CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Atheist Follies

Apr 14, 2012

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:
www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/04/13/morality-and-naturalism/
www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/11/13/god-and-goodness/

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.

www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-13/atheism-conference-sparks-debate/3948216

[1410]

14 Responses to Atheist Follies

  • Thanks Bill. After reading this post and also this other one from online opinion, I feel slightly curious to go and listen to the atheists for a bit of a giggle.
    Unfortunately, (or rather fortunately) I have better things to do and my laughter will most likely turn to anger as I hear more and more lies and vitriol towards Christianity spew forth from these ‘enlightened’ souls.
    No – I think I will instead just pray for them and more importantly, their hearers.

    www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13498

    Annette Williams

  • Thanks Annette

    Yes as much as they may hate it, we can always keep praying for them.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Those who are vehemently opposed to the Truth found solely in Jesus Christ may be closer than they imagine to His saving grace. Empty litanies of lies & self-deception can be just an outward form of denial for what they know deep down inside – That there is a God who created them in His image.

    Our prayers for atheists will be incense in His presence.

    Grant Wedale

  • Let us put these “atheists” claim to the ultimate test.

    Anything in “religious” texts is now off limits, any mention of anything written in the scriptures is ground for disqualification.

    1. Murder, sorry, no longer able to be talked about or made a crime, is in the Bible.
    2. Theft, sorry, no longer able to be talked about or made a crime, is in the Bible.
    3 Sexual disease, sorry, no longer able to be talked about, is in the Bible.
    4. Lying under oath, sorry, no longer able to be talked about or made a crime, is in the Bible.
    5. Honesty in business dealings, sorry, no longer able to be talked about or made a crime, is in the Bible.
    6. Good and evil, sorry, no longer able to be talked about or made a crime, is in the Bible.
    7. Morality, sorry, no longer able to be talked about, is in the Bible.

    Okey dokey, now that we have that out of the road, how do they intend to come up with laws and rules and ethics (we see how good scientific ethics are), morals etc.

    Either we are evolved from slime, (still waiting for an explanation on that sucker), thus there is no good, evil crimes etc, it just is what it is. Or, there is a higher being, we are all his creation, and we are a special creation, thus there is good, there is evil, there is right and wrong and we need to have certain rules and regulation to ensure we all live happily and prosper and finally, we have “FREE AGENCY” to choose to do the right or wrong way.

    That’s it, only two choices to make, zero mixing, zero stealing from one or the other and no sitting on the fence. People have to make the choice for themselves, no one can make if for them and all eternity depends on the choice.

    Neil Waldron

  • Hi Bill. It’s hard to listen to their arrogant drivel without becoming irritated and disgusted. As Romans 1:21 says: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” They choose to think this way and, as a result, their foolish hearts have grown dark. It’s truly a pitiful state to be in, especially when you are in such a self-congratulatory environment as this atheist convention, a convention of fools. I’m interested how they can dismiss religion as something harmful to society when they believe all morality has evolved so well. Wouldn’t religious morality be a part of that wonderful process of evolution if that’s how they think? Who decides which part of the evolution is harmful and which part is good? Especially since it’s all relative, including their own opinions!
    Dee Graf

  • I’ve been in Melbourne for much of this week for the Planetshakers conference. (It just finished tonight, hence my being awake at this late-ish hour) I don’t know if any of the atheists came along but I pray that none left! One of the highlights was the evangelist Chris Hill who – whenever he explained some Biblical concept – always went to Genesis 😀 Praise God for such men!
    Dominic Snowdon

  • Aldous Huxley, the famous humanist, was at least honest when he said that for some people, there are personal reasons for rejecting Christian belief:

    “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; I consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption … The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.” (Richard Winter: CHOOSE LIFE, Marshall Pickering, UK, 1988, p124)

    This a very profound statement “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning” by Huxley. No doubt there are many at the atheist convention (and not only there but throughout the world) who, likewise, have “motives” for why they personally want to reject Christianity and God.

    Trevor Grace

  • When I can look back through history and can count the number of hospitals, schools, hospices and aged care facilities that atheist organisations have built then I will listen to them.
    When I can see the number of bills they have promoted through parliament to combat injustices such as slavery then I will listen to them.
    Until that time they have no room to speak about the value of human life because if there is no God then there is no value to life.
    Warwick Murphy

  • Thank you for todays writing. ‘we must be borne again’ appreciate your information and references to some of the old faithful!
    DM Blight

  • When will the atheists get it that trying to ‘quantify’ or ‘prove’ (or disprove) the existence of God scientifically is like trying to ‘measure’ electricity with a ruler!
    Scott Garratt

  • Hi Bill, thank you so much for your article, it helps me to gain some insight. Keep up the good work and may God bless your ministry to glorify Him and to bless others.

    Reflection:

    – First, I often wonder what this ‘atheist/atheism’ is all about deep down? They claim they do not believe God and despise God/religion particularly against Christianity for whatever reason, I wonder why? What has God or Christian faith or Christianity or Bible (God’s Word) done to them? Have they somewhat experienced bitterness or disappointment in their life and now blaming it on God/Christianity directly or indirectly?

    At the same token, atheist is in turn promoting ‘atheism’, their movement as some kind of ‘religion’ of its own, people (children including) in a sense are expected to ‘believe’ in the movement or ideology. Isn’t that again can be called as somewhat ‘religion’ (a set of believe system) in which ‘faith’ is required to follow/believe the ideology?

    ‘There is no absolute Truth’, yet atheist in a sense proclaiming that ‘atheism’ is the ‘Truth’ directly or indirectly.

    Aren’t these atheists contradicting themselves in the end?

    – Secondly, I also often wonder why most if not all media like to pick people only to suit their headline/agenda (ie. Liberal Christian – Scott Stephens)? Why the media (such as show like Q&A ABC or others) does not also invite people from the reformed evangelical circle such as Peter Jensen, Douglas Milne, Ravi Zacharias, John Mc Arthur, John Piper, D.A Carson, Mark Driscoll, Ligon Duncan, R.C Sproul, Alister McGrath and many others? Or Christian Scientists such as John Lennox and others?

    What is the actual real intention here? Do they really want to have the balanced view in order to gain an understanding/insight or just for the sake of making a ‘headline/rating’ and mocking Christianity as its easy target?

    We indeed live in a fallen world.

    Rudy Sumarno

  • Greetings Bill,

    I sometimes street preach in Western Australia.
    Because of militant atheists I now preach differently when I preach as we are not preaching to Jews and I’m certain not even to the Greeks anymore.
    We are preaching to the most hard heartened individuals who have so many bushes in front of them that it must be and can only be the supernatural work of God in order for them to see who Christ is. My message has changed from you must – to – Why I choose to believe the bible and Why I believe Jesus Christ.
    The other one that helps them to listen, even if its only for a little while is to preach on Husbands love your wives and how Christ taught men how to be real men and about true morality and love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control. They may listen for one minute and walk away but its just enough time to soften that hard heart and then preach the gospel and also to let them know that they have no hope before a Holy God except for their turning to Christ in true repentance.
    Its true Bill what you say – Don’t waste your time on atheists who have no interest as they who only rearrange their prejudices in their mind, whenever they hear truth.

    Atheism offers zero about Husbands loving their wives and zero on the 9 fruits of the spirit listed above.
    I have found that even the hardest hearted atheist will listen even its just for a minute to the irresistible teachings of love as they know we are in a world where morality and respect for authority is on the greatest downward slide possible and atheism offers no hope but only fuel to its enraging fire.
    Thank you Bill as you equip people like myself to contend for the faith that was delivered once and for all to the saints against these atheists, apostates, liberals, universalists and all the other mystic crackpots who believe everything they hear apart from what is in the bible.

    For our Lords Glory and His alone,
    Mr Carmelo Bonanno
    Witchcliffe
    Western Australia

  • I have a feeling that if Mr Nicholls were to debate any thiest of note he’d be made to look quite foolish.

    Peter Sanderson

  • Bill, the ABC needs “religious ” people from the apostate church, precisely because they recognize the “real churches” power. It is to give legitimacy to what they are presenting to those whom they know still respect the church, though largely only the outside shell of the church. In other words, they prefer the clone, whose nucleus they can manipulate rather than facing the legitimate offspring of reality, because the content is not of their making but that of another person, god, whom they fear without knowing it.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

Leave a Reply