Posted on 11/16/2010 10:21:55 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
Did you know that the English-speaking world is in the midst of an Atheistic revival? It is fueled by a small but widely celebrated group of authors and thinkers who call themselves “the Brights”, and who lecture, debate and write best-selling books which have a wide following among young college and University students.
These are not your father’s atheists either. They are articulate, impassioned, and effective at the use of the media, and the internet. The “new Atheists” believe that the old atheists were too tolerant of religion, and not aggressive enough in their attacks upon it. To them, religion is not benign it is a retrograde evil which society can no longer afford to tolerate.
They also insist that one doesn’t need God to be moral, and in fact they posit that morality without a fear of punishment or hope of reward is purer and more virtuous than that which is motivated by religion. “Be good for goodness sake” was the slogan put on atheistic advertising on public transport in London England.
The danger to beware of is not their arguments, which are not much different from the worn out , long discredited talking points of everyone from Voltaire, Hume, Nietzsche, down to the bitter village atheist of yesteryear. All have been and hopefully will be rebutted by Christian apologists for this generation.
The reason I say we should beware of them, is twofold; first because of their suave packaging and sophisticated use of multi media and internet. These people come across like they know what they are talking about.
Secondly, to put it bluntly, the youth for the most part, are all too ill-equipped to think through these specious arguments, and are proving to be vulnerable to these modern sophists. Frankly, the decay in standards of education, the shift from Logos centered thought, antithesis,logic, facts and reason, to consensus and image based education has left many open to these attacks at the University.
Shockingly it is almost a fad for young people raised in traditional christian homes to “come out as atheists” at university, and there are websites and you tube videos that teach them how best to “break it to their parents”.
There are popular you tube videos such as “What if I’m Wrong”, in which young people rationalise that if their choice to become an Atheist turns out to be wrong, they would still reject the christian God on philosophical and moral grounds, marshalling accusations against the God of the Bible, such as His command to slaughter Canaanites, or his statutes against homosexuality.
More shockingly, there is a video “blasphemy challenge” , in which students are offered a DVD of the Atheistic ‘documentary’, called THE GOD WHO WASN’T THERE, to anyone who makes a DVD of themselves “deconverting”- specifically calling upon them to “renounce the Holy Spirit!
Here is the challenge from the website :
The Rational Response Squad is giving away 1001 DVDs of ”The God Who Wasn’t There” the hit documentary that the Los Angeles Times calls “provocative — to put it mildly.”
There’s only one catch: We want your soul.
It’s simple. You record a short message damning yourself to Hell, you upload it to YouTube, and then the Rational Response Squad will send you a free The God Who Wasn’t There DVD. It’s that easy.
INSTRUCTIONS:You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: “I deny the Holy Spirit.”
Shocking, isn’t it? I am showing you this not to shock you but to alert you to the reality of the assault upon your children and the naive.
But furthermore I show this to also pull back the covers on the underlying spiritual essence of this movement. There is something more going on here tan just “free thought” and humanism. Here is the given reason for the specific instruction to “deny the Holy Spirit”, by the so-called “Rational Response squad”,
Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won’t forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you’re taking here.
The point is that this movement is spiritual in its essence. This is Satanic,it is an assault on the faith by the Father of lies, designed to blaspheme God and to damn souls. They have free rein on our campuses and places of higher learning. Unfortunately a good many young people are seeing these New Atheists as rock stars, they are emulating them mimicking their arguments, and renouncing their faith. Hopefully these reports will strengthen those who are tempted by this phenomenon, giving them arguments and the answers that have stood the test of countless similar attacks and accusations over the centuries. “Always be ready to give a reason for te hope you have in you with respect and gentleness”(I Peter 3:15) We will be looking next at the so-called “four Horsemen of the Atheistic revival, the Brights” as they call themselves, Christopher Hitchens , Sam Harris,Richard Dawkins, and the lesser known Daniel Dennit.
“The “new Atheists” believe that the old atheists were too tolerant of religion, and not aggressive enough in their attacks upon it.”
In other words, the “new Atheists” are going to make Hitler and Stalin look like pussy cats.
I would venture to say that the Golden Rule, which cuts across religions and cultures, might be a good start. And the Wiccan Rede: Do what thou wilt, an it harm none.
Articles(and some of the responses here) like this do more to drive people to Atheism and/or away from Christianity than Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or any other “New” Atheist (whoever they are) could ever dream of doing by themselves.
Please explain how an article like this could “send anyone into atheism”? I am truly curious
Actually they aren't. The new atheists are not nearly as intelligent or intellectually forceful as the old atheists. Russel, Hume and Flew were brilliant (but wrong) and used metaphysically consistent arguments strongly grounded in logic. The new atheists are nothing of the sort. Dawkins book makes clear that he has never been schooled in basic logic at all and virtually none of his conclusions follow from his premises. (and he doesn't even attempt to quantify his premises in the first place) His, and most of the other new athiests', arguments are nothing more than angry polemics against religion. Hitchens was beaten so badly when he debated William Lane Craig that he gave up and waived his closing statement, electing to just take questions where he could fall back on his glib sophistries in an vain attempt to win back the audience who had just watched him get stomped. This too will pass and it shouldn't take long at all.
I would also note ever since the Hitchens debacle Dawkins has pointedly refused to ever debate William Lane Craig. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why.
If they chose to obey the golden rule that would simply be their personal preference. Or they can chose Power, per Nietzche, and that would also be a personal preference. Neither one is better than the other, its simply a choice, and in the end who cares what the choice is as we all end up in oblivion anyway.
In any case, Athiests are responsible for the worst genocides of all time, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro etc. And that makes sense given that, in an Athiest world, anything goes to get the job done, and getting the job done is considered “good” and “moral.”
“They also insist that one doesn’t need God to be moral,”
Then who gets to decide? A Hitler? A Stalin? An Aztec?
The Self gets to be god and decide what is “good.” A truly satanic ideal that drives moral relativism. “Do As Thy Will.”
“The “new Atheists” believe that the old atheists were too tolerant of religion, and not aggressive enough in their attacks upon it.”
Gee how tolerant and diverse.
Ever have any sort of a math course beyond HS algebra?
Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" makes it clear that Dawkins is basically an idiot with a 180 IQ.
What? You mean you don't believe that somehow life sponaneously emerged from crystals? (no really...Dawkins actually said that in "Expelled")
The article makes a valid point: the new atheist activists are functionally evil. They are harming many people. Scientific studies of religious people have found a God advantage: religious people on average are more optimistic, happy, brave, confident, courageous, charitable, giving, and live longer more successful lives. They are more successful in sports, business, and importantly from a human evolutionary standpoint: tribal warfare. Atheists do not have this scientifically detectable God advantage. An evil motive in promoting their non-beliefs is envy. Envy doesn't seek to have what others have, but to destroy or deny a perceived good that others have. Envy is the evil core of modern leftism.
If scientists could detect the effects of a second moon orbiting Earth through tides and altered orbits but they could not scientifically find this moon in space, should they nuke its calculated location to get rid of the annoyance?
Gee how tolerant and diverse.
Indeed. Of course, here is some real tolerance being taught:
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. - Matthew 10:14 NIV - Part of Jesus' teaching the disciples how to preach the Word.
Funny how Jesus doesn't say to scream at people until they agree with you, nor does He force anyone to accept the faith. It all has to be a choice.
They might succeed in blowing up a teapot. :)
Read Sam Harris, who is opposed to using religion to set “morality.”
He cites islam and the fact it preaches so much violence to spread their word.
And he cites Catholicism for their protection of child molestation by priests.
He believes science is capable of discerning the best overall morality.
Does college statistics suffice?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.