Atheism V Christianity

I’ve read some wacky idiotic ramblings by christians before , but  Atheism Vs. Christianity: It’s all about ‘faith’ on examiner.com is one of the most laughable I’ve read in a while.

For a start his premise is all wrong, because it’s only Christianity that is all about ‘faith'; science relies on logic, experimentation, testing of ideas, etc etc. The author, Jake Jones, opens with this:

For some reason or another, Atheists feel that they need to beat you over the head with their view of creation, laws, the Bible, God, the Constitution and more.

Ha, Ha, Ha Jake, I think you meant to put the word ‘Christian’ in that sentence, instead of atheist. In case any other Christian hadn’t realised yet, one of the reasons atheists have become more vocal recently is because we are fed up with being bombarded with so much religious stuff.

Atheists, agnostics and other non-believers will always seem to quote science, scientists, NASA and others. That is a significant problem for Atheists. Science, scientists, … have been wrong on numerous occasions. … Science is not perfect, however the Bible is.

More LOL worthiness. He says “scientists, … have been wrong on numerous occasions” like it’s a bad thing? Aspects of science being proved wrong is one of science’s strengths, not weaknesses. There are way too many examples to demonstrate this, but how about an obvious one: years ago scientists said heavier than air objects would never fly, they were proven wrong as any airport will clearly demonstrate.  Is that a bad thing? No, it’s proof that science is quite happy being wrong, as long as it is proved wrong properly (throwing a bible at it doesn’t work by-the-way) . Science may not be perfect, and doesn’t usually profess to be, however it’s a damn sight more accurate than the bible.

Using scientific theory to disprove the Bible is like using gasoline to put out a fire. The reverse of that would be using the Bible to prove the existence of UFO’s, it can’t be done!

Stop, Stop, my sides are splitting from laughter. Science has been used many times to prove outright errors in the bible, it can be done, such as (from freethoughtdebater.com)

1 Kings 7:23 “He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.” Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did “compass it round about.”
Lev 11:20-21: “All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.” Fowl do not go upon all four.
Lev 11:6: “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud…” Hare do not chew the cud.

There are countless others. The bible even contradicts itself on numerous occasions (see the freethoughtdebater.com site for a few examples), don’t religious people ever actually read their own book?

Jake’s article gets worse, you really should read the whole thing, it’s good for a laugh; but I don’t know what he’s got against NASA, or why he keeps incorrectly capitalising atheist?

The Bible is perfect because it is the divinely inspired, true and infallible word of God, not science. … Now don’t get me wrong, there are many things that science, scientists and yes, even NASA have discovered which have helped mankind, …

Yes, science has discovered pretty well everything that has helped mankind, including the computer Jake used to write his crazy article and the internet it was posted on.

Then he goes on about Darwin and evolution for a bit saying atheists put their trust in what Darwin wrote. He either doesn’t understand, or is just plain stupid, but it’s the 150 years of science following Darwin’s idea that scientists and others “put their trust in” when it comes to acknowledging the facts about evolution. Then he vainly tries to show he is right and that we should beleive the bible because:

The Bible is filled with witnesses to the events described in it.

Oh really! What, like witnesses to the “creation of the heavens and the earth”, or witnesses to Jesus’ so-called existence, all written at least 40 years after his death and in some instances at least 70 years later by people who hadn’t even meet him? With virtually no secular writings of this so-called significant person to back them up?

… but Atheists are not willing to believe, it’s just a fairy tail to them.

At least he got one thing correct, the bible is just a fairy tale, written by uneducated ignorant goat-herders trying to explain things they didn’t understand.

Atheists for some reason believe that out of chaos comes order; i.e. the “Big Bang theory”, and that out of that chaos came the Universe as we know it. Logical folks understand that out of chaos comes even more chaos. All one has to do to see order in the Universe is to go the NASA’s Hubble Telescope Gallery web site and look at their space Gallery! It’s amazing. The beauty and order of God’s creation is overwhelming. Yes, that is one of the great accomplishments of NASA.

Jake obviously needs to do some research, I’m fairly sure that the Big Bang theory doesn’t necessarily entail chaos, and anyway order can come from chaos. Then there are all the forces in play such as gravity, centripetal, centrifugal  etc that assisted in the formation of galaxies, stars, planets etc. It wasn’t all just chaos chaos chaos then instantaneous planetary systems.

I’m still looking for some good articles on “chaos and order”, I’ve read some before but seem to have misplaced the URLs. I was sent a link via Twitter to an article titled Life on Earth which explains the II Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy and how it applies to life on Earth, which whilst a very interesting article wasn’t exactly what I was looking for. If anyone has some scientific articles on “chaos and order” please provide links in the comments.

As to the “it’s beautiful, so god must have made it” comment, that’s just another ludicrous, illogical ‘goddidit’ statement, what sort of evidence for a god is “because it’s beautiful”? Personally I actually don’t see a whole lot of ‘order’ in some of those Hubble telescope photographs, and I’m sure others don’t, so the other part of that argument is also flawed.

I’ll leave you with his final sentence:

I truly believe that Atheists have good intentions, but they should remember this old saying; “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.

In case you hadn’t realised, not believing in god also entails in not believing in heaven or hell, so that sentence (threat ? ) is meaningless to an atheist, and don’t even think of Pascal Wagering me.

18 Comments

Filed under atheism, christian, religion, science

18 responses to “Atheism V Christianity

  1. I think the a phrase in his bio gives it all away.

    “As an evangelical Christian, Jake has studied for nearly two decades the issues that threaten the Christian way of life in America.”

    Buttressing paranoia, especially for extended periods, takes a lot of effort in order to conort facts and compartmentalise cummulative contradictions. Hence, those that manage it tend to be quite talented at believing silly things.

    • A valid point.

      Though WTF is a “Christian way of life” and why do non-christians have to put up with it?

      • Jimmy

        Yeah! I was curious about that “Christian Way Life” if it has anything to do with some recent visitors to Australia, Benny Hinn and his “healing crusade” (read separating vulnerable people from what little they may have)and that other scam artist Kenneth Copeland and his plastic wife, well I think I’ll steer clear thank you.
        These Talibangelicals use all the tactics, you know the usual stuff, earth is 6000 years old, burn in hell, give us your tithing to spread god’s word ( in a corporate jet of course) the scary part is people do send money to these fraudsters, we can only hope that just like K-Tel products people will tire of the nonsense and these bigots will fade away.

  2. Though WTF is a “Christian way of life” and why do non-christians have to put up with it?

    Well if(/when) it’s not hurting anyone, I think we obliged to tolerate it. Of course, if said way of life inolves state privilege, discrimination against others and a general harassment of the non-Christian populace, it doesn’t oblige us to be tolerant.

    See the usual Popper quote on tolerance I usually trot out. :-)

  3. Gary

    Oh, I’m glad you’ve stumbled on Jake. His antics could provide for a lifetime of merriment, however troubling.

    Be prepared for your comment to be deleted. Disagreement is also one of those threats to the Christian life.

    • Thanks for the warning! LOL and welcome to my blog

      just in-case he deletes my comment here’s what I posted on his site:

      as an atheist (no capitalization by the way Jake) the only ‘faith’ I have, is the faith that Jake has no idea what he’s talking about.

      [to paraphrase] The universe is beautiful so God must have made it.

      That’s one of the worst arguments for god I’ve ever heard.

      more… ozatheist.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/atheism-v-christianity/

  4. It is truly stunning that there are people in the 21st century who actually believe an invisible, indetectable supernatural being created everything – including a book whoch details how he killed a good portion of it multiple times, then eventually killed himself to save his creation. Sounds like a pretty daft supernatural being to me.

    In order to reconcile the modern world with that ancient book of fables, one must be a master at compartmentalising your mind, or expert at ignoring or twisting the words of the book to mean whatever you want. Why did god write such an ambiguous book – and it must be due the number of denominations of Christianity (ignoring other religions for the time being)? Why have the book at all if you are not going to follow what it actually says? Why use logic, reason, and science to debunk a book that contains none of those qualities?

    It’s all fucked up.

  5. seantheblogonaut

    I wasted a good half an hour today reading something on the Daily Kos which degenerated into an Atheism = Religion, lets argue over the definition of faith slugfest.

  6. …Atheism = Religion, lets argue over the definition of faith slugfest.

    Atheism is a religion, in the same way that presenting no argument is winning a debate. I don’t offer an argument. I win the debate. Atheism is not a religion. Q.E.D.

    Took less than half an hour. The perfect anti-sophistry, sophistry. ;-)

  7. Emergence Theory – from chaos, order.

  8. I have to laugh when some religious people think I am a devil worshiper because I don’t believe there is a god. Hellooo…I don’t believe there is a devil either.

  9. My first attempt a blogging. Please bear with me.
    Nice forum.
    I recently engaged in a short but nasty letters-to-the-edtor debate with my local small-town newspaper’s resident theologist and general know-it-all. This guy makes Pat Robertson look like Chris Hitchens. He makes it a point to proslytize as often and in as many issues of the paper as possible, so I naturally just had to criticize him in print. His is the standard, condescending, fire and brimstone, bible inerrant,you’ll-all-go-to-hell-if-you-don’t- accept-christ diatribe. He has atacked me, along wth others (some not nearly so blasphemous as I) with the smug vitriol of the patently self-righteous egotist and bigot that he is. After a couple of exchanges, my wife begged me to stop because she feared a literal violent retaliatory response by any of the assorted crazies and nutbags who litter the ideological landscape. Indeed, she feared for her job where she had been questioned about me by her boss, the pastor of the church that serves as a daycare center where she works. Seeing her point, I stopped, though it rankles me intensely to continue to see this guy’s (and his followers’) continuous assault on reason take place in this small town newspaper, even though I have long since decided that it’s all for the best, since I would be indeed foolish to coninue to argue with this fool (who incidentally and strangely enough is also a professor of mathematics at a local university branch). What I rue the most is the fact that there is such a chilling effect on free discourse by the atmosphere surrounding dialogue with such reactionary relgious and/or political wingnuts. In view of recent events, such as the murder of an abortion doctor and a guard at the Holocaust museum, I don’t want to put my name to a controversial opinion now. This is an extremely sad state of affairs. Since my rhetorical allies in society don’t seem to have the same proclivity for hatred and violence as my opponent’s, he basically spreads his venom without fear of physical retribution while I, though I don’t fear for my own safety, fear for my loved ones. Any comments?

    • @xenon welcome to my blog, an impressive piece for a first blog comment. Though by the sound of it you’ve had plenty of writing practice. :)

      You make a very good point that the religious have an upper-hand when it comes to being able to say whatever they want. Then get away with it because some people are scared to say anything against them.

      Hopefully the more people like you and I speak out when we can, the less the religious will be able to get their own way.

      Things like the many atheist bus campaigns (Australia’s is awaiting court proceedings still) are also assisting in lessening the hold religion has on free speech.

  10. Religion’s version of free speech is to stifle all opposing views.

    Yep. They’re free to speak, we’re free to listen. Sounds fair to them.

    • Andrew’s statement is quite right. Additionally, a religious person’s version of freedom of religion is that religion should be omnipresent in our government, military, schools, social and personal lives as well, but that only their sect should be the one recognized as the state religion. When I once got into an argument with religious (read Baptist) friends about bible-thumping, prayer, and creationism in public school, they could not understand my opposition, no matter how hard I tried to explain the constitution, science, or the Supreme court cases that led to some of the policy on these issues. I asked them how they would like their children reciting class prayers to Allah or L. Ron Hubbard or reading the Torah or Koran in class or having to learn hundreds of extant religious creation myths. “We are the majority! Only Jesus Christ and the Christian Bible should be taught!” was their effusive reply. They remained evasive on the issue of just which version of Christianity would win out over the ideas of the Catholic, Coptic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Mormon, Anglican, Presbyterian, Moonie, Jehova Witness, etc etc etc cults, but presumably the Baptist cult would prevail. But which Baptist cult? Evangelical, Southern, Fundamentalist, or Reform? Furthermore, as I understand it, the local Baptist ministry maintains autonomy over its own congretation. So it would be different depending on which school is controlled by which church? And on and on. I find this type of irrationality typical of the religious mindset. They simply do not grasp the concept that the only way to have religious freedom is through secularization, which they have been brainwashed by the religious right to regard as their enemy. I pretty much lost these people as friends, but I don’t regret it.

      • Great comment and you are spot on. It’s a pity your friendship with these people was not as strong as their faith. Many believers cannot stand to have their faith questioned – especially by those people willing to ask the difficult questions.

  11. Congretation? Make that Congregation.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s