I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.
A couple of other good titles for this article could be: “Let Us Rage Against the Unicorn” or “When Atheists Lie They Lie to Themselves (and They’re Always Lying)”.
You’ve got agnostics, who are like the potheads of the issue–“Hey man, whatever man”. And you’ve got the atheists, whose two tenets are: 1) “I don’t believe in God”; 2) “I hate God”. Christopher Hitchens described himself as an anti-theist, which meant that even if he acknowledged the existence of God he would still rebel against God. At least he was honest. And this is the funny thing about atheists: the outright rage against something they claim doesn’t exist. It doesn’t make sense. Look, I don’t believe in unicorns, but I’m not seething in anger against those monokeros bastards. I’m pushed to conclude that atheists know God enough to hate Him.
But, of course, the atheist would argue that he does not hate God; he hates Christianity, Christians, and Conservatives. He’ll blame war, human suffering, and intolerance on Christianity. “Remember the Crusades?!”
But when we judge the actions of people, we have to ask if their actions are in line with who they say they are and what they say they believe. A Catholic priest who molests young boys does not represent the heart of Christianity, he is a troll. Let’s use the crusades as an example. In the eleventh century, peace had been imposed by the church in Europe, which was supposed to stop the bloody feuds between competing lords and knights. It was not wholly successful. So when the Eastern Orthodox Church appealed to the European Pope for help in holding back the invading Muslim Turks, Pope Urban II saw a fortuitous occasion to rid Europe of its violent fighting men and to save the Holy Land from the Muslims. The crusaders sent south on those missions were like a bunch of Hell’s Angels bikers who had just completed a six month vow of alcoholic and sexual abstinence. They did not act Christ-like, they acted a lot more like…well, atheists. And the results were devastating, driving a deeper wedge between the Western and Eastern church, and fueling the misplaced rage of atheists for centuries to come.
Jesus said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.” If I want to convert a village to Christianity, I’m not going to recruit a bunch of 20 year old, single, male, atheists to do the job. And 30 years later, when the old village women lament to the atheist documentarian about all the half-breed children they had to raise by themselves, I would rightfully be criticized for being shortsighted in regards to my team selection, but no one could accuse Christianity for being the cause of the village’s distress simply on account of my ineptitude.
A lot of atheists attempt to take the moral high ground and describe themselves as being tolerant, loving, and a bunch of other self-righteous spew. At this time the atheist needs to be reminded that the word ‘atheist’ simply means to not believe in God, that’s it. There is no moral scheme attached to the word. And so, again, when the atheist gets moral, it’s just more fist shaking aimed at the vacant skies. As an example, when someone (atheist or not) says that gay marriage is all about individual happiness, I have to say, “But, if God created us male and female, then should we not strive to remain within those boundaries?” And the response is either, “There is no God, throw off your chains!” or “God is love, throw off your chains!” Both those responses are just unqualified created beings redefining that which was defined by the Creator. Not smart. “So there is no God, and all things can change and morph, and there are no boundaries? Great! Now excuse me while I try to impregnate this chihuahua.”
Consider Psalm 2…
Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”
“I will declare the decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”
Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction.” The second psalm is a no nonsense, ultimate, statement of reality, and if you’re opposed to it, you are on the wrong train.
God has created all things, and not just that, He has created all things to be something specific. Accepting that fact is freedom. A fish in the water is free. A rebellious fish out of the water is dead, and God laughs at it.
“If you ask why we should obey God, in the last resort the answer is, ‘I AM.’
To know God is to know that our obedience is due to Him.”
Further reading: Bestiality brothels are ‘spreading through Germany’ warns campaigner as abusers turn to sex with animals as ‘lifestyle choice’
8 thoughts on “When God Laughs He Laughs at Atheists”
Respectfully, you need to rethink your judgmental attitude in this case. You make a lot of assumptions and judgments about a group of people who do not share a common belief. Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour. An essay about Christians that lumped all forms of Christianity together would be almost as offensive. I don’t think of you in the same category as a RepubliChristian teabagger, but to argue that gay marriage will lead to bestiality puts you much closer to them.
I hope that you never lose your faith because you seem to think that without faith you cannot have morals. I would argue that controlling your baser urges only for a cosmic reward in the afterlife is, in fact, immoral. Some do good acts for godness’ sake, no god required. You say that the crusaders were barbaric and acted like atheists. huh? They were self-identifying christians acting on behalf of their church. You may be so overly sensitive to the “moral spewing” of outspoken atheist that you don’t recognize your own spew. I hear more spewing from christians than I have ever heard from atheists, but I guess we all tend to react less to things we agree with .Pray for atheists if you must but don’t judge what you so obviously don’t understand. Perhaps you should read Matthew 7:5
It’s true that this article is one-sided and general in its assumptions. I don’t deny that. But this piece is one of mockery. It was not my intention to write a “wet noodle” composition, rather something that hit hard (and maybe a little below the belt). Most of what I encounter with atheism I think is best addressed with mockery. I don’t feel sorry about that. A feel good, let’s all get along piece is ineffective and forgettable. My intention here is to throw some sand in the bed, not fluff up the pillows.
I never said atheism is a religion, that would be an assumption on your part. My argument is that atheism is nothing more than an irrational and foolish denial of God.
I do not imply one can not have morals without a belief in God. Morality is inherent in all people. I do think that atheists have no accounting for morality, no foundation for it.
I don’t suggest that anyone deny their urges for the sake of anything. I do, however, suggest that people confine those urges to the boundaries that God has set in place for them. When you use the term “baser urges”, I assume that you are referring to immoral urges. Our urges cease to be immoral when placed within God’s created boundaries.
I agree that the crusaders were self-identifying Christians acting on behalf of their church, and then that most of them went ahead and acted in total contradiction to what Christianity truly is. That’s the point I wanted to make when I said we need to judge people’s actions in accordance to what they say they believe, and see if the two match up. A Christian does have something to line up to. An atheist does not.
I wrote this article up, primarily, as an answer to atheist attacks on Christianity–stuff I read all to often online and in the media. And I don’t go out of my way to look for it. I realize that not all atheists think alike. But to write an article that suits all? Shoot, who’s got time for that?
I respect your opinion. I myself am not a hard line atheist but I wouldn’t say that the sentient of the atheist agenda is to attack religious organisation but instead to remove religious undertones where they shouldn’t be there. You seem like a reasonable guy who’s pissed off, and understandably so, about something which is deeply important to you. As for Christopher Hitchens he does say that anti theist really means that he would hate for there to be a God due to theological issues with omnipresence and the deterministic issues with free will. I happen to admire the guy myself but of course I’m biased. His anger is really over what is done in the name of religion not religion itself when it is a private thing in someone’s home. He has actually addressed morality and it is on youtube. I would love for you to watch that video because it is so against all the nihilism which is accused against atheists in a similar way. Your’re right in that not all atheists think the same way and we think the same of the religious. I admit that I really admire the poetry of the bible too and think that there are aspect of both sides which are overlooked.
I think there are various problems in your writing here; mainly to the extent that you *assume* much and then launch into your [clearly] very strong feelings on the matter.
“And you’ve got the atheists, whose two tenets are: 1) “I don’t believe in God”; 2) “I hate God”.”
There’s a huge problem here, for instance, right at the start– with both suggested tenets but particularly the latter.
Also, you mention the ‘Crusades’ as being a prime example of people’s outrage with Chritsianity (not an outrage exclusive to atheists, I might add) but for many it concerns the religion’s central tenets (inheriting sin, etc.).
Further, if not already familiar, you might find it interesting to read about the secular ethics that existed long before Christianity was born.
What I’ve written here is primarily in response to that which I’ve read coming from atheists. So, in that context, I assume nothing. If you are not one of these atheists, then please disregard the article. But since you’ve taken the time to respond, can I assume you are?
I agree that there was secular ethics and morality before Christianity, of course.
To defend the idea of inheriting sin, and so forth, would be a completely different article. Some atheists may find this idea the most offensive thing about Christianity, but for the majority of atheists I’ve read, it’s the crusades and the likes thereof.
You say there’s a huge problem with the two tenets I’ve listed, but you didn’t say what that problem is.
“If you are not one of these atheists, then please disregard the article. But since you’ve taken the time to respond, can I assume you are?”
Surely I can read an article on astronauts despite not being one myself! Or rightly comment that you would need a supply of oxygen to survive in space, despite not having been there!
The problem being that you’ve only identified two possible viewpoints; the second of which makes no sense at all. In fact, that’s not true: it does make sense but only to a culture that, for instance, already has a christian perspective as the established norm– perhaps America or Canada, for the sake of argument, which I suspect is where you are from.
My own stance, for instance, is that I have no idea what you’re trying to say when you ask something such as ‘Do you believe in God?’. I’d need to know everything about you, personally, and your cultural roots, to have any idea as to how to respond. This might be the product of having grown up in the UK, where, amongst young adults and the middle aged in any case, not having a religion is the norm and other people having a religion is considered unusual. I suppose that would make me an ‘atheist’ in your eyes, but I certainly wouldn’t ‘deny’ the existence of ‘god’ any more than I’d deny the existence of ‘grubilopila’ if someone asked me whether I believed in it or not. I’d make inquiries as to what it was, no doubt find the answer interesting, and then give my response. Inevitably, if it’s not something I’ve discovered for myself– object or concept– it clearly has no place in my life.
For someone to ‘hate’ god goes back to my comment earlier: This sounds as if it could only be the attitude of someone growing up in a society where ‘god’ is the norm, where it means something similar to the majority of the society, culture; enough similarity in any case that you could have a fluent conversation on the topic. I say this because it sounds as if this person would be rebelling against a position they previously held or the position of their society. Neither of which could apply to someone in my position, for instance.
You should also remember that when ‘atheism’ was first coined in ancient literature, it was used to refer to those societies who did not ‘have’ the gods, not, as you suggest here:
“At this time the atheist needs to be reminded that the word ‘atheist’ simply means to not believe in God, that’s it.”
ἄθεος, atheos, a-theos, WITHOUT-the gods. God-less. Certainly not ‘disbelieving’ in the Roman/Greek gods because… that’s the very point: they lived their lives without the gods. Hence, a-theos; without the gods.
D.L. Moody once said that when you throw a rock into a pack of stray dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.
I wrote in the article that I believe atheists know God enough to hate Him. That is my starting point. God has given all people enough revelation of Himself so that there is no excuse. And that is clearly true even in countries that have never been predominantly Christian.
Early Christians were called atheists because they denied that Caesar and other Roman gods were gods at all. When I use the term “atheist” in this article, I use it as it would be defined in a contemporary dictionary and as it would be used in popular media.
Here’s something I wrote up which might clarify my position a little more…