Evangelical atheists

Dinesh D’Souza wrote a terrific article about how Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.  Various materialists have been active in spreading their un-faith, but their reasoning is poor. 

A few observations about these rabid Darwinists who consider themselves Evangelical Atheists:

  • Ever notice how they focus nearly all their energy on Christianity?  When will their first missionary trip to Muslim countries begin?  Pack light, guys, because your trip won’t last long.  A one-way ticket is all you’ll need.  You’ll find out that Christians are much more tolerant than you thought.
  • The Crusades included a fair amount of non-Christian behavior, so I’m not sure how you can hold Jesus and his authentic followers accountable for them.  Plus, I have a firm rule about not taking responsibility for things that happened nearly one thousand years before I was born. 
  • They are completely blind or deliberately ignorant of the horrors of what their dream culture looked like in Communist China and Russia.  Those countries had pure atheism and the near-complete obliteration of religious life.  Other than the minor issue of nearly one hundred million people brutally murdered, it was a swell idea.   But that was Jesus’ fault, right? 
  • These atheists better hope we stay religious, because our faith is the only thing keeping us from beating them to a pulp.  (Just kidding!)
  • Aren’t they the ones so keen to keep religion and science separated?  Perhaps they should follow their own advice.  They are doing a bad job of pretending that their mission is just pro-science and not anti-religion.
  • If Darwin and these Materialists are right, then dominating weaker people and countries would be perfectly natural and acceptable.  
  • We actually have a fair amount in common with them.  They think Hinduism, Islam and other non-Christian religions are false, and so do we.  We just disagree about Christianity.

17 thoughts on “Evangelical atheists”

  1. “If Darwin and these Materialists are right, then dominating weaker people and countries would be perfectly natural and acceptable.”

    Darwin simply attempted to observe how the system of biology works- not how it should, or how other systems, political or social, should. I believe that evolution and consciousness go hand in hand and that humans have a special responsibility to create their own order _because_ they have free will. Obviously, other life forms and nature can’t be expected to create a rightful order since they don’t have free will.

    Interesting post, though. I particularly enjoyed your first and second point 😛


  2. The way you pit science against sky god is an insult to scientists the world over. Science is not a “side” to be on, but a pursuit of truth in the physical world, not a collection of stories like the bible or koran in which pseudo-history and myth merge to create a mythical deity that knows and sees all and being all-powerful. You may as well pit god against gravity, or religion against the light-bulb–which has a greater impact or your day-to-day life?

    Science has given us medicine, mathematics, pictures of the stars, cures for diseases and hopes to live with other diseases–apparently all god gave us was a fruit, complete with side-kick talking snake, that screwed us all. If we left pursuit of physical truth up to the religious, we’d still think our world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and that prayer would keep a volcano from erupting.

    As to your “points”:

    1. One could ask why all the fundie christians focus all their energy on the “unbelievers”? You can try to convert us to mythology, but we can’t convert you to facts and logic? What’s that?
    2. Perhaps you may want to do a little more research and a little less “disowning” of your religious history. Just because you don’t think they were Christians in the crusades doesn’t mean they weren’t “fighting for christ.”
    3. And despite your buying into “atheists aren’t patriotic” crap, almost none of us dream of a non-spiritual world–just one in which religious folk mind their own business so we can mind ours. Stop trying to push pseudo-sciences like “Intelligent Design” (philosophy masked as science) into our schools, and let the facts be taught as they are.
    4. Stay religious! I personally could care less if you believe a coconut and an almond got together to create life, or if the great sky god did it
    5. Either way, science isn’t in the business of trying to affirm or disaffirm your personal belief system whether you like to believe that or not–they simply test theories, confirm facts, and tell us the results. If you can’t make that jive with sky god, that’s your issue, not ours.
    6. “Dominating weaker people” was never a theory of Darwin’s. Darwin simply stated that some species do better than others, and those are the ones who survive. Nothing about domination… You should read up about what evolution and natural selection are all about before spouting off anything you feel like…
    7. Just because your superstition leads you to believe others’ superstitions are false doesn’t actually equate you with an atheist… It simply means you favor your superstitions over another’s… I personally am not an atheist because of science; I just find the whole idea of a sky god to be silly. As stated earlier, science is not in the business of “debunking” anyone’s personal beliefs… That’s just people trying to be martyrs for some type of cause that they chalk up to faith, which is something science can never touch. So do yourself a favor and get off the cross–someone else needs the wood…


  3. Jason, please re-read the post without all your preconceptions and try again. Who said I was pitting science against God? The rest of your comments follow your incorrect premise. I also didn’t say atheists aren’t patriotic. I stopped reading after that.


  4. You pit science against god with these statements: “these rabid Darwinists who consider themselves Evangelical Atheists”; ” They are doing a bad job of pretending that their mission is just pro-science and not anti-religion.” You’ve set it up in your mind that science is anti-god and therefore the sole purpose of such is to disprove your faith, which clearly isn’t the case.

    And the feeling of “calling atheists unpatriotic” came form this statement: “what their dream culture looked like in Communist China and Russia.” Like all American athiests want not only religion obliderated, but a communist regime set up, neaither of which is the case. Perhaps I did read to far into that one, I will acknowledge, but it wouldn’t have been the first time I’ve been called a commie-loving faggot who wants to see America destroyed, but I’ll digress… 🙂

    I still believe the other counter points to your bullet list hold true, but that’s neither here nor there if you refuse to read them, isn’t it?


  5. 1. No, I’ve never noticed that most atheists focus on Christianity at all. Little matter. The West has ignored Islam, Jainism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism and other faiths for a long time. We notice Christian criticism because we’re Christians in a culture that is predominantly Christian.

    Serious criticism of Islam came from the secularists and atheists for decades prior to the current troubles — remember T. E. Lawrence?

    2. No kidding the Crusades included a lot of behavior Christians would be ashamed of. So do the diatribes from Donald Wildmon, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, not to mention the Rev. Al Sharpton — and who in their right faith would ever claim the Phelps clan? What’s your point? Christians undertook the Crusades and promoted them for the faith. If the Crusades included a lot of nonChristian behavior, perhaps we should revisit the idea of war for holy causes. Sherman was right: “War is hell.” Christians who undertake violence, war or torture, violate their faith. Were every Christian to practice Christianity, we’d have a much better world. That Christian politics so often leads away from Christianity is a warning to Christians. No, you don’t get to say you’re not responsible, if you’re urging similar action on any other topic. What preventive measures have you taken to prevent an outbreak of misbehavior similar to the Crusades? What are you doing, as a Christian, today, to stop the Phelps? Do you remember why Ezekial said Sodom was destroyed — and Abu Ghraib and the Phelps don’t make you tremble for your family, city, nation and church?

    3. Why do you try to claim that communism was a dream atheist culture? That’s hooey. Both nations were totalitarian regimes which licensed churches and which demonstrated no tolerance of any religious thought, nor of any ethical thought that ran contrary to the official party line. You confuse politics with faith, and you completely miss the point of reason, which is what athiests, agnostics, secularists, and most Christians generally urge. Stupidity is not the contrary of Christianity — it’s too often in league with it. That stupidity could also be in league with totalitarians in communist regimes is no blot on atheism, just as stupidity in league with the communist Christians in Italy, France, and other European nations is no blot on Christianity.

    Why don’t you call the Soviet Union a “creationist dream culture?” It was, you know: Darwinists were executed, exiled, fired, and banned. That bit of irrationality alone should tell you it was no atheist dream.

    One of the best examples of working communism, by the way, was the society of the disciples in the days, weeks and years immediately after the crucifixion of Jesus. A little thought on historical evidence might make us aware that communism is not equal to atheism in any way, or vice versa.

    An atheist’s dream might be a lot like a Christian’s dream, I might imagine: Freedom to worship God as one sees fit and necessary. Atheists support the U.S. government and Bill of Rights for that reason alone — you are familiar with the story of Stephen Girard, the atheist who left persecution in France for the freedom of Philadelphia, and whose fortune saved your freedom in the War of 1812, are you not? Christians — wise, grateful Christians — might say a prayer of thanks for the atheist Stephen Girard from time to time. As Thomas Jefferson famously observed, what difference should it make if one’s neighbor believes in no god or twenty — it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. In such a society, where religious differences are not the criteria that decide who is unjustly imprisoned, but instead merely a subject of intellectual and ethical inquiry, better lives abound. That should be the atheist’s dream land, as it is for Christianity, which flowers in “secularist” America as nowhere else on Earth.

    4. Alas, we discover all too often that fear of God is the only thing keeping some people from beating their neighbors, or children. And when that fear subsides, they beat their neighbors and children. Better to do good for the sake of doing good than only out of fear of getting caught. It is an ethically bankrupt claim that fear of God is all that keeps Christians from being evil, or should be. Surely you were joking.

    Dinesh D’Souza can be a windbag. To argue that atheism was the driving force behind communism is to ignore most of history, the economic drivers, and the history of politics. You live in Texas, where Christians determined to make Spanish citizens of the natives by baptizing and beating them when they misbehaved. It didn’t work then, either. The Soviets and Chinese may have been poor students of history when it comes to freedom, but they can learn. The question right now is how to secure freedom for more people, permanently. Railing against atheism and the Bill of Rights doesn’t do that. Calling people to heed the Bill of Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, tends to be a better path to better morality. So it distresses me that you poke so much fun at those who defend them. It makes me wonder whether you are committed to human rights at all, even for Christians.

    5. Secularists don’t generally argue that science and religion need to be kept separate, except when religionists foolishly insist that science can’t answer questions and should stop asking them. Frankly, ethical behavior in science is what we prefer. The unethical behavior of academic sinners like Jonathan Wells, who makes up fantastic and untrue stories about science and scientists, is what makes many scientists nervous about religion. If religious people will not speak out against sinners in their own ranks, is it because the religious people bear ill will toward scientists, for no reason? What other explanation is there?

    6. There is no principle of Darwinian theory that suggests aggression or domination of one people by another, especially by force of arms or terror, is to be preferred. You confuse Herbert Spencer’s sociology with Darwin’s biology. It’s often done, but you should know better. Judas Iscariot is not generally considered the model of Christian behavior, and your suggesting that Spencer’s ideas should triumph what Darwin urged is wrong for much the same reason (I’m working hard to avoid offense).

    As Darwin wrote: We may therefore conclude that primeval man, at a very remote period, was influenced by the praise and blame of his fellows. It is obvious, that the members of the same tribe would approve of conduct which appeared to them to be for the general good, and would reprobate that which appeared evil. To do good unto others — to do unto others as ye would they should do unto you — is the foundation-stone of morality. It is, therefore, hardly possible to exaggerate the importance during rude times of the love of praise and the dread of blame. A man who was not impelled by any deep, instinctive feeling, to sacrifice his life for the good of others, yet was roused to such actions by a sense of glory, would by his example excite the same wish for glory in other men, and would strengthen by exercise the noble feeling of admiration. He might thus do far more good to his tribe than by begetting offspring with a tendency to inherit his own high character.

    That’s not at all what you seem to think Darwin said. In that same book, Descent of Man, Darwin wrote that stupid people with guns would almost always triumph over aboriginals who were both physically better fit and morally better fit for their environment. Darwin avoided pointing out that the stupid men with guns were, almost completely without exception, nominally Christians. We need to make sure Christians act in a Christian fashion first, before casting stones (if indeed we ever cast stones).

    7. We Christians have much in common with atheists, indeed — we disbelieve in all gods but one, and they believe in just one fewer than we do.

    But many Christians reject the use of reason that ethical and wise atheists urge. That should be considered a sin more often (it is, after all), and we might do much better to emphasize our common roots in reason and methodical learning, rather than taking potshots at them. The average Christian in America has much, much more in common with Bertrand Russell, P. Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Penn and Teller, than with almost anyone living in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, India, or Indonesia. We’re in the same foxhole. It’s stupid to shoot at each other in such a case.


  6. Jason, you are still creating straw men. I have nothing against science. By their own words, these guys are Darwinists and they are evangelical atheists. Stating that fact doesn’t make me anti-science, except in your stereotype that to be anti-Darwinian evolution is to be anti-science.


  7. “Christians who undertake violence, war or torture, violate their faith.”

    Are you a pacifist? I seem to recall that you are pro-abortion, which I find extremely difficult to reconcile with non-violence. What are doing to stop the slaughter of 4,000 human beings in the U.S. tomorrow? What’s that? Nothing?! You mean you are actually for the practice because you think it is protected by the Constitution?

    “Were every Christian to practice Christianity, we’d have a much better world.”

    Amen! We agree on something.


  8. “There is no principle of Darwinian theory that suggests aggression or domination of one people by another, especially by force of arms or terror, is to be preferred. You confuse Herbert Spencer’s sociology with Darwin’s biology.”

    I confused nothing. You put words in my mouth by saying it is “preferred.” What I said was, “If Darwin and these Materialists are right, then dominating weaker people and countries would be perfectly natural and acceptable.” I stick by that. Do you criticize the locusts for being bad environmentalists? If there is no God, everything is permissable (Doestevsky, I think).


  9. If there is no god, there’s no god, and nothing changes as there already isn’t. Everything is permissible in that, as long as human beings continue to portray empathy and sympathy, there is still a “morality” (if it must be called such) which humans will adhere to, which follows a tenant of evolution which states that species will do whatever it takes to survive. There is no god needed for survival of the species to show itself in a myriad of ways. And being that “empathy” and “sympathy” are actually nothing more than chemical reactiosn in our brains which developed to ensure that we would help protect and procreate, there is no end in sight. Of course, being animals who employ logic and reason as this adaptation allowed for a furthering of our species to spread to every corner of the globe, we can also override empathy and sympathy, which allows ocassionally for the murder or killing of one’s own children in the name of god (see Andrea Yates for an example). And on an earth with almost 7 billion people and a media with lightening quick access to information around the globe, although we hear about this violence on a much grander scale, it is no more or no less percentage-wise than it has been throughout the entire course of man’s history upon the earth (and other animals…)

    Make sense?


  10. This is your last chance to stop misquoting me. I didn’t say “All Darwinists are evangelical atheists.”

    To answer what I think your question is, the people in the article (e.g., Richard Dawkins) are Darwinists and are spreading their anti-gospel.


  11. No, that doesn’t make sense to me. If there is no God and no objective standard for morality, then your Darwinian evolution has gone haywire by giving you all sorts of weird chemical reactions that make you think something is right or wrong. But if survival of the fittest is the rule of the game, any notions of right and wrong make no sense.


  12. “One of the best examples of working communism, by the way, was the society of the disciples in the days, weeks and years immediately after the crucifixion of Jesus. A little thought on historical evidence might make us aware that communism is not equal to atheism in any way, or vice versa.”

    Slightly different. Their mutual ownership and community was voluntary, not forced by the government.


  13. Edarrel & Jason – you are welcome to post here provided you read more carefully, write more pithily and cut out the straw men. Seriously.
    Great point, Chance. I quit reading before I got to that point of Edarrel’s. Equating the early church with communism or socialism is incorrect.


  14. If god’s law is so objective, why the disagreement on abortion? There is no “objective” law; it as all completely subjective to the reader, whomever he/she may be at the time. You will not find a universal objective of standards and laws, esp in terms of religious faith, and even more so with the big three (Judaism, Christianity, & Islam). All three born from the same tribal superstitions of the past, but look at the multitude of differences between them, never mind the doctrine but the standards of morality alone between them! It’s astronomical!

    And I noticed you also stated you quit reading edarrel’s point, much like my own from earlier… why the reluctance to read on? Just because you disagree with a point, regardless of its inherent “strawiness” doesn’t mean there’s nothing worth reading…

    I can’t promise to always read your posts word-for-word (as you can’t even get through one without flat-out stopping once you find a “strawman”), but I will promise to be more careful in “misquoting,” although, I have to say, when you use such a general pronoun as “they,” and especially that, even in your original post you never state clearly who “they” are except to link to an article, you may want to also be more clear in your original topic of discussion? The original article is about Atheists. You then label them “materialists.” Hence, there is no distinction made between any type of atheist, worldly person, or unbeliever in god, except to say that “they” (the “materialists” who are referred to as “Atheists” in the article title) are “rabid-Darwinists,” in which one concludes that anyone who places faith in the science originally set forth by Darwin must be a rabid atheist-vangelist… Please point out where my reasoning goes awry.


  15. Jason,

    I find “Do not murder” to be very objective and remarkably clear. Just because some people and cultures find selfish excuses to rationalize murder doesn’t mean the objective law isn’t there. There is a lot of liberty in Christianity regarding preferences, for example, but other laws are more clear. There are just many people who don’t like some of the laws so they ignore them or try to change them. If people are serious about understanding that then I am glad to reason with them. If they are fixed in their thinking and just writing dismissive things about tribal superstitions then I don’t waste time with that. I can usually tell after a few comments which category they are in. I am a reformed skeptic so I have a lot of patience with honest seekers.

    Re. reading the whole comments: Life is short. If someone isn’t even trying to read what I said and just uses any mention of Darwin or such as a catalyst to write a thesis on their pet causes, then I am under no moral obligation to read it. I’m a pretty patient guy but I have a lot of things going on in life and I have my limits.

    I thought the connection of the article to the examples in my post and to the title were clear, but I see your points. Sorry if it wasn’t clear enough. I don’t know you, so I didn’t mean to stereotype you in with the authors. I was trying to distinguish them as being evangelical in their approach (books, interviews, etc.) and I see some humorous and major flaws in their reasoning.

    Thanks for clarifying your position. I appreciate it. I read your whole comment this time! The system works.


  16. “f god’s law is so objective, why the disagreement on abortion? There is no “objective” law; it as all completely subjective to the reader, whomever he/she may be at the time.”

    Wow Jason, I really don’t know what to say. Somewhere, in an alternate reality, I picture a world in which Christians, Jews, and Muslims do in fact, agree on issues of morality. Then people would question why all the religious people are like “sheep”, where they all agree on everything. Not saying you would do so, but it would be a valid criticism. I am glad that in the body of Christ, we are all allowed to disagree with stuff. To me, it shows that Christians can be open-minded and have a variety of opinions on things.

    To answer your question, I believe God’s law is objective, it is just that humans have issues understanding what those laws are.

    Look at the Constitution. It is a fine piece of work, but today, many people simply disagree on certain interpretations.

    I don’t see how disagreement on interpretation of law discredits the objectivity of the law.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s