Jump to content

Extreme Fundamentalist Atheism


AmIReallyThatBad
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've come across a website that's basically pushing atheism as a religion.

 

Link

 

On the website, there's a bible for atheists that the author claims all atheists should abide by. The author also extensively criticizes the concept of "free will" and yolks it in with Christianity, calling it evil. In turn, the author criticizes retributive judgment, saying that punishment is just a form of revenge and that revenge is evil. Hence, all punishment is evil and there is only room for rehabilitation. The author says that it is impossible to love another person, and to consider it possible is an evil Christian concept. The author says that it is only possible to love yourself and be selfish, as ultimately everything we do is because it's what we want to do; we can only love ourselves, through others. The author also considers the idea of an afterlife as evil, pressuring atheists to focus on the here and now. The author goes on to say that all atheists should not eat pigs or cows, as they have enough brain matter to deserve to live (who drew the line for how much is enough?). He says that atheists should only eat meat like fish. There's also an article where I can't decide if the author is saying TV is evil or not, it's hard to tell. He is saying that Christians are hypocrites for watching is as "acting" is not being truthful, hence it is a lie, hence it is a sin (according to their theology). There's even an "Enter" page with a scary black background and big scary font, going on and on about evil and lies and what not.

 

It bothers me, frightens me and it ticks me off, all at the same time. There's probably some good information on there too, but seriously, what's the deal with this guy? Does he seem reasonable and like a common, moral atheist to all of you or is he an extremist and a nutjob? I just hate extreme moral absolutes, especially in atheism! I see so much grey area in life. So many factors go into morals that it's difficult to call something absolutely evil or absolutely good. But here this guy goes, doing it in droves. Okay, what do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t look at the link. But if what you say about this guy is accurate then I think he’s a little whacked. As far as I can tell, there is no common thread in atheism other than a lack of belief in gods.

 

By the way, welcome to ex-C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t look at the link. But if what you say about this guy is accurate then I think he’s a little whacked. As far as I can tell, there is no common thread in atheism other than a lack of belief in gods.

 

By the way, welcome to ex-C.

 

Thanks. Do check out the link, though. I'm curious as to how people here would refute some of his arguments.

 

And thanks for the welcome. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi AmIReallyThatBad,

 

I read a few things on the site, and it seems to me that he's giving his personal opinions, which is alright. I don't agree with much of what I read. He is adding all sorts of beliefs that have nothing to do with atheism. The problem is, he doesn't admit this. He also has a way of wording things that come off as being smug and superior. Naming all that he has to say as being a religion is ridiculous, IMHO. I see your point in the title of the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

To me he comes off as a bit "Unholier Than Thou."

 

The site's not about atheism, but rather a hatred (fear?) of all things religious.

 

Methinks he doth protest too much.

 

In my opinion he gives atheists a bad name, much as Madelyn Murray O'Hair did as our abrasive "official" representative for so long. Most atheists don't really think much about religion or construct arguments against every aspect of it. We simply don't believe in unsupported superstitions and at most we may vocally oppose pro-religious (unconstitutional) attempts at forming a theocracy in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses! I do agree that it sounds a lot more like a site about hatred/fear of religion.

 

Does anyone have any counter-arguments to his extremist opinions about revenge/punishment always being bad, about his opinion of "love," etc? It seems that he is taking what the Bible says and taking the extreme other side of the spectrum. God punishes sinners in Hell, according to the Bible, so he argues that all forms of punishment are evil. The Bible endorses man's free will to chose salvation (unless you believe Calvinist doctrine), so he argues that the entire concept of free will is false and evil. The Bible says it's okay to eat animals, so he says that it's usually not. The Bible says to love your neighbor as yourself, so he argues that's impossible and evil to even think it's possible.

 

Do any of you think this guy's arguments hold any weight? The scary thing is that if you read his articles, a lot of the things he says seem to make sense. But I just hate going to such extreme moral absolutes. Yes, I believe that revenge generally isn't the answer, but is punishment always revenge? Can't it serve a purpose? Yes, I believe we are selfish beings, hardwired to look out for our own interests, in order to prolong the species. And I believe that we like people because they make us feel good, even if they are making us feel good because we admire the kind and gracious things they do for other people and not us. But is it really that simple? Is it really right to say that it only possible to love oneself and how others make you feel, but not them? And he makes one of the many compelling arguments against free will that I've heard. But, does this necessarily make the concept of free will wrong? Is doing something of one's own free will and accepting the consequences really just an "evil Christian concept" or can it exist in the secular world as well?

 

Just some questions I thought I'd bring up. Thanks for all of your patient and articulate replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion...he's a troll. He (or they) is a Xian pretending to be an atheist.

 

To me, Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. This guy or group is just way over the frickin' top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion...he's a troll. He (or they) is a Xian pretending to be an atheist.

 

To me, Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. This guy or group is just way over the frickin' top.

 

I don't think so. He put a lot of time into that website. He sounds like he really really really hates religion. And he goes to great lengths to try to refute it and say it's evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, has anyone read through some of the articles on the site. I don't think you can really get a true grasp on this guy until you do. Someone please read a few, if you have time. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will have to go back and read the link and articles in more detail, but my first impression is that the guy sounds a bit Randian, as in Ayn Rand, who glorified selfishness, or service to the self, etc., and was of course a complete nutjob.

 

There are people who become so perturbed by their experience with dogma/religion/authoritarianism that they simply snap. Substituting one set of dogmatic ideology for another is also a not infrequent expression of the transition out of Christianity. A friend of mine used to teasingly point out that a lot of Catholics converted to Tibetan Buddhism, basically exchanging one system with a lot of chanting, ritual and trappings for another with a lot of chanting, ritual and trappings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come across a website that's basically pushing atheism as a religion.

 

Link

 

On the website, there's a bible for atheists that the author claims all atheists should abide by. The author also extensively criticizes the concept of "free will" and yolks it in with Christianity, calling it evil. In turn, the author criticizes retributive judgment, saying that punishment is just a form of revenge and that revenge is evil. Hence, all punishment is evil and there is only room for rehabilitation. The author says that it is impossible to love another person, and to consider it possible is an evil Christian concept. The author says that it is only possible to love yourself and be selfish, as ultimately everything we do is because it's what we want to do; we can only love ourselves, through others. The author also considers the idea of an afterlife as evil, pressuring atheists to focus on the here and now. The author goes on to say that all atheists should not eat pigs or cows, as they have enough brain matter to deserve to live (who drew the line for how much is enough?). He says that atheists should only eat meat like fish. There's also an article where I can't decide if the author is saying TV is evil or not, it's hard to tell. He is saying that Christians are hypocrites for watching is as "acting" is not being truthful, hence it is a lie, hence it is a sin (according to their theology). There's even an "Enter" page with a scary black background and big scary font, going on and on about evil and lies and what not.

 

It bothers me, frightens me and it ticks me off, all at the same time. There's probably some good information on there too, but seriously, what's the deal with this guy? Does he seem reasonable and like a common, moral atheist to all of you or is he an extremist and a nutjob? I just hate extreme moral absolutes, especially in atheism! I see so much grey area in life. So many factors go into morals that it's difficult to call something absolutely evil or absolutely good. But here this guy goes, doing it in droves. Okay, what do you guys think?

Absolute unmitigated pure 100% bullshit!

 

This guy is a Christian trying to make atheism look 1) like a religion and 2) silly.

 

He has taken religious values that are also humanist values and turned them on their heads.

 

1. "The only god you need is yourself."

No, we need no "gods".

2. "There is no free will."

We are independent moral agents and make choices. That is "free will." It just isn't "God given free will."

3. "Marriage is Abuse"

No, marriage is a loving relationship that provides stability and economic support to growing families. etc.

4. "We can’t take orders from God then for that would involve obeying his command to promote belief in free will or sin which is a deliberate crime against him."

What the fuck?

5. "Miracles, like the resurrection of Christ, are promoted by religion as evidence that God wants us to surrender to him."

Uh, miracles are events that are misinterpreted as supernatural. Christ died, and is still dead.

6. "I cannot help others unless I like them or helping them at least a tiny bit. The liking causes the action. Liking is getting pleasure from something so liking is a selfish act."

No, you really don't have to like someone to help them. You might empathise with them. Selfish? What? Whether we get some pleasure or not, acts of generosity, even anonymous generosity, are part of being human.

7. (speaking of and "to" religion); "If you hate the sin, you must hate the sinner for the sin only reveals the sinner."

That sounds like religious talk if I've ever heard it.

8. (after presenting the argument that God doesn't exist because of the existence of evil, he goes on);

"If good as a result of evil is better than good that did not come from evil then it follows that there could be a God for evil does not refute him. "

There could be a God?

9. "Let us examine the wickedness of every excuse for why God would allow evil."

And then he presents the reasons why "God" would allow evil. Wickedness?

10. (my last comment); "God should not want people to suffer then if he is good. So he hates using evil for a purpose so we force him to do it which means that when we need evil to be done to us we have nobody to blame but ourselves and it is impossible to see how the evil could make us holier people and more devoted to God when we are that low and sinful that we make God break his own heart."

Awww, the widdle god bwoke his widdle bitty heart... How sad. And we made him do it! So we can blame ourselves (?) And we are that "low and sinful."

 

This guy is a twisted jerk. If someone read this site and thought this was an atheist, they would be so turned off that they would not even pursue the matter further.

 

His answers are superficial, deceitful, and gamed to make atheism look as bad as possible.

 

Expect that people questioning their faith will be referred to this site by other religious people.

 

I am disgusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion...he's a troll. He (or they) is a Xian pretending to be an atheist.

 

To me, Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. This guy or group is just way over the frickin' top.

 

I don't think so. He put a lot of time into that website. He sounds like he really really really hates religion. And he goes to great lengths to try to refute it and say it's evil.

He is an imposter!

 

Listen, he's saying religion is bad? The following is not literal quotes (like I gave before, which are sufficiently incriminating), but a general summary of his "philosophy." Read between the lines. He is making atheism out to be a caricature - selfish, greedy, self centered, unbound by moral standards of any kind.

 

Like this: "Religion is bad! We shouldn't have to follow commandments that tell us not to kill. We should just kill people and not even look back. We should not marry, but just fuck everyone in sight like dogs. We shouldn't give to charity, but rather be selfish and greedy."

 

That isn't atheism. It's a twisted, warped version of what Christians think atheism is (or should be) like.

 

For crying out loud, this is an imposter. While he throws in typical atheist "tidbits", he basically refutes them of makes them look like garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come across a website that's basically pushing atheism as a religion.

 

Link

 

On the website, there's a bible for atheists that the author claims all atheists should abide by. The author also extensively criticizes the concept of "free will" and yolks it in with Christianity, calling it evil. In turn, the author criticizes retributive judgment, saying that punishment is just a form of revenge and that revenge is evil. Hence, all punishment is evil and there is only room for rehabilitation. The author says that it is impossible to love another person, and to consider it possible is an evil Christian concept. The author says that it is only possible to love yourself and be selfish, as ultimately everything we do is because it's what we want to do; we can only love ourselves, through others. The author also considers the idea of an afterlife as evil, pressuring atheists to focus on the here and now. The author goes on to say that all atheists should not eat pigs or cows, as they have enough brain matter to deserve to live (who drew the line for how much is enough?). He says that atheists should only eat meat like fish. There's also an article where I can't decide if the author is saying TV is evil or not, it's hard to tell. He is saying that Christians are hypocrites for watching is as "acting" is not being truthful, hence it is a lie, hence it is a sin (according to their theology). There's even an "Enter" page with a scary black background and big scary font, going on and on about evil and lies and what not.

 

It bothers me, frightens me and it ticks me off, all at the same time. There's probably some good information on there too, but seriously, what's the deal with this guy? Does he seem reasonable and like a common, moral atheist to all of you or is he an extremist and a nutjob? I just hate extreme moral absolutes, especially in atheism! I see so much grey area in life. So many factors go into morals that it's difficult to call something absolutely evil or absolutely good. But here this guy goes, doing it in droves. Okay, what do you guys think?

Absolute unmitigated pure 100% bullshit!

 

This guy is a Christian trying to make atheism look 1) like a religion and 2) silly.

 

He has taken religious values that are also humanist values and turned them on their heads.

 

1. "The only god you need is yourself."

No, we need no "gods".

2. "There is no free will."

We are independent moral agents and make choices. That is "free will." It just isn't "God given free will."

3. "Marriage is Abuse"

No, marriage is a loving relationship that provides stability and economic support to growing families. etc.

4. "We can’t take orders from God then for that would involve obeying his command to promote belief in free will or sin which is a deliberate crime against him."

What the fuck?

5. "Miracles, like the resurrection of Christ, are promoted by religion as evidence that God wants us to surrender to him."

Uh, miracles are events that are misinterpreted as supernatural. Christ died, and is still dead.

6. "I cannot help others unless I like them or helping them at least a tiny bit. The liking causes the action. Liking is getting pleasure from something so liking is a selfish act."

No, you really don't have to like someone to help them. You might empathise with them. Selfish? What? Whether we get some pleasure or not, acts of generosity, even anonymous generosity, are part of being human.

7. (speaking of and "to" religion); "If you hate the sin, you must hate the sinner for the sin only reveals the sinner."

That sounds like religious talk if I've ever heard it.

8. (after presenting the argument that God doesn't exist because of the existence of evil, he goes on);

"If good as a result of evil is better than good that did not come from evil then it follows that there could be a God for evil does not refute him. "

There could be a God?

9. "Let us examine the wickedness of every excuse for why God would allow evil."

And then he presents the reasons why "God" would allow evil. Wickedness?

10. (my last comment); "God should not want people to suffer then if he is good. So he hates using evil for a purpose so we force him to do it which means that when we need evil to be done to us we have nobody to blame but ourselves and it is impossible to see how the evil could make us holier people and more devoted to God when we are that low and sinful that we make God break his own heart."

Awww, the widdle god bwoke his widdle bitty heart... How sad. And we made him do it! So we can blame ourselves (?) And we are that "low and sinful."

 

This guy is a twisted jerk. If someone read this site and thought this was an atheist, they would be so turned off that they would not even pursue the matter further.

 

His answers are superficial, deceitful, and gamed to make atheism look as bad as possible.

 

Expect that people questioning their faith will be referred to this site by other religious people.

 

I am disgusted.

 

 

Yep, total imposter. He is actually a minister. I remember reading an interview with him somewhere a few months back. He announced that he was making the Atheist Bible because all religions had to have a bible, and that his site was already doing well in showing just how selfish and arrogant atheists were. He was using it to try and "save us" and stop others from going atheist. The assholes site needs to be shut down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion...he's a troll. He (or they) is a Xian pretending to be an atheist.

 

To me, Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. This guy or group is just way over the frickin' top.

 

I don't think so. He put a lot of time into that website. He sounds like he really really really hates religion. And he goes to great lengths to try to refute it and say it's evil.

He is an imposter!

 

Listen, he's saying religion is bad? The following is not literal quotes (like I gave before, which are sufficiently incriminating), but a general summary of his "philosophy." Read between the lines. He is making atheism out to be a caricature - selfish, greedy, self centered, unbound by moral standards of any kind.

 

Like this: "Religion is bad! We shouldn't have to follow commandments that tell us not to kill. We should just kill people and not even look back. We should not marry, but just fuck everyone in sight like dogs. We shouldn't give to charity, but rather be selfish and greedy."

 

That isn't atheism. It's a twisted, warped version of what Christians think atheism is (or should be) like.

 

For crying out loud, this is an imposter. While he throws in typical atheist "tidbits", he basically refutes them of makes them look like garbage.

 

I definitely see where your coming from. And he does emphasis a person's own selfishness. But what about his "high moral stance" on punishment/revenge, saying it is always evil and that we must only seek to rehabilitate others? And what about his talk of how eating certain animals is morally wrong and atheists shouldn't do it? I got a bit of an opposite reaction from the website. I found that he was putting extreme moral chains on atheism, saying that Christianity is immoral and that all of its beliefs are evil and to follow and sympathize with them is evil. Amidst all of this, somewhere he also says that the only way to live is to remain "liberal" towards the issues. This appeared contradictory to me.

 

On another note, how do you people feel about revenge/retributive judgment? Obviously, I think we agree that eternal punishment in Hell is more than a little overboard, but does it have it's place in society? I would not like to take such an extreme stance and say that there is no place for it. Is retributive judgment always revenge? Thinking it simple terms, it would be easy to figure that it is (though I'm not saying it is). And revenge is a bit of a touchy issue, because it seems to be wrought out of negative emotions. But if retributive judgment is not equal to revenge, then it would be possible for there to be more positive motives behind an act. What do all of you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come across a website that's basically pushing atheism as a religion.

 

Link

 

On the website, there's a bible for atheists that the author claims all atheists should abide by. The author also extensively criticizes the concept of "free will" and yolks it in with Christianity, calling it evil. In turn, the author criticizes retributive judgment, saying that punishment is just a form of revenge and that revenge is evil. Hence, all punishment is evil and there is only room for rehabilitation. The author says that it is impossible to love another person, and to consider it possible is an evil Christian concept. The author says that it is only possible to love yourself and be selfish, as ultimately everything we do is because it's what we want to do; we can only love ourselves, through others. The author also considers the idea of an afterlife as evil, pressuring atheists to focus on the here and now. The author goes on to say that all atheists should not eat pigs or cows, as they have enough brain matter to deserve to live (who drew the line for how much is enough?). He says that atheists should only eat meat like fish. There's also an article where I can't decide if the author is saying TV is evil or not, it's hard to tell. He is saying that Christians are hypocrites for watching is as "acting" is not being truthful, hence it is a lie, hence it is a sin (according to their theology). There's even an "Enter" page with a scary black background and big scary font, going on and on about evil and lies and what not.

 

It bothers me, frightens me and it ticks me off, all at the same time. There's probably some good information on there too, but seriously, what's the deal with this guy? Does he seem reasonable and like a common, moral atheist to all of you or is he an extremist and a nutjob? I just hate extreme moral absolutes, especially in atheism! I see so much grey area in life. So many factors go into morals that it's difficult to call something absolutely evil or absolutely good. But here this guy goes, doing it in droves. Okay, what do you guys think?

Absolute unmitigated pure 100% bullshit!

 

This guy is a Christian trying to make atheism look 1) like a religion and 2) silly.

 

He has taken religious values that are also humanist values and turned them on their heads.

 

1. "The only god you need is yourself."

No, we need no "gods".

2. "There is no free will."

We are independent moral agents and make choices. That is "free will." It just isn't "God given free will."

3. "Marriage is Abuse"

No, marriage is a loving relationship that provides stability and economic support to growing families. etc.

4. "We can’t take orders from God then for that would involve obeying his command to promote belief in free will or sin which is a deliberate crime against him."

What the fuck?

5. "Miracles, like the resurrection of Christ, are promoted by religion as evidence that God wants us to surrender to him."

Uh, miracles are events that are misinterpreted as supernatural. Christ died, and is still dead.

6. "I cannot help others unless I like them or helping them at least a tiny bit. The liking causes the action. Liking is getting pleasure from something so liking is a selfish act."

No, you really don't have to like someone to help them. You might empathise with them. Selfish? What? Whether we get some pleasure or not, acts of generosity, even anonymous generosity, are part of being human.

7. (speaking of and "to" religion); "If you hate the sin, you must hate the sinner for the sin only reveals the sinner."

That sounds like religious talk if I've ever heard it.

8. (after presenting the argument that God doesn't exist because of the existence of evil, he goes on);

"If good as a result of evil is better than good that did not come from evil then it follows that there could be a God for evil does not refute him. "

There could be a God?

9. "Let us examine the wickedness of every excuse for why God would allow evil."

And then he presents the reasons why "God" would allow evil. Wickedness?

10. (my last comment); "God should not want people to suffer then if he is good. So he hates using evil for a purpose so we force him to do it which means that when we need evil to be done to us we have nobody to blame but ourselves and it is impossible to see how the evil could make us holier people and more devoted to God when we are that low and sinful that we make God break his own heart."

Awww, the widdle god bwoke his widdle bitty heart... How sad. And we made him do it! So we can blame ourselves (?) And we are that "low and sinful."

 

This guy is a twisted jerk. If someone read this site and thought this was an atheist, they would be so turned off that they would not even pursue the matter further.

 

His answers are superficial, deceitful, and gamed to make atheism look as bad as possible.

 

Expect that people questioning their faith will be referred to this site by other religious people.

 

I am disgusted.

 

 

Yep, total imposter. He is actually a minister. I remember reading an interview with him somewhere a few months back. He announced that he was making the Atheist Bible because all religions had to have a bible, and that his site was already doing well in showing just how selfish and arrogant atheists were. He was using it to try and "save us" and stop others from going atheist. The assholes site needs to be shut down!

 

Really? And you're sure this is the same website? If you're right, he sure did a good job because I hadn't met a site that bothered me so much since the last time I'd scrolled through an extremist fundamentalist Christian website. So, you think he was using intentional logical fallacies (like in his "TV is evil according to the Bible" article, saying that acting is not being your true self, and anything that isn't true is a lie and Satan is the father of lies, hence acting is evil, hence TV is evil according to Christianity) to make Atheists sound like jerks ans nitwits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On another note, how do you people feel about revenge/retributive judgment? Obviously, I think we agree that eternal punishment in Hell is more than a little overboard, but does it have it's place in society? I would not like to take such an extreme stance and say that there is no place for it. Is retributive judgment always revenge? Thinking it simple terms, it would be easy to figure that it is (though I'm not saying it is). And revenge is a bit of a touchy issue, because it seems to be wrought out of negative emotions. But if retributive judgment is not equal to revenge, then it would be possible for there to be more positive motives behind an act. What do all of you think?

The justice system has a relatively simple and single-minded purpose and that is protection of society. Punishments may be influenced by a sense of vengeance, but they are not exclusively retributive.

 

True retributive judgement would be vigilante justice, and that is prohibited by the legal system. Even the death penalty is considered (by the majority and those calling for it) to be a practical solution for extreme crimes with no possibility for reintegration into society.

 

We may disagree about what is retributive, but the system is at least supposed to be geared towards creating disincentives to crime for criminals and those who would be criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

5. "Miracles, like the resurrection of Christ, are promoted by religion as evidence that God wants us to surrender to him."

Isn't this more like something a Christian would say? He's not very good at pretending to be an atheist.

 

 

 

7. (speaking of and "to" religion); "If you hate the sin, you must hate the sinner for the sin only reveals the sinner."

That sounds like religious talk if I've ever heard it.

 

Funny, I actually posted a rant about this about a year ago although it's probably not in the direction he's thinking of: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/28005-love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin/page__hl__Love%20The%20Sinner%20Hate%20The%20Sin%20__fromsearch__1 If he's a Christian pretending to be an atheist, isn't bearing false witness a sin?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AmIReallyThatBad,

 

I read the article "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF". I think the guy is wacky, but sometimes he makes sense. He could be a fundy or just a wack job, but I haven't had time to read much on the site to determine which. Here's some things that I agree with:

 

 

Love is sacrifice according to most religion and according to Christianity...It is a terrible sacrifice to transfer all your natural feelings to God so that you can love him and to put him before yourself and be willing to suffer horribly if it is his will so loving your neighbour cannot be pleasant either. The two are alike in their horrific demands.

 

 

If you expect people to love you as much as they love themselves your life will be full of disappointment and anger.

 

 

But when Jesus had a different meaning for love than we generally have there is no reason to believe that he tolerated self-love. Love in his book meant doing the will of God be it bad or good for you and trusting him even to the extreme of being willing to die for his revelation...There is nothing reasonable or pleasant in this “love”. To love God means doing God’s will without reserve and without hesitation and to love your neighbour means, “Do what God wants you to do to them” and is not about affection towards them for themselves. Jesus was opposed to loving yourself and we all know that we only hurt others in so far as we fail to love ourselves. We cannot give love to others if it is not in us and it doesn’t start in us unless we love ourselves.

 

I see love (agape) in the new testament as being like this. It really is a function of obedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AmIReallyThatBad,

 

I read the article "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF". I think the guy is wacky, but sometimes he makes sense. He could be a fundy or just a wack job, but I haven't had time to read much on the site to determine which. Here's some things that I agree with:

 

 

But when Jesus had a different meaning for love than we generally have there is no reason to believe that he tolerated self-love. Love in his book meant doing the will of God be it bad or good for you and trusting him even to the extreme of being willing to die for his revelation...There is nothing reasonable or pleasant in this “love”. To love God means doing God’s will without reserve and without hesitation and to love your neighbour means, “Do what God wants you to do to them” and is not about affection towards them for themselves. Jesus was opposed to loving yourself and we all know that we only hurt others in so far as we fail to love ourselves. We cannot give love to others if it is not in us and it doesn’t start in us unless we love ourselves.

 

I see love (agape) in the new testament as being like this. It really is a function of obedience.

The above, in particular, needs to be taken in context to get his "meaning." It's a long and convoluted reasoning, but he's saying that Atheists are selfish, love only themselves, etc. The sentences I bolded above are bits and pieces of the puzzle he's putting together that acknowledge the existence of god and shows Jesus opposed to selfishness.

 

There are things that ring true, but they are not the "best" parts of atheism.

 

Imagine if I wrote a web site about how "good" Christianity is and said, "Christians should work to get to heaven, and it doesn't matter if your friends go to hell, the Christian is not to concern themselves with the fate of others. Getting to heaven is the reward for the blind obedience that God demands, and it is His judgement, not yours, that determines who gets to heaven."

 

That sounds like how an atheist views Christianity. See what I mean? Twist the dogma just enough, and it kind of resembles what some religious people say, but it is very unattractive.

 

With respect to the web site, even with some niceties in there to make it sound a bit less toxic, it will still poison the reader.

 

While he throws things in there that sound "anti-Christian", they are red herrings and if you read further he makes a mess of his own hateful speech (and makes atheism look like it is really confused). The writer consistently accepts God as real ("God does not come first in my life as the doctrine that God deserves all love implies but me."), Jesus as real ("Jesus hates you!"), and sin as real ("We can’t take orders from God then for that would involve obeying his command to promote belief in free will or sin which is a deliberate crime against him.").

 

When I write about how bad the OT God was, I think I make it clear that I am not saying that this non-existent being should be hated. Just that the description given is of a petty god like all of the other ancient gods. No atheist hates god, or thinks Jesus hates them. You can't hate that which doesn't exist, and dead people hate nothing.

 

This guy is going to fool a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you nailed it, Shy. This guy is a poser.

 

We should put together a pro-Christian website like the one you describe. With lots of prophetic ramblings that can be taken to mean damned near anything, and lots of portraits of a jealous, psychotic hate-filled bloodthirsty god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We should put together a pro-Christian website like the one you describe. With lots of prophetic ramblings that can be taken to mean damned near anything, and lots of portraits of a jealous, psychotic hate-filled bloodthirsty god.

What's sad is that they'd probably believe it and love it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come across a website that's basically pushing atheism as a religion.

 

Link

 

I've read the thread but I'll respond to the OP all the same. I looked at the link. My way of dealing with this type of thing is to evaluate up front by what credentials the person is saying what he is saying. I know the fundies hate this habit of mine but it is the only way I have found yet to be sure I'm not being hood-winked by some snake-oil peddler. Since so many of them religious fundies are snake-oil peddlers it stands to reason that they don't like my habit. Go figure!

 

Well, in the article linked, the first thing he says is that: Religioncomes from a Latin word meaning to bind.

 

I'd never heard that before so I looked it up. Dictionaries often tell where words come from and why. I found the following on Answers.com:

[Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religiō, religiōn-, perhaps from religāre, to tie fast. See
.]

 

In no way does that say "The word religion comes from a Latin term that means to bind." It says "perhaps it comes from a Latin word that means to tie fast." Like so many religious people do, he just got rid of the bothersome "perhaps" and said this is the way things are. That is very shoddy scholarship and not an author I can trust for accurate information.

 

I test these little things that are easy to prove or disprove because in the world of abstract ideas there are so many things that one cannot prove or disprove easily, without major amounts of specialized education or expensive instruments. I operate by the belief that he who is faithful in little is also faithful in much, and he that is sloppy with insignificant details is also liable to be less than reliable/accurate in important matters. So far in my life, this has stood me in good stead, though it has irritated a lot of people who have wanted to swindle me with their less than transparent ideologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the case, the guy's a hack. While some of his points could be interesting, he illustrates them in a rather lame way. It's almost like he's trying to create some motif as to what an atheist should be.

 

An atheist doesn't follow any specific method of thinking about religion. There is no standard "psychological" profile for an atheist. And what's with the "diet" business ? In a subtle way, the author is trying to imitate a sense of "doctrine" or stereotypes about atheistic thinking. Yes, we know that in a round-about way a lot of altruism is to make ourselves feel good about a situation; that does not render the act to still be anything other than kind and generous, however.

 

I find it suspicious that many of his points are very similar to assumptions that many theists have about atheists.

 

In fact, some atheists still employ a little "faith" from time to time. Just not in an invisible deity or system of magical thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a troll. The things worded on that site are worded in ways which I have only seen come out the mouths of fundamentalist xians who think they know what atheism is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.