challenge after waiting a couple days, but I'll keep an eye on it to see if Brian E has a good answer for it. From my experience with reading various arguments against religion (or Christianity specifically) from atheists, it almost always hinges its arguments on the atrocities performed in the name of Christianity or whatever religion they are arguing against. However, its important to always point out to them that its inappropriate to argue based on the misguided actions of some followers (or just non-believers using the name), but should only be argued based on what is claimed by the religion. As G.K. Chesterton said "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried."
If it is appropriate to judge a belief system on the atrocities performed in the name of that belief then once again atheism is in trouble. We always hear how bad things like the Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, and the Spanish Inquisition were, but no one ever goes and compares these to actions performed in the name of atheism. So below is a quick comparison to give everyone perspective when challenged by an atheism in this way.
Crusades - 10,000 to 100,000 killed (over nearly 200 years)
Salem Witch Trials - 25 killed
Spanish Inquisition - ~2,000 killed from 1476 and 1834 (over 350 years)
Ok, these are bad, but when you compare it to the more than 100 million killed by just 3 atheists (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong) these numbers are negligible. I suppose the third and final argument that should be made when talking with an atheist about this stuff is to ask them how they can even claim that murder is wrong. Remember, Christians and other religions have some kind of moral law that was received from a greater being, but atheism as no right to say that anything is either right or wrong. So if you don't feel like arguing when confronted with a question about the atrocities of Christianity, just ask them why they were wrong according to atheistic principles.
11 comments:
"If I were to go on a killing spree in the name of atheism (one could picture me saying that since we are merely products of evolution it is vital to weed out the weak and strengthen our specie), would my actions then define atheistic principles?"
No. First of all, because no one has ever, to my knowledge, ever killed anyone in the name of atheism.
Secondly, evolution has nothing to do with atheism.
Thirdly, atheism doesn't have principles. It's the response to a single question.
"Ok, these are bad, but when you compare it to the more than 100 million killed by just 3 atheists (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong) these numbers are negligible."
First of all, Hitler wasn't an atheist. You need only look at his writings, his speeches, and his actions to understand that.
Stalin was an atheist. I don't know enough about Mao to make any comment.
However, I can guarantee you that neither killed anyone 'in the name of atheism'...because you can't. In the same way that you can't kill someone in the name of theism.
You can, however, kill someone in the name of Christianity, or in the name of totalitarian communism.
I am neither a Christian nor a totalitarian communist, so your argument is essentially moot.
"Remember, Christians and other religions have some kind of moral law that was received from a greater being, but atheism as no right to say that anything is either right or wrong."
No. You have rules that you CLAIM come from some higher being.
Atheists have a right to say things are right or wrong because we are human beings living in collective societies. I happen to live in a democratic republic (the USA) where fellow citizens make the laws, not a religion or a god.
"just ask them why they were wrong according to atheistic principles."
Again, atheism doesn't have principles. Secular humanism does, however. And they mainly focus on things being wrong when they cause harm.
morsecode, I'm glad that I got to hear from an atheist on this post because I enjoy these kinds of discussions. I also appreciate you taking the time to go through each of my observations. I won't bother to respond to each since that will very quickly get extremely confusing for everyone (including us).
In regards to Hitler, its questionable if he was an atheist, but he certainly was not a Christian as I have read from some atheistic books. You would have to admit, if you are being honest, that there are fair arguments on both sides with Hitler. So I'll concede and take Hitler off the list so you can take the total down by about 15 million.
However, your assumption that atheism has nothing to do with the killing done in the name of totalitarian communism is false. Certain ideologies are only possible under an atheistic belief system. Communism can not exist if we are eternal creators created by God, but only if we are mortals that only exist for less than 100 years because then the state is more important than the individual. It is for that very reason that a true Communist must declare that there is no god.
Now your claim that atheism is just an answer to a question is very weak. It would be like saying that you can't hold Christianity responsible because it was the Methodists that did (fill in something bad) and Christianity is only the answer to the question "Is Jesus Christ God?". You have to admit that a belief that there is no god has an impact on the thoughts and actions of those that hold to that belief. If it doesn't then why are you an atheist...it doesn't do anything for you. Now I concede that Christians believing that they were following God's will have done bad things and we carry that burden and only ask for forgiveness for the errors of our ways.
If atheism is as simple as you claim morsecode then it is practically useless. All you can do as an atheist is walk around saying there is no god...whats the point in that. Even if you are correct it seems to be a big waste of time and energy to even say it.
I will agree with you that when debating with atheism the debate should not be between atheism and Christianity or any religion, but between atheism and theism. When one tries to attack Christianity from the point of view that there is no god, the debate quickly becomes nonsensical and no level field can be established to discuss the issues.
Hitler believed Jesus Christ was his lord and savior. Therefore he is a Christian.
Actually communism earily parrallels "The Republic" by Plato which IS a theocracy.
Marxism is atheistic- but other forms of communism aren't. For example the Incans had a communist police state that also was a theocratic monarchy.
"True communists" can be religious. They can believe they are fullfilling Christs mission on Earth by unlifting the poor and saving them from sin and squalor. In fact, many communists WHERE Christians.
The socialist party went so far to claim Christ as one of their own with his calls to "give up your possessions", "it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle", etc.
The reason we hold Christianity responsible is because the Methodists claim to be "True Christians".
I'm an atheist because it happens to be true. I hold beliefs because they are true- not because they do something for me.
Not really. Egalitarianism is the belief all people are of equal inherent worth. Pretty simple idea. One that could get you put to death in the past. Atheism is similar. The idea is radical because so many believe the opposite.
Atheism opposite ISN'T theism. NO ONE is a theist- they are all believers in a specific religion or ideal. The reason atheists attack theism is to show that theism is false and hence ALL theisms are false.
Sam I assume that many of your fellow atheists cringe reading your comment. You believe atheism because its true...everyone knows that atheism claims they don't have any burden of proof on them because they can't prove a universal negative. That clearly shows that atheism can't be proved...so your claim that you believe because ITS TRUE just shows that you are being on BLIND FAITH.
Elbow it appears you aren't aware of a technique known as "logic".
If something is logically impossible it doesn't exist. God is logically impossible, hence he doesn't exist.
There are other methods, but this is the simplist.
Sam, you are claiming that the lack of a god is intuitive, but any free-thinking individual knows that you can't rule out the possibility that god exists. I don't believe this is the case, but god could simply just not be interested in you and thus you don't ever experience his presence at all. The approach you take is no approach at all...logic requires a serious of intuitive thoughts that lead one to a rationale conclusion. You bring no evidence and thus there is nothing for logic to do.
Please don't bother replying if you are just going to say you know all and everyone should submit to your all-knowing wisdom.
:)
Lets see how you can rule out God...
have you ever seen the web site "Atheism- Proving the Negative"? That guy does a terrific job.
In general you can show something does not exist if
1) It existance would cause certain effects in the real world and said effects don't exist.
2) It is logically impossible.
3) It can't even be stated out in any way that isn't nonsense.
4) There is a better alternative explanation.
5) It makes no sense whatsoever.
God fits all five!
Seriously- look at God. He is all powerful, all knowing and all good... which are contradictory. And don't fit up with reality. And don't make any sense with making reality in the first place.
Honestly, if you aren't aware of the attributes of God (aka the evidence) why are you posting?
Sam, I'm sorry but I haven't had time to look into the work of prof. McCormick. I hope to over this next week and give you my response soon. However there are a few things I want to make clear.
1) I enjoy the back and forth and will be happy to continue our discussion here.
2) Please make sure you continue to show respect towards my God, my family, my friends, and myself.
3) Please keep the comments and discussion concentrated to this post since the primary purpose of this blog has been to simply keep my family and friends updated on what's going on in my life...not a defense of the Christian faith.
So I haven't yet read McCormick's stuff, but I am curious about your point number (4). The belief in a god is used by every religion to explain the existence of matter/energy and life. I'm curious what your alternative explanation is that explains the presence of matter/energy as well as abiogenesis (noting that according to your fellow atheist, morsecode, evolution has nothing to do with atheism and in general life from non-life has never been observed).
Post a Comment