Inane theist du jour
I usually don’t bother with the various anti-atheist tirades I encounter during my daily perusal of the Web, but I was specifically linked to this one over Twitter, so I figured I might as well give it a crack. As usual, this “report” by fundy Miss Raissa/God’s Daughter, titled “Atheism:The lie of the century Pt. 1”, is no more than the usual collection of thoroughly debunked and self-defeating canards and smears, so it truly doesn’t merit much more than a half-assed fisking, something I’m always happy to present.
The piece starts by jumping right into Miss Raissa’s “conclusions” about atheism:
It’s beyond obvious that atheism is a lie that was created by rebels who felt they were superior to God. I have spent quite some time studying atheism and I have learned quite a few things. First and foremost atheism is simply willful rebellion against God. After speaking to quite a few atheists I have come to conclusion that the majority of them always sound very angry, although they claim their anger is not directed towards God, I have every reason to believe otherwise.
You’d better get used to this sort of snotty tone; the entire thing is essentially one long (though mercifully, not too long) continuation of the same theme, which all basically boils down to: “I did my research (ie. I read a bunch of lie-peddling fundy websites), talked with some atheists (ie. twisted their words through the prism of my obtuse little mind) and concluded (without any hint of logic or self-awareness) that atheism is a lie.” (Despite the fact that atheism is a belief, not a claim, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves, here.)
The repeated claims have long ago become tiresome to address in detail, so to be brief: A) Atheism stems from long before Christianity; B) atheists can’t “rebel” against something they don’t believe exists (or even actively believe doesn’t exist – yes, Miss Raissa, there’s a difference); C) atheists are no more or less angry than anyone else regularly confronted with this kind of prejudicial stupidity on a more-than-regular basis; and D) atheists aren’t angry at God, but at the concept, the idea, of God, as it is upheld and brandished by zealots who so very often commit heinous acts because of it.
Oh, and don’t worry, honey, I’m not angry at all at the moment. No, honestly. This is how normal people sound when describing something moronic. :)
Stereotypically enough, Miss Raissa then blithely takes on that favorite anti-atheist talking point, Darwin and Evolutionary Theory, in perfectly typical fashion:
Now I would like to expatiate regarding a certain man called Charles Darwin, who is known as the founder of the “theory” of evolution. It has come to my attention that many believe that Darwin was an atheist when in fact he was a Christian man who came from a highly religious family. During his adulthood be began to question certain Christian concepts, which eventually weakened his faith. During that period of time he proposed the theory of evolution, and ever since then atheists have used it against Christianity. Darwin himself was never an enemy of the Christian faith neither did he propose his theory to destroy the Christian faith or discredit it. It’s those who hated the Christian faith who deliberately used his theory to advance their agendas.
Once again, quickly now: A) Your sarcastiquotes around ‘theory’ (missing uppercase ‘T’, by the way) clearly show how you have no idea what you’re talking about right from the start (hint: a scientific theory is not the same as a random guess); B) Darwin was an agnostic (which is a “mild” form of atheism), contrary to the persistent Christian lie(s); C) no-one’s ever claimed Darwin went on a crusade against the Christian faith; D) saying that the ToE discredits central Christian precepts such as Creationism is not “advancing an agenda” but simply stating the plain and obvious truth.
(Still not angry!)
We now move into atheists’ supposed immorality (cuz they don’t believe in God, and he’s the sole harbinger of right and wrong, dontchya know):
I have also noticed that atheists claim to be moral but how is that possible if they do not believe in God, considering the fact that morality comes from God. I have spoken to many atheists who claim morality does not come from God, stating it comes from society. Now allow me to ask these questions; how did human beings know the difference between right and wrong? Who taught human beings that murder, stealing, lying, adultery, were wrong? Who set the standards for morality if not God? After examining all these questions I came to conclusion that it’s impossible to be moral without God.
A) Morality does not come from God or any singular ideology; B) no, our subjective and malleable ethics come from society, but morality itself is ingrained into our biology through evolution; C) humans alone figured out that killing and hurting each other only harmed our chances at survival rather than helped them, hence why we realized they were wrong; D) there are no “standards of morality”, except whatever is dictated as acceptable behaviors by whichever society you happen to live in at the moment; and E) if we couldn’t be moral without God, then atheists would be the most violent, murdering, raping, burglarizing bunch of hedonistic thugs out there. Turns out, we ain’t.
(Nope, still totally cool.)
Another topic Miss Raissa wants to argue is, of course, abortion (despite the fact that there are plenty of anti-abortion atheists – godlessness is not a solely leftist concept, you know):
Let’s move forward to abortion, I have spoken to many atheists regarding this issue and I was shocked to see how they speak of the fetus as if it were a parasite. Abortion is clearly immoral but in the eyes of atheists the fetus is not a human being thus making the removal of the fetus acceptable. Atheists claim religion is responsible for the majority of deaths and violence the world has experienced over the years but isn’t abortion which is also known as “the atheist holocaust” responsible of the death of millions of defenseless children. Atheists are doing everything they can to destroy religion claiming it causes unnecessary deaths and violence, yet they support abortion which kills defenseless children. This sounds very hypocritical if you ask me.
Dear noodly FSM, this is starting to sound like a poe. But, to persevere: A) Fetuses are human only in that they have the homo sapiens DNA, which does not make them people, no more than a rock with human DNA sprinkled on it doesn’t turn it into a newborn child; B) the fetus is a parasite (an organism that lives off another), and therefore, it is entirely under the host’s (mother’s) control; C) “atheist holocaust”? Seriously?; D) fetuses cannot and do not feel pain, ergo, destroying them literally doesn’t hurt them; and E) atheists are not trying to “destroy religion”, but simply encouraging people to think for themselves and, therefore, abandon god-belief. (How would one go about “destroying” a belief, anyway? Any specific brand of hammers to recommend?)
(Okay, I admit, that “atheist holocaust” bullshit had me reaching for some really mean words for a moment, but overall, still perfectly non-angry.)
Anyway, to end her little exposé, Miss Raissa announces that she recently met someone who claims to be an ex-atheist and will shortly be posting a sort of little interview with him on her site. Sadly, I will have long since forgotten about her inane and barely coherent blog by then, so I’m afraid any further development in her anti-atheist spewing shall go un-excoriated, at least on this blog.
On the other hand, though, my fellow godless heathens are truly making me proud in her post’s comments section in politely informing her just how ignorant she is. Fly, my pretties, fly!
(See? I’m quite mellow, even cheery. Even if it’s out of schadenfreude.)