Godless

What annoys me the most about the ‘Christian warfarers’ is when they go around telling people you can’t be a good person without believing in their theology.

That between a friendly, responsible charitable atheist who’s a great spouse, parent, and friend, and a religious senator who’s been caught molesting children, they think the senator is the better human being.

What’s even more bothersome is that 95% of Christians in my experience are friendly, focus on social issues, and consider faith a personal thing.  Yet, these 5% who are going on TV and yelling at people are the ones who get to act like they’re representing their entire faith.

I wish the nice, friendly, reasonable 95% of Christians would have some balls and publicly declare “These whackos do not represent us:  You can be a good person without agreeing with us.” But instead they often act like apologists and tacitly endorse them.

Comment by Chris — November 7, 2007 @ 11:51 am

You’re absolutely right, Chris, and indeed my initial draft of this piece referred to my antagonists only as “Christians.” I’m grateful to my editors for adding the qualifier, ‘cause as you say, there are many good Christians.

...it’s just easy to forget, sometimes.

Comment by Monte from Twin Falls, Idaho — November 7, 2007 @ 12:29 pm

I’m all with you on the atheist thing, but I’m not too sure about the rest of the article:

(1) THE SIMPSONS

I can’t help thinking that you’ve selectively looked at the Simpsons so as to support your idea that it’s an atheist show.  It seems to me that the Simpsons is fundamentally Christian but with the odd jab at religion thrown in.

- Bart does sell his soul but it turns out that he does actually have a soul (a very Christian idea) and that’s it’s extremely important.  And he only gets it back when he prays to God

- Homer refuses to go to church.  Sure, but you’ve ignored everything else in the episode.  Homer ends up being convinced to go back to church and the episode ends with Homer talking to God.  When he stops going to church Homer’s house burns down and when the fire spreads to Ned’s (a devout believer’s) house, a tiny little rainbow and cloud pop up to put it out.

- It mocks religious authority figures.  It does, but how does that amount to atheism?  Almost any Christian you can find will try to disacocciate themself from some other sort of Christian.  In a show that mocks every character to some degree, it doesn’t seem to me taht that can be taken as evidence of anything.

- Chalmers to Ned.  Listen to this bit again.  You’re right that it mocks Ned’s lovey-dovey approach to discipline.  But it’s just as much an attack on atheists like you or me.  Chalmers goes through the entire school seeing absolute chaos but doesn’t care.  Then he hears the prayer and then says ‘WHAT?  A prayer in a public school?’

(2) NICK CAVE

The song says ‘I don’t believe in an ‘interventionist God’.  It’s not atheist song at all.  He’s just debating the nature of God.

Don’t get me wrong.  I love both The Simpsons (at least the older episodes) and Nick Cave, but atheist they’re not.  (But you’re absolutely spot on about Whedon).

Comment by Person from Brisbane — November 8, 2007 @ 6:31 pm

Thanks, ‘Person,’ your points are all fair and true; I should have noted everything above and maintained simply that those *moments* can be interpreted as affirmations for Atheists; you’re absolutely right about the overall philosophy of SIMPSONS, and even of Cave’s song.

Comment by Monte from Geek Creek — November 8, 2007 @ 8:11 pm

God, and many of his representatives are certainly easy targets. But it’s so intriguing to see the atheist teapot calling the Christian kettle black. You have no clue how many of your potshots at Christians, far right ones mainly I guess, boomerang back on you. It’s actually comical how blind in their self-righteousness so many atheists can be. Oh, doesn’t that sound familiar. Let’s look at a few.

You says Christians, some, most, all, right, whatever, have smug superiority complexes. I don’t know, but I just read your piece and it reeks of such a complex. Let me mention a few names, authors of recent books, that display quintessential smug superiority: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, et. al. It seems to me that atheists think that only religious people are somehow susceptible to ubiquitous human failings and foibles. 

One atheist that I do respect is a gentleman named Theodore Dalrymple. He has a tremendous article in the City Journal http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html about just this. Mocking Christians and religious faith will simply not get you very far. Saying or implying that all religious people are stupid or dupes is just a way for you to not be taken seriously.

It’s interesting that what I believe is “superstition” but what you believe is all solid intellectual brilliance. I can appreciate how difficult it is to believe in a God at times, but people like you seem to never appreciate how difficult it is to NOT believe in a God. Atheism is a huge leap of faith, can’t be proven, and I have never seen it defended in any rational and coherent way. For such claims of cool and disinterested rationality, atheists always seem so pissed off. You may have left yours behind, but it all starts there. How angry so many atheists are at a God they claim doesn’t exist. Ironic, isn’t it.

One more thing (I promise). Funny how a moral code that treats sex as precious and something that should be limited in its scope is “prudery”. Why is a moral system based on limits and fidelity inferior to yours base on . . . what exactly. If it feels good do it? For say 300 or 400 years atheists have not been able to come up with any kind of coherent moral philosophy other than utility, and who knows what the hell that is or where it starts or stops.

My point isn’t to debate this with you, but to argue how stupid atheists are when they mock a moral system rooted in thousands of years of human action and thought. You may not agree with biblical morality, but to dismiss it as you do is a reflection of a little mind with an even smaller heart.

BTW, I agree with you that many Christians are hung up and annoying. They are people for God’s sake! Your smug superiority doesn’t suit you.

Comment by Mike D from Near Chicato — November 9, 2007 @ 2:58 pm

“It’s interesting that what I believe is ‘superstition’ but what you
believe is all solid intellectual brilliance.”

That IS interesting. Funny, too.

Comment by Monte from Geek Creek — November 9, 2007 @ 7:00 pm

Your arrogance is so predictable.

Comment by Mike D — November 9, 2007 @ 7:36 pm

From Chris:

I wish the nice, friendly, reasonable 95% of Christians would have some balls and publicly declare “These whackos do not represent us:  You can be a good person without agreeing with us.” But instead they often act like apologists and tacitly endorse them.

So, what you are saying is that 5% of Christians are nutbags and the rest of us are spineless.  Kind of a sweeping statement there, my friend.

I, myself, am a Christian.  And I am one of those kindly sorts that you were almost complimentary about earlier in your comment:  friendly and consider my faith a personal issue.

And most Christians that I know do not associate themselves with the extremists and the like, nor endorse them...tacitly or otherwise.  We see a nutbag same as anyone else.

We also don’t necessarily feel the need to stand up on our chairs and scream out who is and is not one of “us”.  I guess we have a little faith that folks will be able to use some common sense and not make paint-brush judgements that we’re all the same.

I guess black folks like to think that people will have the same common sense when they see a black guy running down the street carrying a DVD player.

Comment by Bloggy from The Livingroom — November 9, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

“Your arrogance is so predictable.”

Indeed.  Would that I could exhibit the open-mindedness and objectivity that you display on your blog…

Huh. One could almost suggest that this in fact makes you something of a hypocrite.

Ah, but now we’re just talking in circles, aren’t we…

Comment by Monte from Geek Creek — November 9, 2007 @ 11:02 pm

Monte, now this is truly funny. And you are open-minded and objective? Ha, ha, ha. Who’s the hypocrite now. The circle is squared.

Comment by MIke D'Virgilio — November 11, 2007 @ 1:24 pm

Mike, I just pointed out that you’re a hypocrite for being like me. For you to then respond by pointing out that I’m a hypocrite...?

Come on, you’re a smart guy, you can do better than that.

Keep it fun, at the very least. That was just… I dunno… a tag-back, or something.

No tag-backs, Mike D’Virgilio! No tag-backs!

Comment by Monte from Geek Creek — November 11, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

“Thanks, ‘Person,’ your points are all fair and true; I should have noted everything above and maintained simply that those *moments* can be interpreted as affirmations for Atheists; you’re absolutely right about the overall philosophy of SIMPSONS, and even of Cave’s song. “

It looks like we’re in agreement then.  Great article.

“One atheist that I do respect is a gentleman named Theodore Dalrymple. He has a tremendous article in the City Journal http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html about just this .....

It’s interesting that what I believe is “superstition” but what you believe is all solid intellectual brilliance. I can appreciate how difficult it is to believe in a God at times, but people like you seem to never appreciate how difficult it is to NOT believe in a God. Atheism is a huge leap of faith, can’t be proven, and I have never seen it defended in any rational and coherent way. For such claims of cool and disinterested rationality, atheists always seem so pissed off. You may have left yours behind, but it all starts there. How angry so many atheists are at a God they claim doesn’t exist. Ironic, isn’t it.”

To be honest, I don’t believe this atheist has actually thought the issues through very far.  He’s given away far too much ground to superstition.

He seems to be equating an unproven atheist belief with an unproven belief in God.  This is a very faulty comparison.  Put it this way: it is my personal and strongly held belief that the world was created by a giant purple octopus and his army of amoeba.  There is as much evidence to support this as there is to support the existence of God.  Can you prove that this octopus-god doesn’t exist?  Well, no.  It’s impossible.  It’s even more impossible if, like Christians, I defined my octopus in such a way that he can’t be proven. 
Does any of this mean that my belief in the octopus-God and his amoeba is rational?  No, of course not.  So quit with the ‘atheism is a leap of faith’ nonsense.

(Note: this is a reasoned argument.  Try coming up with a response rather than just labelling me smug.  I think the truth is that both many religious people and many atheists are smug about their belief).

“Funny how a moral code that treats sex as precious and something that should be limited in its scope is “prudery”. Why is a moral system based on limits and fidelity inferior to yours base on . . . what exactly. If it feels good do it? For say 300 or 400 years atheists have not been able to come up with any kind of coherent moral philosophy other than utility, and who knows what the hell that is or where it starts or stops. “

What exactly?  Try either Kant’s categorical imperatives or utilitarianism if you want a coherent secular moral system.  I’m a utilitarian personally and your post leads me to suspect you don’t actually understand utilitarianism.  It’s not just based on your own happiness (’it feels good’); it’s based on the overall happiness of everybody in the world.  And it incorporates so-called higher or noble things that you Christians are all for: love and all that jazz.  Frankly, I think it’s a whole lot more coherent that ‘my non-existent God told me so’ which is not only irrational but cowardly.

“My point isn’t to debate this with you, but to argue how stupid atheists are when they mock a moral system rooted in thousands of years of human action and thought. You may not agree with biblical morality, but to dismiss it as you do is a reflection of a little mind with an even smaller heart.”

I just have to point out how delightful it is taht a post that began with criticising atheists for smugness ends by saying that anyone who disagrees with your own (poorly thought-through) system of morality is cold and intellectually challenged.  Couldn’t we say the same?  ‘You may not agree with atheist systems of morality but to dismiss it as you do is a relfection of blah blah blah incoherent babble’

And, by the way, your argument seems to be that ‘it’s very old and therefore it deserves respect’.  Greek pantheism is a whole lot older; I guess we should all start following their moral code.  In fact, following your brilliant reasoning, I intend to become a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Christian and Zoroastrian all at once.  (Oh and atheism has been around for a very long time too; you talk about it as if it’s some modern phehomenon).

Comment by Person — November 12, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

Gee Monte..your really brave taking on us Christians but please...show us your athiest guts by ridiculing islam, muhammed and islam!!

Come on...you can do it....I mean...your soooooo brave right....and since you probably in all your intelligence think all is morally relative, mocking muhammed and his marriage to a 6 year old girl should be easy pickin’s for a big brave guy like you!!

So come on....lets see that article making fun of Islam and muhammed...we know your a big brave guy....

From a mocking Darul Harbian!!

Comment by Dev — November 12, 2007 @ 11:50 pm

“Gee Monte..your really brave taking on us Christians but please...show us your athiest guts by ridiculing islam, muhammed and islam!!”

Son, it’s not about courage; if I’m in a restaurant eating my dinner and I see someone shi**ing his pants and I point it out, it’s not because I fancy myself a brave hero, it’s ‘cause, well, there’s someone with a load of poop in his pants.

You, son, are that someone.

Also, it’s y-o-u-’-r-e and a-t-h-e-i-s-t.

Comment by Monte — November 13, 2007 @ 12:26 am

Ahhhh...so glad I came back to this.

Now I can stick around and see if our big, tough atheist has the balls to ridicule islam, muhammed...and islam!!11!

I think he can.  Because he’s the athiest of them all.

And, well, just because the movie he watched didn’t involve islam, muhammed, OR islam shouldn’t stop him from ridiculing all of them.

Thank you, Dev, for making me feel proud to be a Christian and proving them wrong.  Those small-minded, argumentative, irrational nutbags.

Comment by Bloggy from Canada...and Canada. — November 13, 2007 @ 5:08 pm

“Ahhhh...so glad I came back to this.

Now I can stick around and see if our big, tough atheist has the balls to ridicule islam, muhammed...and islam!!11!

I think he can.  Because he’s the athiest of them all.

And, well, just because the movie he watched didn’t involve islam, muhammed, OR islam shouldn’t stop him from ridiculing all of them.

Thank you, Dev, for making me feel proud to be a Christian and proving them wrong.  Those small-minded, argumentative, irrational nutbags. “

Um, what, how did Dev prove any atheists wrong?  All he did was suggest that Monte ridicule Islam too.  Well, I’m happy to ridicule Islam.  Islam is just as big a pile of horse shit as Christianity is.  Both are based on irrational supersition and have absolutely no basis in observable fact.  Does that make you feel better, Bloggy?

I’m still quite lost on how you guys thought Islam was even relevant to this discussion.  You thought that because Monte said he was an atheist, he must be for Islam?  Or when you’re defending you’re religion, you just automatically jump to spurting out hatred against Islam?  Please enlighten us.

“Those small-minded, argumentative, irrational nutbags”

Genius!  I love the irony in attacking people for being argumentative, in the same sentence as describing them as ‘irrational nutbags’ who are ‘small-minded’.  It was a joke right?

If you want to feel proud to be a Christian, why don’t you give a coherent reason WHY you believe in god.  We atheists have given reasons why we don’t; why don’t you respond with something other than personally attacking us and an irrelevant attack on Islam.

Comment by Person — November 13, 2007 @ 7:31 pm

Genius!  I love the irony in attacking people for being argumentative, in the same sentence as describing them as ‘irrational nutbags’ who are ‘small-minded’.  It was a joke right?

You’re so close...so, so close.  If only you weren’t consumed by self-righeous disdain, I think you’d almost get it....keep strugglin’, little shaver.

Comment by Bloggy from Canada...and Canada still — November 14, 2007 @ 7:20 am