Cross-post from Mariano, over at the Atheism is Dead Blog:-
While atheists worldwide have wasted money on themselves rather than helping people in need during a time of recession by donating money for bus ads and billboards (which I dissected here) two are in view: “No God? …No Problem!” and “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”.
Let us see if we can manage to connect some of the dots:
1) Certain celebrity atheists have taken it upon themselves to declare that parents who teach their very own children their very own faith are “child abusers.” This refers to the overwhelming majority of all people who have ever lived by a very, very, very wide margin. I have personally experienced this unpleasantly in person.
2) The atheists-celebs have admitted that they want to interrupt such families, that they want society to step in, that they want children to choose no religion at all, that they write atheist propaganda in the guise of fictional books for children, they teach promote atheism in the guise of “evolution” and “science.”
3) Now they are attempting to piggy back on the United Nations in spreading their condemnations far and wide.
4) The adherents of the atheists-celebs promulgate such goals by donating vast amounts of money to purchase bus ads and billboards (not counting endless articles, posts, essays, comments, etc.). They are either not aware of the underlying and admitted intention or, when made aware of it, ignore it and continue their cult of personality worship undisturbed.
If you can be good without God then, get around to it already as studied consistently show that atheist and agnostics are amongst the least charitable, least sociable and lest moral amongst us.
This latest round of anti-“religion” and pro-converting children to atheism ads has brought with it very troubling examples of atheists who are very zealous for pushing their beliefs on everyone.
Three militant comments across which I have run, with relation to their views on anything non-atheistic, are:
[in response to the statement] “Children are born without the knowledge of there being a god…” Right, and we should be working to keep it that way, if only to spare this planet.
my passion when it comes to seeking to abolish legendary thinking from the face of the earth
Surely, we need to combat this kind of thing the right way
Passion, abolish, combat, keep children atheists, to spare the planet; this is pure militancy. The issue is that these are not statements from the New Atheist celebs who at least stand to make their living by expressing their emotive belligerence and seek to gain a following by instigating prejudice. These are statements made to me via comment section by John and Jane Doe, by your friendly neighborhood atheists who have nothing to gain—except seeing the ultimate triumph of atheism over all.
It is more frightening to me that good old fashioned nobodys would be so very militant than when the celebs engage upon this sort of all hail atheism! activism. I am also painfully aware that these three statements are mere drops in the bucket, a very, very large bucket, and surely many of you are thinking, “That’s nothing! You should read this, and this, and this, and this…” Also, I am sure that many of you are thinking that you could quote “religious” people who are equally zealous. True enough. 1) this would be granting my point by not denying it, 2) this would show that these supposedly erudite in all things atheists are just as mindless, zealous and emotive and 3) would demonstrate that rejecting “religion” and God are of no benefit.
As it has been stated, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and this latest promulgation of propaganda has also brought about picture perfect examples of certain atheist who have fallen for one of the atheistic consoling delusions: the delusion of being more erudite than thou. They loudly and proudly display their illogicality and lack of knowledge of that which they seek to critique.
Someone wrote this to me (off-blog) and they are clearly ignoring the evidence and blindly marching on:
I think when church groups put malicious Bible quotes on the sides of buses, that sort of counts as propaganda too. It just so happens that theirs is based on a dubious source written by a succession of lunatics.
If that’s Pullman’s true aim, then I’m right behind him. These religions themselves are not based on anything but the attempt to bring communities together under a set of laws. That religious faith still exists to this day is a sad reflection of humanity’s unwillingness to step into the light by themselves.
And if those bus ads helped one person see that light, or feel less guilty about not believing in a god, or make just one person able to say to themselves or others ‘yes, I AM an atheist’ then I would argue that they did serve a “material need.”
As for the charge that we are ignorant, well… again, there are many reasons not to believe in a god. Personally, I see the world and can’t see any need for a god to explain anything about it. Then I look at the various ‘holy books’ and can see nothing but rhetoric and drama. They truly are evil books in many ways.
Arrogant? It’s arrogant to think that the creator of the Universe personally loves you and cares about what happens to you. It’s arrogant to think it personally moulded you, and our little planet. Believing that the Universe doesn’t care about us and that we came about through the flawed process of evolution isn’t arrogant. Trying to spread an enlightened message that people can be good without god isn’t arrogant. Trying to show people that they don’t owe loyalty to a non-existent tyrannical king isn’t arrogance, it is a message that needs to be heard.
I responded thusly,
Thanks for your thoughts.
You admit that they are propagandizing—good, one less thing to discuss.
That you support the weaving of atheist propaganda into children’s books affirms my point that they are not out to liberate children but to stand between them and their parents in order to convert them to atheism—good, one less thing to discuss.
That you view atheism (of which sect, by the way?) as an enlightening “step into the light…see that light” is indicative of Nietzsche’s prediction of the atheist spirituality which was to come.
I am not certain how it fills a “material need” to affirm one’s atheism (again, which sect?) I referenced true, real world recession.
I did not claim that atheists in general are ignorant. I was contextually referring to the ad conceivers and Dawkins, Pullman, Dennett, etc. as they do not know, consider or admit that there are culturally based reasons for referring to, for example, as “Jewish child” and then, after a bar/bat mitzvah, there are religious/theological reasons. Same with Confirmation, etc.
If it is true that the creator of the Universe personally loves you and cares about what happens to you, that it personally molded you, and our little planet then it is not arrogant but fact.
But again you are making an uncontextual remark as my reference to arrogance was not to your arrogant claim to know that “the Universe doesn’t care about us…” but to the fact that the propagandists want to step between “religious” parents and children and that they refer to such parents as “child abusers.”
Lastly, I am not aware of an argument to the affect that people cannot be good without God, maybe some people say that, I for one do not, I believe this to be a straw man.
I wonder upon what you condemn anything as “evil.”
All of your arguments from personal incredulity which you spike with emotive arguments from outrage notwithstanding.
Another person wrote me this (also off-blog):
Where I have said that I disagree with slogans on buses, it comes from a view that sees as in plain poor taste – somewhat ‘beneath’ the sober perspective that can be had from a good scientific and philosophical ground.
I wholly agree that labelling children, muslim, protestant, or whatever is very, very, wrong indeed – and it does happen.
In Northern Ireland, where I am from, children really do grow up on one side of the divide that religious factions create ‘regardless’ of any intrinsic knowledge of the concomitant religion. People engage in grouping very quickly, and emulate their parents etc
There are though, other more worrying states of play where children are indeed sat down, at the age of five (such as myself) and told emotionally loaded stories about why it is good become christian (for example), often followed with a little prayer of commitment to a blackness that lies behind the eyelids.
Dawkins point is surely, contrary to what Mariano says, that children can indeed make a commitment to something which, yes, they do not have any real understanding of and which can provide a seat for the further parasitisation of religious ideals.
Surely, we need to combat this kind of thing the right way – education.
At any rate, I often giggle at the possible effect that the slogan “There probably is no God…” might have had on the person who hadn’t really given it much thought and then become a little concerned by the “probably” and gone on to adopt Pascal’s wager!
To this I responded:
Good and fine dear sir, you believe that labeling children as such “is very, very, wrong indeed.” Done. Now leave us alone.
I was raised by an atheist and an agnostic and was treated like pure trash when I rebelled against secularism. There is plenty of this to go around. What personages who concoct and support such ads are attempting to do, as I proved, is to stand between parents and children and attempt to convert children to atheism thereby, causing a one side against the other grouping.
There are also other more worrying states of play where children are indeed sat down, at the age of five and indeed thought their entire public school education where referencing God is illegal and told emotionally loaded stories about the entire universe and everything in it occurring uncaused and by accident, that we are nothing but glorified animals and that when we die we are simply annihilated—a blackness so all consuming that it is feared even by the blackness which lies behind the eyelids. They are taught that they are DNA reproducing machines, that there is no ultimate ethos and not ultimate justice. And on it goes.
As Dawkins has admitted and his adherents support, this time seeking to piggy back on the United Nations, that he is out to convert them.
Children can indeed make a commitment to something which, yes, they do not have any real understanding of and which can provide a seat for the further parasitisation of atheistic ideals.
I wonder if your point is that reasonable atheism, which is really agnosticism, is too soft for you and what you are proposing is a “faith” based believe in God’s non-existence.
These, again, are mere examples of quite a few pages worth of illogicality and the promulgation of misconceptions that I could provide.
Note the following,
Brian McClinton, of the Northern Ireland Humanist Association, is frustrated at what he calls the “wilful misunderstanding” of the campaign. “We’re not devil-worshippers.”[1]
Can we agree on this much; neither am I, neither is my wife and neither are my children.
[1] Fionola Meredith “Hey, preacher – leave those kids alone,” Irish Times, Nov 28, 2009
