Open Discussion: So, Why IS Atheism Better Than Christianity?

Just avoid or **** out the profanities.

(Clarification: By atheism, I refer to liberal/humanist/naturalist/existentialist atheism that rejects all forms of supernaturalism and religion. By this definition, Buddhism is exempted.)

Uniting Atheists, Christians and Basically Everyone Else

From Digg.com:

Above comic modified from Dueling Analogs original which I covered before at this post.

This mockery is brought to you courtesy of the High Evil Alien Overlord Xenu, who uses such propaganda against the truth of Scientology to trap your inner thetans in your pathethic fleshling shells forever. Muahaha!

All frivolous lawsuits and clogging the tubes of teh Internets should therefore be directed towards him, thank you.

I am an A-atheist (Because Atheism is an Unproveable Faith)

Did you realize that someone who claims to be an atheist - one who does not believe in the existence of any gods - is outing himself as a hardcore believer by blind religious faith?

If you’re not sure, just ask him how he knows that God does not exist. To save time, here are the mutiple-choice answers he will probably pick from:

A) I don’t really know for sure.
B) I just know it.
C) I believe it and that’s what counts.
D) @#$% you, you brainwashed, opiate-of-the-masses addicted, fundamentalist bigot!!!

The point being, no atheist philosopher has ever actually disproven the existence of God. Logically and rationally, it is a patently impossible supposition.

Indeed, this is why most serious and scholarly hard skeptics of religion do not call themselves ‘atheist’ but rather agnostic – they know that it is impossible to prove that God does not exist, so they instead hold to the much less shaky claim that one cannot know for sure about God.

After all, how does one go about disproving the existence of God? You’d think that one of those oh-so-countless, oh-so-intelligent atheistic scientists would have attempted to do that by now.

This is because disproving the existence of God is totally different from disproving the existence of, say, unicorns. Or to be more exact, Planet Earth unicorns – as a creature fitting the description might by chance exist on some faraway planet in Alpha Centauri.

All one has to do is search the entire world’s habitats which are suitable for a land-bound, four-legged, grass-eating, not-heavily-furred mammal. And maybe all of those genetic tampering labs too.

Once that is accomplished, one can say that they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Planet Earth unicorns do not exist.

But the Christian definition of God is not that of some Earth-bound, fleshling creature. God is omnipresent and spirit – that is, God is everywhere and He is not a physical being.

So in order to prove that God does not exist, one would have to search out every habitat that God could ‘live’ in - namely, the whole entire universe.

So Mr. Atheist Scientist, you’ve searched all of Beta Quadrant? Well, God could still be hiding in Gamma Sector. Or maybe the Outer Rim galaxies. Or Dimension-X.

Are you done with that final star system yet? You’d better hurry up with checking the insides of those not-even-light-can-escape black holes, everyone knows God hates to lose a game of hide-go-seek.

Oh wait, did I forget to mention that God is spirit? You’d better invent something that can detect forms of energy never even theoreticized about before.

Um, maybe I shouldn’t bother you when you’re in such a bad mood… But did anyone tell you that God transcends the space, time and multiple dimensions He created in Genesis/The Big Bang?

So does this mean it is humanly impossible to prove that God does not exist somewhere out there in the vast, unexplored, ever-expanding universe? You betcha.

Therefore, since the atheist cannot PROVE that God does not exist, he merely BELIEVES BY FAITH that God does not actually exist.

Unless, of course, the atheist can simultaneously search all of time, space, reality, and existence outside of these things and thereby PROVE that God is nowhere to be found. But in order to do that, the atheist would have to be omnipotent and omnipresent – so the atheist would be god!

Congratulations atheists, welcome to the Club of Religion! Don’t worry about catching up to the older members on intolerance, persecution and religious war – your avowed atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot already beat them all by a hundred million victims!

And on a final note, if you protest that my logic is totally flawed – that the burden is not on you as an atheist to prove that God doesn’t exist, but rather is on me as a theist to prove God exists – then I have something to declare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am an a-atheist.

This is not to say that I do not believe in the existence of people called atheists. Rather, I do not believe that there is such as thing as ‘God not existing’.

And now, I as a a-atheist place the burden of proof on the atheists… To prove to me that God does not exist.

Knock yourselves out.

UPDATE: I have been corrected… Atheists can prove that God does not exist, because atheists are god!

While Moonbat Media Fiddlesticks It to Christians, The West Burns

Moonbats seem to be totally convinced that the greatest threat to modern civilization is the very same force that built Western society in the first place – the Christians.

They base their notions on the actions of the church in ancient and medieval history; on nuanced readings of the Bible; and on isolated incidents perpetuated by nutter extremists.

But perhaps the strongest factor causing this completely skewed, LSD-high-style delusion among Moonbats is the portrayal of Christians as the demented evil arch-nemeses of peace in the mainstream media (the only source of knowledge for many armchair-rooted Moonbats).

Liberal media personalities like Kathy Griffin , Rosie O’Donnell and even Good Morning America regularly demonstrate their myopic hatred of Christians on air. (Ironically, Christian preachers who use the same kind of strong language against homosexuals would be denounced as hateful bigots.)

Recent cinema films are replete with portrayals of Christians as insane, Bible thumping murderers, such as Mrs Carmody in Stephen King’s The Mist; Silas and his masters in The Da Vinci Code; and God Himself along with the entire church in The Golden Compass.

Primetime serials join in, portraying Christians as hypocritical sexual perverts who stone people to death in their secret club and cover up the crime with a fake aura of holiness. Yes, I’m sure this happens as often as mugging murders. And then they top it off by showing how Christians like to behead Muslims. Oh yeah, totally not vice versa. (Meanwhile, 24 gets flak for trying to realistically portray actual world events. And oh, there are groups who actually DO stone people to death today.)

Even comic books are in on the Christian bashing. In the latest story arc of the X-Men, an earlier recurring main villian returns in the form of a Christian neo-fascist hate group led by a tele-evangelist style Reverend who is fanatically devoted to murdering all mutants. (With nary a mention of Christians who support peace, compassion and love – you know, like Jesus taught in the Bible that Moonbats have neevr peeked inside of but love to denounce?)

And public education in schools is not spared. Does anyone remember exactly who invaded that school in Beslan with guns and suicide explosive vests, took the children hostage for days, sexually abused the preteen girls, and eventually killed hundreds? According to this school exercise, it was probably churchgoers and they’ll do it again in America.

Yes, in the unreal fantasies of Moonbats, Christians really are the world’s worst people.

But while their noses are buried in skewed academia, fabulist entertainment and their own smugness, Moonbats neglect to watch the real-world news to find out what is REALLY happening in the world around them, today.

Are those Christians atacking police, rioting and burning cars? Are those evangelical pastors calling for a total war on all nonbelievers? Are those Bible Belt churches inciting and training people to go out and kidnap, bomb and behead Westerners?

You liberals believe that Christian fundamentalists could one day, possibly-perhaps-maybe-might-could-potentially intend to impose fascistic theological law, persecute atheists and homosexuals, treat women as chattel and cattle, and turn back the clock to the Dark Ages.

Well let me ‘enlightenment’ you about a fact: Proper educated Christians haven’t done that in centuries, and will likely not do it in the present or the future… But there are others groups who actively and violently attack freedom, nonbelievers, homosexuals and women every single day, RIGHT NOW, THIS VERY MINUTE.

And you atheists, who take such pride in your logic – I suggest you use it, and consider how many Christians REALLY take those out-of-context, seemingly violent Bible verses as their sole guiding vision. As opposed to other groups who are actively carrying out the specific, direct and literal violent commands in their holy texts, even as you are reading this blog post.

So go ahead and keep bashing Christians in the media and all over the Net. Someone else is even now gearing up to attack you haraam liberals and kaffir atheists.

And trust me: They are certainly not as stereotypically nice as your much-smeared Christians, nor will they use only words and logic to make their scimitar-point to you.

A Simple Example of Relative Morality

Liberal Atheist: It is wrong to condemn homosexuality as sinful and unnatural!

Conservative: Why is it wrong? My church says it is the right thing to do.

Liberal Atheist: Your church’s backward cultural background has skewed your perception. It is clear that condemning people’s lifestyle choices is ethically wrong and immoral from an absolute standpoint.

Conservative: But what about condemning my opinions? What about my right to free speech?

Liberal Atheist: Look, it is clearly wrong to hold bigoted opinions like yours.

Conservative: And where did you get your convictions from? Would it happen to be your culture?

Liberal Atheist: Maybe so. But my convictions are correct!

Conservative: I can claim that mine are too. What makes your culture automatically any more correct? Aren’t all cultures ‘equal’ according to your own multicultural tolerance and political correctness?

Liberal Atheist: Fine. You have a right to your own interpretation, but you are wrong.

Conservative: 2 billion Communists say I am right. Most Christian groups say I am right. Muslims say I am right too. Those two groups add around another 2 billion. And most of the traditional societies across the world, even today. That’s a few dozen to your one. Your culture seems to be the odd one out, and therefore likely wrong.

Liberal Atheist: My culture is far superior to those backward ones!

Conservative: So you’re saying that, based on your opinion and nothing else, you are correct and I am wrong?

Liberal Atheist: I know you are wrong.

Conservative: How?

Liberal Atheist: Because the conscience I have tells me so. I can feel that your bigoted views are wrong!

Conservative: Well, my conscience tells me the opposite. I can feel it too. What criteria makes your opinion or ‘feeling’ any more correct or inassailable than mine? Let me just ask you, aren’t you a human just like me? Just a product of random evolution, as you like to claim?

Liberal Atheist: Yes.

Conservative: Then what makes you any superior to me… Are you a higher life form with superior DNA, Mr. Magneto?

Liberal Atheist: Lay off the sarcasm! You get your so-called morals from an obsolete book of religious myths and lies.

Conservative: And where do you get yours? From your own reading and talks with like-minded peers?

Liberal Atheist: Yes. From debating and weighing the issues based on naturalistic and atheistic principles – not on the rantings of some ancient scam artists, that you were dogmatically indoctrinated in as a child during Sunday School brainwashings.

Conservative: Naturalistic and atheistic? That is to say, the culture that you grew up in, were indoctrinated in and adopted the dogma of?

Liberal Atheist: Well… It’s a logical and progressive mindset that…

Conservative: So why is your culture automatically more correct than mine? What absolute standard are you judging our cultures by?

Liberal Atheist: Um… It’s correct because… Of advances in ethical theory…

Conservative: And that, you see, is the problem with not having an absolute standard to judge by. Religious nuts like me at least can claim to mindlessly obey an infinite God who chose the rules – regardless of the everchanging culture or human opinion of the time. We can’t modify the rules of morality He made, any more than we can defy the rules of physics He also made. Our opinions or cultural beliefs have no say in changing these absolute laws.

Liberal Atheist: That’s tyrannical.

Conservative: As for you, you have no right to judge that your culture’s moral opinions are any better than the opinions of Christians, Muslims, traditional societies or… Me! The standards of relative morality have changed over time according to which cultural norms are in place. I ask you, wasn’t homosexuality considered a travesty in the past?

Liberal Atheist: Yes, but that was because they were unenlightened! They also considered women and blacks inferior.

Conservative: I agree that they were wrong to discriminate based on gender or race. So the cultural opinions of the past are wrong and your cultural opinions today are correct?

Liberal Atheist: Yes, exactly! We have finally reached the stage where we can be ethically fair and unbiased. Totally unbigoted!

Conservative: But isn’t that a supremely arrogant assumption? Isn’t that probably exactly what the ancient cultures thought of themselves?

Liberal Atheist: But they were obviously wrong…

Conservative: I mean, we haven’t gone all the way yet on the personal freedoms scale. We’ve granted women, blacks and gays equal rights, but what about the other people who are still rejected by society at large? Let me ask you, how about incest? Why do you continue to discriminate against incestuous relationships, if you’re so ‘enligtened’ and ‘freedom loving’?

Liberal Atheist: How uneducated and ignorant are you? Incest results in birth defects due to the closely related genes! It is for humanitarian reasons that we consider incest to be morally wrong.

Conservative: Ah, but it seems that you are the uneducated and ignorant one here. Research shows that children born from incestuous relationships are only about as likely to have birth defects as those born from 40-year old women. Are you going to ban middle aged women from having children too, on ‘humanitarian’ grounds?

Liberal Atheist: Well… There’s the emotional abuse of power issue if it’s between a parent and a child…

Conservative: I’ll cut both that argument and the previous  one about birth defects short. What about two adult, similar-aged siblings of the same gender engaging in incest, hm? Can you condemn that on any valid grounds? That avoids any pregnancy or power abuse issues.

Liberal Atheist: I suppose that I can’t. Let them have it their way then, if they’re both mature and willing individuals.

Conservative: And yet, even liberals balk at the idea of incest – even if they have no humanist basis for rejecting it. Isn’t that discrimination against sexual choices right there?

Liberal Atheist: Okay, so fine. Modern society is not perfectly fair and unbiased yet – but it eventually will be! Whereas religious dogma like yours is static and stubborn with its so-called ‘absolute’ morals handed down by some imaginary being to some charlatan thousands of years ago! At least we can evolve – your ancient beliefs will eventually die out.

Conservative: All right, I’ll give you that religion’s absolute morals are incapable of ‘evolving’. But is that a bad thing? Can you tell me, by your standards, what is wrong with bestiality? Won’t society ‘progress’ to the point where one day, sex with animals is considered an inassailable human right? And the culture of the future will condemn today’s culture for persecuting zoophiliacs.

Liberal Atheist: Your argument is totally flawed, as animals cannot make concious decisions – any more than a child can. What, are you going to support paedophilia next?

Conservative: But that’s just the level of research so far… In the future, what if they find that dogs or chimpanzees or dolphins are sentient enough to consent to sex with humans in a way that is not controlled solely by instinct? A concious decision? Then wouldn’t it be wrong to deny them the free choice to have sex with willing humans?

Liberal Atheist: You’re nuts. Sick and disgusting.

Conservative: And your culture will be considered backwards and unenlightened. Whereas, even a thousand years from now, religious believers like me will still say: “It is wrong to have sex with animals, because God says so!” It won’t matter to us what the prevailing culture is like, or how much it condemns or assails us – bestiality will be as detestable in our sight as it has been for three thousand years. And we won’t give a Moonbat’s a$$ what the day’s fad culture says about us. Just like we don’t now.

Liberal Atheist: Cuh! I can see that, you fundie bigot.

Conservative: Your culture is fleeting, your opinions finite. And so are mine – so neither of us has any absolute advantage over the other. But God’s will is forever and His opinions infinite. They are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. And even if those are just my opinions, by the standards of relative morality no one can say I am definitely wrong. Least of all you.

——————-

See also this satire for the logical conclusion of relative morality.

From Diversity Lane:

Tears in Heaven – Atheist Despair Version

Here are the lyrics to my atheist-oblivion-of-nonexistence-after-death rewrite of Eric Clapton’s classic, Tears in Heaven (original lyrics here, Youtube here).

Remember to imagine the original song’s context of losing your young child, but sing this version without the hope and joy of one day meeting again in (atheist pooh-poohed) heaven.

——————————————

Tears in Oblivion

You won’t know my name
I don’t believe in heaven
Things won’t be the same
‘Cause there’s only oblivion

Religion’s wrong
Farewell, so long
‘Cause you know that I just long
For oblivion

You won’t hold my hand
‘Cause we won’t be existing 
You won’t help me stand
We won’t know what we’re missing

No joy above
No long lost loves
There’s no faith, hope or love
In oblivion

Atheists have no hope
In life after death (~ooo)
Once you die you’re gone
And then that is that, that is that~

[Sentimental guitar bridge]

Beyond the door
It’s blank I’m sure
And I know I’ll be no more
In oblivion

Life’s a short, sad game
Atheists just despise heaven
Even though it’s lame
Atheists prefer oblivion

Hope that we’re right
‘Cause Hell’s a fright
And that’s why all atheists fight
For oblivion

Now just watch the atheists fight
For oblivion

——————————————

If atheism is correct, then life is just a rollercoaster of suffering and despair, ending in an oblivion of non-existence. But at least it won’t matter to us, since we won’t exist anymore.

IF.

See also another cover song, Anything Goes – Modern Moonbats Version.

Communism = Atheism = Relative Morality

Above by Michael Ramirez of Investor’s Business Daily, 26 June 2007

Above by Red Planet Cartoons. The bearded guy so prevalent on shirts is the same one who said: “If the nuclear missiles had remained we would have fired them against the heart of the U.S. including New York City. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.”

    

Above via Moonbattery. 

How many million? One hundred million. A breakdown here.

If you want some gruesome photographic evidence of the above massacres: Here at Moonbattery. 

Links regarding Communist-sponsored mass murder: This comment.

The following statements will be offensive to some, and the line of reasoning may be challenged. But I find the logic to be whole.

Communists are de facto atheists. Atheists believe that there is no God – no higher power per se.

If there is no higher power, morals and ethics are determined by man himself. Where there is no God, man makes himself god.

Therefore, morals become relative to the situation. There is no absolute definition of right or wrong – it depends on the viewer, the culture or the majority decision.

The killing of millions therefore cannot be condemned as ‘fundamentally immoral’ if there is no fundamental on which to base a definition of wrong.

If survival of the species is the determinant in a genetic code of morals, then it can be argued that killing 10 million humans is moral if it preserves the life of 100 million humans.

And if there are no longer any morals to offer restraint, then the monster within will be freely unleashed… Like in the case of that most famous of revolutionary poster-boys, Che kill-everyone-out-of-insurgent-hate Guevara.

Similarly, if homosexuality is not considered immoral, there are no moral arguments against bestiality.

If both the human and the animal willingly participate in sex and enjoy it, what protest can be made? That it is unnatural or non-procreative? The same can be also said of homosexuality.

Yet you will be hard pressed to find openly professing supporters of zoophilia, even among PFLAG and other LGBT groups. Is bestiality not yet a socially acceptable lifestyle?

Judging by such standards, I guess certain European nations where animal kinkiness, prostitution, drugs and euthanasia are legal are more advanced civilizations than America.

In conclusion, this is what I am getting at: It is not that atheism is by definition immoral. It is that by definition, atheism cannot have absolute morals, only situation-relative ones.

Right and wrong are no longer set in stone, but always in flux.

See also my post Morality: Of Absolutes and Relatives.