Repetitive arguments had with those faithful to the antiquated myths of ancient Palestinian lore betray a direct ignorance of the subject matter in addition to a complex misunderstanding of related and opposing philosophies. Committed antitheists amongst us will shrug that statement off with a casual confirmation and ask what else would I expect from a group of people so wrapped up in Rapture prophecies, biblical plagues and various other magical hyperbole. The issue is a delicate one and the shattering revelations inherent in rhetoric aiming to crush religious belief is something to consider, but something even more contemptible is the lack of the other side’s ability to wrap their head around the opposing arguments.
It’s very easy to picture swarms of locusts terrorizing folkloric Egyptians as they stroll up and down the banks of the Nile, arms characteristically akimbo forming that ridiculous position so noted in their hieroglyphic pictograms. The concept of an eternal paradise is well within the understanding to even the most volatile skeptics. Fairy tales about dwelling inside large sea creatures, cataclysmic and genocidal deluges and even infanticide are easily reckoned within the walls of any atheist’s cranium.
Why then is it so difficult for many to consider that these obviously exaggerated tall tales are just that: affective stories potentially with an underlying moral. Perhaps not the great majority of Christian apologists, but at minimum, a significant portion believe the pages of the bible hold a guide to living evidenced through inerrant truths of history. This direct impugning of all things scientific, historical, archaeological and reasonable serves to pervert the minds of many who propagate their creeds directly into the ears of their offspring thus ensuring another generation of people skeptical of the facts and assured of untruth.
The barbaric texts of Christianity and Islam are so easily dismissed it’s inexplicable to this nonbeliever that anyone would accord them divinity. Some people will believe anything and the promise of blissful cloud-parties is enough to convince people to drink metaphorical (or literal, in some cases) 2000 year old wine-blood. These fallacious prizes assumed to come at the end of your walk on Earth are sufficient for some to suspend rational inquiry and commit themselves fully to something they themselves might think is probably not true. Conceptually, it is not difficult to understand why congregations of believers confess their menial sins and pray for the realization of their myths.
Oppositely, there seems to be limited (if any) effort accorded to the contradictory arguments of faith. Time after time, conversations with highly educated theologians and professors of biblical studies indicate an offensively misconstrued comprehension of atheism. The word atheism itself is anathematized to the point of semantic invective. Large percentages of Christian sycophants actively adhere to the same perspectives that have been handed down for centuries on most other topics, so why not continue with yet another wrongful interpretation.
The characterization of an atheist, to most believers, places them on the same shelf as heretics and Satanists. While it is true, certain blasphemies are commonplace in atheistic readings and discussions, the correlation is not as 1:1 as most believers feel in their grey matter. Understandably, atheism can be profanity to a believer. After all, an atheist is someone who not only repudiates the various allegories of holy text but has altogether abolished the existence of a personal god from their world. To a hearty believer, automatic preconceptions cloud what that means. If one does not authentically bow before the lord then wherever from do they derive their grace? If one does not accept Jesus as the son of god and the true messiah, than they must, in fact, be godless. Though atheists are godless, the words mean very different things depending on the company who is defining them.
Not all, but many Christians would axiomatically contend that a person of “no god” is a morally bankrupt sinner hellbent on instilling a world of pain and fear upon all. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth, but this is the type of incorrect mentality that is presupposed by a significant portion of confused believers. Discuss the concept of ‘no god’ with someone who has simply never considered that proposition and the conversation might be almost comical (to both parties)! This is the location of one of the major impasses in back and forth chatting between the partisan thought processes, both of which deserve a deep understanding from the opposite side.
Where the common believer sees a red-skinned prong-tailed ungulate, the atheist is free to group himself into whatever naturalistic artifice he desires to create for himself only after the ‘no god’ declaration is made. Secular humanist, naturalist, empiricist, or even a simple “unaffiliated” are common nomenclatures self-assigned by those who have broken free of religious slavery. Each of the mentioned can hold a specific and personal meaning for an individual. This is exceedingly tough to grasp for those who claim that their heart bleeds only for Christ and think kneeling and clasping their hands at random times on the seventh day ingratiates themselves unto the favor of a higher deity.
One can suppose this misunderstanding of atheist, combined with the various confounded inferences therein, must be maintained if the Christian elitist is to maintain their sovereignty on morality. To quantify the ‘godless’ as purely evil is a fantastic way to instill a culture of ignorance and uphold the countless prevarications necessary for the continuation of the religion itself. A similar mindset is present in those who would attempt to defraud scientific fact while elevating proven falsehoods. A specific example of this insidious attempt to cloak reality is obvious in this blog entry: (sadface). If you want to pull your hair out, please give it a read. If not, a summary will suffice. That particular entry is a sadistic effort to throw cold water on the studying of philosophy. Surely, the bible is enough! Essentially, the post discusses with candid authority on the topic, the possibility that if one chooses to study philosophy in college, upon graduation, one will not be able to land a lucrative position. It’s curious that a so-called believer would even be concerned with monetary gain, but that is an altogether different discussion. Perhaps the man writes with good intention, but more likely, he is attempting to undermine the inquisitive spirit of his fellow flock. There sure are dangers in the world of philosophy. Unless you go to a bible-bumping punchline of a university, studies of philosophy would invariable expose a student to the majesty of David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Freidrich Nietzsche, Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, Socrates, Darwin, Marx, Shelly, Freud and gasp, possibly even some as unquestionably evil as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.
This sick effort to pull the plug on philosophical contemplation by denying someone the poetic mastery and complex wisdom of intellectual giants is a sin of itself. To camouflage this plain deception in some form of financial advice delves into something far more subversive: it’s Unchristian. The writer should be ashamed of himself yet he holds himself as a beacon of Christian thinking (while presumably sticking to platforms of bigotry that have sadly come to define his religion).
This erroneous ideology about what atheism is, what it means and what it portends is rarely, if ever addressed among the congregations of the faithful. In the rare exception, when the concept of atheism is preached about from pompous pulpit, the concept is given the same label as the nihilists snarling in the face of all ideologies and purposefully committing deeds of evil sans an organized mental infrastructure. Instead the assemblies bury their noses and wits in the cantos of a book without an author, selectively cite whatever grouping of words suits them on that day and work assiduously to disburden themselves of reality and march backward with a perception of holy assurance.