Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How to Shut Up an Atheist if You Must

Rate this topic


Mammon

Recommended Posts

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGil...p;comments=true

How to Shut Up an Atheist if You Must

The atheist’s days of running circles around the Christian with their darling questions are drawing to a close. Yes, the fat lady just wrenched herself off her humongous backside, has cleared her throat and now is fixin’ to sing the finale on the atheist’s ability to have fun with their specious little fairy tales at the Christians’ expense.

That is if the Christian will buy, devour, commit to memory and stand up and challenge the pouty anti-God cabal with the atheist-slaying facts found in two new books from Regnery namely, What’s So Great about Christianity and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible.

Authors Dinesh D’Souza and Robert Hutchinson skillfully answer, once again, the atheist’s pet questions about the existence (or non-existence) of God and how Christianity has allegedly made the world suck. Suck, for you thick atheists, is a slang word which means to make or to be really, really crappy (kind of like how our culture becomes anytime you guys mess with it).

These books will be especially beneficial for high school and college students to draw upon when their secular anti-God fuming delirious instructors start railing against God and Christianity.

For instance:

1. When the prissy anti-Christs tell you the Bible stands in the way of science, inform them that the greatest scientific geniuses in history were devout Christians—and scientists from Newton to Einstein insisted that biblical religion provided the key ideas from which experimental science could develop.

2. When the pissy God haters tell you the Bible condones slavery, you can remind them that slavery was abolished only when devout Christians, inspired by the Bible, launched a campaign in the early 1800s to abolish the slave trade.

3. When the screechin’ teachers tell you the Bible has been proven false by archaeology, hark back and show them that each year a new archaeological discovery substantiates the existence of people, places and events we once knew solely from biblical sources, including the discovery of the Moabite stone in 1868, which mentions numerous places in the Bible, and the discovery of an inscription in 1961 that proves the existence of the biblical figure Pontius Pilate, just to name a few.

4. When they get sweaty and tell you that the Bible breeds intolerance, refresh their memory with the fact that only those societies influenced by biblical teachings (in North and South America, Europe, and Australia) today guarantee freedom of speech and religion. Period.

5. When one of them queues up and quips that the Bible opposes freedom, smack ‘em with the fact that the Bible’s insistence that no one is above the law and all must answer to divine justice led to theories of universal human rights and…uh…limited government.

6. When they tell you that Christianity and the Bible justify war and genocide, unsympathetically remind them that societies which rejected biblical morality in favor of a more “rational” and “scientific” approach to politics murdered millions upon millions more than the Crusades or the Inquisition ever did. Hello. “Atheist regimes have caused the greatest mass murders in history,” says D’Souza. Inside D’Souza’s book you’ll find little gems like, “The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair, and witch hunts together make up less than 1% of the murders that have occurred during modern atheist regimes like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.”

This is just a smattering of the various 411 fun the Christian is going to get as they plow through What’s So Great about Christianity and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible.

Senior pastor, college pastor and youth pastor: do yourself and your congregants a favor and teach this stuff to your church. Equip Christians to stand against the BS (belief system) of the atheists. The culture war is heating up, therefore make sure your people don’t stand intellectually naked and neutered before these no-God numb nuts.

Lastly, comfortable and cocky atheists, you had better brace yourselves. Hundreds of thousands of Christians and authors are about to read these books and, as stated, systematically dismember your old and haggard arguments.

In addition, everywhere I go and speak—be it in conferences, on the radio, on television or in print—I’m going to encourage the tens of thousands of Christians I address that every time and everywhere they get crapped on by an atheist with unfounded arguments to open their mouths and slam dance them with facts found in these two new brilliant books from Regnery.

Brace yourselves guys! We're about to take history and completely re-do it to fit into our preconcieved notions we built with our intellectual depths equivalent to that of 13-year-old at a Bible camp in Texas.

;)

This is kind of a hoot, but the one that gets me the most is how "limited government" apparently came from the Bible. Ignoring the fact that the times when the Bible was least influenctual were the times limited government made the most progress. Oh, yeah, and how did the Greeks get the idea. They were there with their limitied government before the Bible came along.

Edited by Mammon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're about to take history and completely re-do it to fit into our preconceived notions we built with our intellectual depths equivalent to that of 13-year-old at a Bible camp in Texas.

Hey! I went to Bible Camp in Texas when I was 13! :D In all seriousness though, I am glad my mom forced me to go to church on Sundays, Vacation Bible School in the summers and church camp each Spring. It all helped make me the rational atheist I am today. ;)

It sounds like this guy has some pent up frustration and hatred for atheists...not very Christian-like qualities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very easy to verbally assault a group as amorphous as atheists. Atheism is nothing more than lack of belief in a deity. It says nothing substantial about what you do believe in.

Just because one is an atheist does not mean that one necessarily accepts reason as the only valid means of knowledge. Atheism says nothing about if one takes a principled, objective approach to ethics or if one's ethics are based on the whims of some extraterrestrial being, the whims of "society" or one's own personal whims. Atheism even offers no theory on the universe.

Objectivism is not really on the radar of the many religious student organizations at my school, many of whom instead elect to criticize the campus atheist organization. An atheist organization at least acknowledges the ontological question of the existence of a god or gods to be vital enough to center their organization around their disbelief. I imagine that my stance on this issue would be even more infuriating to a religious student. That is, there are no gods, but that is not an important question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much contempt as I hold for Micheal Bakunin I must agree with him for one quote that he said, and it was "Even if God did exsit, it would be nessecary to destroy him." I'm sorry but any "God" that kills innocent lives in terrorist attacks while giving Grammies to rap "artists" (which doesn't even require any skill what ever) is clearly not the actions of a benevolent being but rather that of an insane lunatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this world, how can it not be an important question? I agree that it shouldn't be, but it still is.

"Does God exist?" is not an important question - the implications that people draw from it are important, however, for the impact they have on our lives. "Does God exist?" is question that is certainly important, but only in a wider meaning; in the same way that, "Moose, you spilt wine on my carpet" is not a statement which is important in and of itself, but is important by virtue of what it means - "Will you take responsibility for it?"

At least that's how I read DarkWaters statement - to any man, it isn't a question that is important to his life. Even a man convinced of the existence of God is not neccessarily going to be swayed towards one mode of life or another - but the implication of such a belief is that believing in God may neccessitate other beliefs and 'virtues' that are associated with belief.

When one is called a 'Believer', it doesn't just mean they believe in God, it means they believe in God and so they act in a certain way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think "does God exist" isn't a terribly important question. The question "Does God exist and does he/she/it want something from me" is really the key question--since a yes answer would have a HUGE impact on ethics. Fortunately the default answer after throwing out the arbitrary is Not Only No But Hell No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys--

I thought about this argument before, but never wrote it out formally:

1. If God exists, then God is omniscient.

2. If God is omniscient, then God knows--with absolute certainty--the outcome of my life.

3. To know an outcome with absolute certainty requires that the outcome be determined.

4. Therefore, if God exists, then the outcome of my life is determined.

5. However, if I have free will, then my life's outcome is not determined.

6. Therefore, if I have free will, then God does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premise 1 is true only if you assume God is the God of Christianity. If God is instead just a very powerful, very intelligent (but not omni- anything), then things are different.

But on first inspection it does seem like a good proof that Christianity is bullshit. It is a variant of many arguments I've seen that there can be no free will if someone already knows what you are going to do before you yourself decide. I am not sure I agree with those however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least that's how I read DarkWaters statement - to any man, it isn't a question that is important to his life. Even a man convinced of the existence of God is not neccessarily going to be swayed towards one mode of life or another - but the implication of such a belief is that believing in God may neccessitate other beliefs and 'virtues' that are associated with belief.

Yes, this is essentially what I meant.

Whether one believes in a god is not nearly as important as how one will act upon their beliefs or disbeliefs.

1. If God exists, then God is omniscient.

2. If God is omniscient, then God knows--with absolute certainty--the outcome of my life.

3. To know an outcome with absolute certainty requires that the outcome be determined.

4. Therefore, if God exists, then the outcome of my life is determined.

5. However, if I have free will, then my life's outcome is not determined.

6. Therefore, if I have free will, then God does not exist.

Although correct, this argument really only argues that one of your implicit assumptions made throughout its course is wrong. Most logically, that an omniscient god does not exist. However, it leaves open the possibility that a non-omniscient god might exist. Of course, a Calvinist would view your argument as an irrefutable case against free will.

Either way, this just demonstrates the limitations of an abstract, deductive argument to discovering more facts about the real world.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My letter to townhall.com:

As a fan and frequent reader of townhall.com, I must express my disappointment at your decision to run a recent column by Doug Giles titled "How do Shut Up an Atheist if You Must." I am an atheist who also happens to be a capitalist and a supporter of the war on terror. I will not discuss the specific arguments made by Giles in this email, though I will do so in a rebuttal column if you would permit me to do so. I am writing to you because I found that the tone of the article does not live up to the standards of townhall.com. There are Christians out there who can put up intelligent defenses of their religion, even though I may find them flawed. Giles does not. His column sounds like it was written by an irrate 7th grader who just learned that there are people who don't believe in God.

He does not attempt to present his views with a respectful, mature tone, and instead resorts to childish namecalling. He treats atheists as a monolithic group whose primary purpose is to tell Christians that they're stupid. While there are certainly atheists like that, not all are. He refuses to recognize that atheists have all sorts of different belief systems and that they are tied together only by their lack of belief in a supreme being. Oddly enough, it is that issue that Giles completely neglects in his column. One would expect a tirade against atheism to offer some sort of argument for the existence of God.

I will continue to read townhall.com and expect better discretion in the future.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If God exists, then God is omniscient.

You can stop already at the first point. God cannot be omniscient if you demand that God has a free will : If God is omniscient then God would know what God does or thinks next.

The only 'entity' with that kind of ability is reality as a whole, the universe 'knows' what it will do next. But reality has no free will. And if 'God' has no free will then there is no difference between God and the laws of nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If God exists, then God is omniscient.

2. If God is omniscient, then God knows--with absolute certainty--the outcome of my life.

3. To know an outcome with absolute certainty requires that the outcome be determined.

4. Therefore, if God exists, then the outcome of my life is determined.

5. However, if I have free will, then my life's outcome is not determined.

6. Therefore, if I have free will, then God does not exist.

Gods omniscience is supplemented by His eternal nature. From an eternal perspective your life has been determined, but that does not alter the fact that it is you that has determined it. Aquinas grants God the power to see past, present and future as an "instantaneous whole." Therefore, what is happening for you in the now is of your choosing, but God, in knowing the future, simply has access to what that choice will be. From an eternal, omniscient perspective, your life has been determined--by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These type of step by step arguments against God cannot work against a theist. Dark Waters pointed to the essential reason why they do not: because they are deductive arguments that begin with some type of assumption about God's nature, and then use that starting point to demonstrate a contradiction. However, such an argument does not disprove God to the theist. To him, at best, it simply shows that he needs to change his idea about the nature of God, as Fletch demonstrates was done by Aquinas.

Since the notion of God is arbitrary, a believer can simply assign It any arbitrary nature. I think Peikoff gave an example of the arbitrary in one of his lectures, by saying how it would be impossible to disprove something like "there's a pixie sitting on your shoulder". If you reply, "but I cannot see it", you're told it's invisible (so, you are being told that the absence of proof merely shows that it has some other nature). You cannot feel it? Well, pixies are weightless. If you continue to pursue the argument, you may be told that there is a whole different dimension that is inhabited by the pixies, or a whole different logic that is unknown to us humans. So, there is no way to win the argument, except by rejecting the arbitrary.

On the other hand, I think these types of arguments might have some weight with more honest people, in this sense: it can demonstrate the problem with their conception of God,. So, it might force them to keep changing their concept of God, to the point where they are driven to give up the concretes of scripture, and then -- finally -- to admit God's complete uselessness in day to day life: which is where the deists ended up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that the arguments can absolutely work with a theist. More often than not, you can at least get them to start thinking about things they hadn't thought of before. I have debated a few Christians who I believe literally do not have the mental capacity to consider such arguments (and I can post my most recent attempt, if you like), but I find that most Christians don't fit that description. Most Christians are perfectly intelligent and generally rational people who just haven't given a lot of thought to things like that. Bringing up these arguments will get them thinking.

One of my best friends ended up going from being a Christian Scientist to being a deist because he realized that the theistic conception of God couldn't stand up to scrutiny. I've been working with him on the deistic concept, but with little success so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I think these types of arguments might have some weight with more honest people, in this sense: it can demonstrate the problem with their conception of God,. So, it might force them to keep changing their concept of God, to the point where they are driven to give up the concretes of scripture, and then -- finally -- to admit God's complete uselessness in day to day life: which is where the deists ended up.

I think we actually agree on this, softwareNerd. Lets see if I dont blow it. You are not likely to change a theist into an atheist overnight, let alone transform him into something close to an Objectivist. Atheists tend to mock Christians and ridicule their beliefs. I dont think Objectivists should follow suit. Mocking a Christian will only make him become defensive and turn him off to anything else you have to say. Alienating 90-something % of Americans who identify themselves as theists is not a particularly productive way of expanding your ideology. Christians have to be lead baby step by baby step out of their belief in God. Get them to challenge their concept of God, change it, and get them as you said: " to the point where they are driven to give up the concretes of scripture, and then -- finally -- to admit God's complete uselessness in day to day life."

This wont work on the Jerry Falwell's of the world, but on many of the rank and file it will. I agree with Moose. I have found many rational Christians who will respond to rational arguments about God. You move people from Falwellian Christians to Jeffersonian Deists through rational arguments about the nature of God. I cant remember who said it, but someone said: You cant beat bad religion with no religion. You beat bad religion with better religion. Ultimately, the best religion is none at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we actually agree on this, softwareNerd.
Hmm! A miracle? Maybe there is a God? j/k :D

I don't understand the mentality of Falwellian Christians. I can understand that type of thinking historically. Today, I can understand people who think God exists, but take specific religions with a very large pinch of salt, preferring their own religion, rather than thinking it is the only true revealed religion. However, today, I simply do not understand the psychology that can take scripture literally. So, I wouldn't hazard a guess about changing such people step by step. Someone who already doesn't take the concretes of religion too seriously, can get the full-dose; as for the others, I haven't a clue.

I tend to think that it is the better ones who matter, who create the intellectual arguments and lead the less intelligent ones, and who give the more concrete-bound one's plausibility. Maybe that's wishful thinking.

For the more rational Christians, I don't know about "baby steps" in the sense of needing a sequence. I would agree that the argument has to multi-faceted. Just as one must attack socialism on both moral and practical grounds to convince people of its problems, one has to attack religion's basis in metaphysics/epistemology, but also attack the belief that one is left without values if one abandons God.

I do agree that one cannot convince someone by mocking qua mocking. Also, people who mock often attack straw-men. Attacking a straw-man isn't going to convince the other person. Even if done well, mocking, as a negative, can undermine and take down, but cannot build up. I think mocking has its place in getting someone agitated enough to think about something, but it cannot be the major thrust of activism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...