Atheist Follies

The atheists are in town, and the lamestream media is quite happy to give them a free run. If a Christian convention were in town, it would either be ignored by most of the media, or a hatchet job would be done on it. But we expect such from the mainstream media which is overwhelmingly secular left.

And leave it to our ABC (that is, the Atheist Broadcasting Corporation) to lead the charge here. They were among the first to give a free plug to the misotheists. Here is how one ABC report began: “Religion will be a non-event in Australia within two generations according to the head of the country’s atheist foundation. David Nicholls says we are now seeing the tip of the iceberg as more and more people declare themselves non-believers and free thinkers.

“But he admits religion will always be present in Australia because of indoctrination and because some people ‘need fairy stories to survive. Within two generations, religion in Australia will be a non event,’ he said. ‘[It] will always be here, there’s always going to be a genetic and cultural indoctrination, enough to affect some people, some people need it, some people get comfort from it, some people need fairy stories to survive, but not as many as before’.”

Yeah right. Within two generations David Nicholls will be a non event. We have heard this foolishness from the God-haters time and time again. And time and time again they have been proven to be quite wrong. Recall what Voltaire (1694-1778) once said: “One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker.”

Er, not quite Voltaire. Or think of a much more modern exchange in a bit of graffiti. It seems that someone had scribbled on a wall: “‘God is dead’ – Nietzsche”. To which someone replied underneath: “‘Nietzsche is dead’ – God”. That rejoinder is way much closer to the mark of course.

In a hundred years from now, if the Lord should tarry, no one will even have heard of Nicholls, but the church of Christ will continue to triumph. But the utter irrationality and illogic of the atheist position is further highlighted in this article:

“He says governments around the world are too influenced by religion, but religion’s biggest failing is its impact on children. ‘This is probably the worst thing that religion does – it threatens children that if they don’t believe they’re going to be tortured forever in hell and if they do believe it they’ll be eternally blissful in heaven, he said.

“Mr Nicholls says fears that humanity’s moral code would disappear with religion are totally baseless because morality is innate in our nature. ‘The moral code of most religion is highly suspect and women should be the first to recognise that,’ he said. ‘Morality has grown through consensus of not wanting to have something done to you, not doing anything to others that you wouldn’t want done to you’.”

Wow, there is so much nonsense and unreasonableness found here that one scarcely knows where to begin. (And these guys are supposed to be celebrating reason!?) The best reply to his point about children was posted on another site: “Well, atheists tell children that no matter what they believe, when they die their bodies will decompose, their brains will be eaten by maggots, their consciousness will be extinguished, and so it will be forever. Your point?”

Quite right. That is supposed to be comforting to children? And his line on morality is typical atheist bunkum, made up entirely of complete and utter illogic. According to the high priest of atheism who is also speaking at the convention this weekend here in Melbourne, there is no such thing as objective morality.

Richard Dawkins has made this perfectly clear: “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

Or as he elsewhere admits: “I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave.… My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live.” And again: “It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones.”

How in the world can a bunch of selfish genes lead us into a moral, other-centred world of altruism, love and kindness? Dawkins admits that his own worldview cannot account for this. But I have dealt with this in more detail elsewhere:

Nicholls then very nicely contradicts himself big time by saying morality has just evolved, yet the morality of religion is “suspect”. But why should it be suspect any more than his morality, or Dawkins’? Either all morality has evolved, and is therefore arbitrary, subjective, and non-universal, or there are transcendent objective moral standards which we are all subject to. You can’t have both options.

If morality is whatever we happen to prefer, then so far the vast majority of humanity prefers the morality of their religious traditions to that of the God-haters. But this article simply keeps getting worse. A religious voice is brought on to enter into this discussion. But who is it? None other than a religious affairs writer for the ABC, who is also a former Uniting Church minister!

There you go: a minister from what has to be the most apostate denomination in Australia, and someone who now has a cushy job with the ABC. Given those qualifications, we should not expect much help from him. And he does not disappoint.

Scott Stephens informs us that “religion has no place in politics or education”. Hey, that’s just what the atheists and secularists are always telling us. Thanks for the help Mr Stephens. As a liberal Christian he has bought the line that religion at best should be just a private affair, and somehow should have no impact in the public arena. Hey, Nicholls could have told us that. So why drag Stephens into the picture here?

But he gets worse. He says that we need an “alliance between atheists, humanists and those who belong to the Catholic and Orthodox tradition to begin fighting for what is best and most defendable and most virtuous within western civilisation”.

Puh-leeese, spare me. Just how bizarre is this so-called religious commentator getting here? Just who decides what is “best and most defendable and most virtuous”? Obviously a true Christian would argue that the knowledge of Jesus Christ and his saving work at Calvary would be the highest good we must share with the world.

And obviously any self-respecting atheist would argue that the complete eradication of all religion – especially Christianity – would be the highest good we should be aiming for, at least on a public level. So these two groups are supposed to come together and work as one to solve all our problems? Do they start by singing kumbaya together?

Sorry bud, but it just ain’t gonna happen. Sure, those who are part of an apostate denomination who have long ago renounced the Bible as authoritative, and have renounced any notions of Jesus’ exclusive truth claims, and being the only way of salvation, will be quite happy to jump into bed with the atheists.

But no true biblical Christian could ever countenance a grand alliance of shared values, for the simple reason that there are no such shared values. One group sees something like Christianity as the root of all our problems, while the other group sees it as the best solution to all our problems. And these two groups are supposed to happily and fruitfully work together?

But leave it to the ABC to offer “balance” by featuring a religious commentator who shares far more in common with atheism than with biblical Christianity. That is simply par for the course. These crusading atheists are bad enough. But when a derelict media and an apostate church joins forces with them, then you know we are in a real bad way.