I find atheism a bit of a quirky worldview because a significant group of the more militant atheists seem to be willing to believe in weird things that are obviously false. Even things that are denied by the majority of scholars.
For example, they believe in the eternal universe, invisible alien civilizations, and the unobservable multiverse. I just think it’s weird… one minute you are having a normal conversation with them about politics or parenting, then POW… the crazy comes out. It’s like talking to a Muslim software engineer. One minute he’s seated quietly discussing JUnit and Interfaces, and the next minute he’s standing on the table with a fork in his hand ranting about Jihad and Intifidas. Crazy.
Believe my delusions or I'll insult you!
Anyhoo, here is an interesting case in point, in which “The Infidel Guy”, who thinks that Jesus never existed, confronts skeptical historian Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman lets the true believing jihadi know that the world really is round and that leprechauns most certainly do not exist.
Surprise! We’re not winning the arguments with you because we are “skilled debaters”. We’re winning because you’re crazy and irrational. Phrasing your claims as insults doesn’t make your claims true.
A video lecture in 3 parts, and a peer-reviewed paper to go with the clips.
Part 1 of 3:
Part 2 of 3:
Part 3 of 3:
And here is the article that discusses the same topic, in more detail, and with footnotes.
Excerpt:
Can we be good without God? At first the answer to this question may seem so obvious that even to pose it arouses indignation. For while those of us who are Christian theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve which enables us to live lives that are better than those we should live without Him, nevertheless it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives–indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame.
But wait. It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?
Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.
This is the easiest argument for God’s existence to discuss with non-Christians. If you would like to hear a good debate on this topic, I recommend the debate between Arif Ahmed and Glenn Peoples.
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop Gov. Rick Perry from sponsoring a national day of Christian prayer and fasting, ruling Thursday that the group of atheists and agnostics did not have legal standing to sue.
U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller said the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued against Perry’s involvement based merely on feelings of exclusion, but did not show sufficient harm to merit the injunction they sought.
“The governor has done nothing more than invite others who are willing to do so to pray,” Miller said.
I’ve been reflecting on what I’ve learned about militant atheism during the time I have been running this blog, and I think the whole atheistic fundamentalism view boils down to 3 things. The first is the desire to be immoral, usually dressed up by defining morality as being based on feelings or cultural conventions. The second is the desire to censor and coerce other people who make them feel bad about being immoral. And the third is the desire to tell other people how intelligent and moral they are, but without actually being intelligent or moral. But I digress.
More:
A day earlier, Perry defended the event, comparing it to President Barack Obama’s participation in the National Day of Prayer.
“My prayer is that the courts will find that the first amendment is still applicable to the governor no matter what they might be doing and that what we’ve done in the state of Texas or what we’ve done in the governor’s office is appropriate,” he said. “It’s no different than what George Washington or Abraham Linlcoln or President Truman or President Obama have done.”
Perry, an evangelical Christian, said he didn’t yet know what his role in the rally would be.
“I’m going to be there — I may be ushering for all I know — I haven’t gotten my marching orders,” he said. “It’s not about me and it’s not about the people on the stage either, this is truly about coming together as a state lifting up this nation in prayer, having a day of prayer and fasting. That’s all it is.”
Good for governor Perry, though. Sticking his neck out a bit. Good. But he has a ways to go to catch Michele.
WINTERY KNIGHT 