₦airaland Forum

GoodMuyis:
bump

lol

obinna58:
Religion creates huge problems and solve little ones
The dude must have had lots of pressure by religionists, attacks from every wings that led him to no choice than pretend to believe in God else they will suck his blood

Religion and spirituality is important to humanity on many counts.
The dude confesses to being led to Christ by his sister. There are many reasons people believe what they believe, emotions is as valid as logic in their conversion to such belief or unbelief. I've seen atheists who became that way because of certain reasons other than logic and reasoning.

etrange:
Brother, there's nothing like "their leader". Atheists do not have a leader. Atheism do not need any leadership/follwership life pattern. If one person decides to ridicule people, it's his business. If one sticks around with abusive, inconsiderate and cold hearted friends, let him not blame it on atheism; he should change his friends.

Maybe there are no atheist leaders, but more often than not, we have majority of atheists repeating arguments from Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Singer, Hitchens and co. And we often have these guys seeing nothing wrong in ridiculing religious people with contempt.

etrange:
In case you don't get my point yet, I am saying it's much easier to find common traits in theists than in atheists. This is apparently because typical theists normally share common teachings. They usually have a common master whom they strive to emulate giving rise to them exhibiting certain similar characteristics. Atheists, on the other hand, are free individuals with little to no peculiar life style. What each person exhibits is usually a function of his/her personality and has nothing to do with atheism.

If this master is anyone other than Jesus Christ, then I strongly disagree. However, several historians and nonreligious scholars have recorded the kind of life that Jesus lived. Contemporary atheists on the other hand are becoming more like their religious counterparts. You need not look too deep in the arguments for Gods existence before you can identify an atheist. I gave sufficient proof in the op. Swear words, curses and rage seem to be increasingly peculiar to many online atheists. Many honest atheists also seem to agree with me.

Not much is new about the New Atheists other than their increased intensity of vitriol and anti-religious polemic. But such tactics don’t hold water with everyone, many atheists included. According to atheist Gary Wolf:

“The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But so far, their provocation has failed to take hold… I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there’s always a chance we could turn out to be wrong”.

According to the “father of secular humanism” Paul Kurtz: “I think they are atheist fundamentalists. They’re anti-religious and they’re mean spirited, unfortunately. Now, they are very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good”.

Likewise philosopher Michael Ruse has been one of the most skeptical voices on New Atheists such as Dawkins. Ruse would say that: “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist and the McGraths show why”.

Michael Shermer notes the existence of atheistic fundamentalism within science; he complains that “Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious sceptics… Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance”.

etrange:
The word-use research could be true though. In fact, it makes perfect sense that members of a Facebook church group shoulshould be using words like church, brother, sister, prayer, etc. What else would one be expecting? Atheists are freerer with words on social media as no "brother" or "sister" is there to police them. Most of them may or may not use these words at their work places just like most theists may use dirtier words outside their religious groups online. But then, these do not prove anything and do not in any way suggest atheists are angry people.

This is rather ridiculous, i for instance have
been posting on social media for years without the fear what people would think. Policing also may infact be a good thing. You can't argue that law and order is to some extent influenced by policing e.g the police. The DLA research is rather suggestive. I'll prefer to be around those who use peaceful words than those who use swear words and curses. I can almost guess whom you'll also like your children to be around regardless of their hidden behaviours.

etrange:
Atheists like to argue. They feel they have superior points and find it easy and funny pointing out the flaws of religion. Theists like to argue, they feel they have seen the light. They feel it's their job to convert you. They say heavenly stuffs are like foolishness to the mundane mind so they look at the atheists with pity. Lol. The only difference is that theists don't see it as argument. To them, they are doing the work of converting soules. They don't feel bad calling you "blind" or "lost soul" or "ignorant". But then this, to you, is not ridiculing of course. Point here is, it's difficult to be a judge and a partisan at the same time.

Its weird that you don't think atheists are also in the business of converting theists to their own belief systems, why else's would you waste your time trying to tell me about your own views, especially considering the fact that I already live a peaceful and productive life. No matter how you twist this, you can't disprove the fact that majority of atheists online and ridicule theists especially Christians. If you want, I'll give you quotes of atheists right here on nairaland and then you can tell me if its ridiculous or not.

etrange:
There are many stuffs I could say against atheists but calling them angry people is not one of them. Some times, they even refrain from telling you their religious stance just not to make you angry. Lol. They are very welcoming and open minded individuals, I'd say. When next you want to know who's more angry and hate-filled between theists and atheists, keep in mind that ISIS, Boko-haram, etc. are not atheists. Also recall that those that burnt the gay guys caught in the East in the name of "our religion is against it" are not atheists. Nigeria is a country made of more than 90% theists and what's the outcome? Intolerance, outright hatred, killings and all sorts of unspeakable things against one another all in the name of religion. And yet atheists are the one supposedly filled with anger and hate. I don't know..... bro, it just doesn't add up.

You may have a point here, but just like the DLA research suggests, words such as Bleep, sh*t, retarded, dead, death, kill, drunk etc are suggestive. This explains why many coroprate individuals refrain from some of those words on T.V. If I was a psychologist for instance, trying to help a temperamental person, I'll encourage the use of more peaceful words especially during arguments. You also seem to suggest that theists seem more angry with the examples of ISIS, Boko haram and Co.

Firstly, you must understand that atheists account for less than 5% of the total worlds population, and of course this will also have an influence on the number of violence committed by several atheists. However on request, I can give you sufficient examples of atheists of our generations, comitting violence simply because they don't believe in God.

Secondly, while I don't have any explanation for Islam, I can provide facts that prove that atheists have committed more terror than Islam ever will provided Islamic adherents continue to kill people at this rate for then next 50years. So if the actions of Islamic adherents is your reason for thinking they are more hate filled than atheists, you're wrong.

Thirdly, those who killed or burnt people in the name of their religion, I'll like to know their religion. Certainly not the religion named after a MAN who stood against religious zealots ready to stone a prostitute.
Nigeria, like many African countries may seem to have adopted many foreign religious views, but you certainly cannot deny that we still retain some of our spiritual systems and beliefs. We were killing our twins before Mary slessor, a christian missionary, arrived.

In ile Ife, osun state, some scholars are of the belief that the oracle demands for 1 full fledged human daily for sacrifice. Virginity was a big deal across Yoruba land, wicked witches and wizards were publicly disgraced after the oracle exposed them. I can give many examples of barbarism in several traditional African religions.

Many of these beliefs are retained among many Africans. Nigeria is not an exception. Jungle justice is still the order of the day. These are culturally oriented. How would you stone a sinner and claim to want to emulate a MAN who protected sinners .Moreover who made such people judges over other humans.

Nigeria is suffering majorly from the effects of corruption and bad governance, which have given birth to tension, frustrations, poverty induced ignorance, abuse of human rights etc. which unfortunately affects several other African countries.

In foreign countries, I've seen churches organise programs where members prepare free snacks in public for anybody interested, regardless of their beliefs. I've seen a foreign church bus park outside a club to help those who are too drunk to drive or go to their homes, and several other charitable acts. Do I also need to mention that Christianity runs the largest charity in the world? Is this the same Christianity we observe in Nigeria? If not, what's wrong? Maybe culture and traditional beliefs, maybe ignorance and illiteracy, maybe none of the above.

keentola:
you are lying. where is Jesus in christian's DLAs given the fact that they throw the name around easily

Look again Sir.

budaatum:
One funny thing about people who claim to believe in God is that they actually take the atheist seriously when they claim there is no God. My superior Jesusy position would be to acknowledge that God created them whether they believed or not, and as soon as I behaved badly to those who I see before me, I'll be doing so to my God in heaven. But I guess that is not the thinking of some Christians on here. The speck in the atheist eye is of so much more concern than the forest in one's own eye, that it becomes impossible for them to dust them away from their presence and say 'peace'.

The question if Gods existence is no trivial matter.

budaatum:
I am an atheist, but I hardly have people being jerks to me whatever their beliefs. I do unto others as I would want them to do unto me, and pretty good advise I have found it to be too. I find on the whole, that I pretty much get back what I dish out. And it doesn't tend to matter what they believe either, after all, there is a reason the peacemakers are the one's who get blessed. Besides, why decide to be that which adds discord when one can be the salt instead?

Nice belief. There are people who do not want to do unto others what they want others to do unto them and they have equal rights as you do.

budaatum:
I'll end this with an observation. I know there are many who read stuff on here without getting involved in our constant big dick arguments. Some, in fact most, are Christians, and I say here, the proper salt of the earth love your fellow God created human being sort. If it were your God that is claimed to exist and that should be worshipped, there would be no atheists, for who amongst us would not like to help create a place where the lions and the lambs dwell in peace and be blessed? Some though think they worship God and think their god approves of them being no better than blow up jihadists people.

All I can say is, someday, there will be light! Amen

If there was no God, there will be no atheists.

GoodMuyis:
perfect analysis. I never seen an atheist presenting fact like.

They criticized Christianity but yet the atheism is yet to solve a problem.

Always pained and bitter like a madman who lost his money

Thanks Bro.

HappyPagan:
Winner the whiner.

May God grant you the grace to preach Christ on NL.

I preach Christ in many ways. I preach peace, love, facts, evidence, science, apologetics and other positives online and offline. You can check some of my threads for non apologetics. I do like apologetics though.

HappyPagan:
Dem don use thread sew this one sense.

Blessed are the meek.

Lol, so?

johnydon22:
See them, it will never work for you all in Jesus name. Na finals madrid dey so..

Na there the party go end na. I'm hoping that Liverpool remain in their fine form till then.

You will get your responses. For now, I'm in Bernabeu to ensure that Real Madrid crash out of C.L.

I have always alleged that majority of atheists I've come across are bitter, angry and condescending, while I've interacted with a few cool headed atheists, I've seen really bitter atheists, and unfortunately, they seem to be the majority.

I've also noticed that these bitter atheists seem to be the ones you'll often come across online. They are sometimes referred to as militant atheists probably because of their crusading spirit. Their anger seems to have consumed them so much that they derive pleasure in ridiculing religious people and their beliefs.
This may explain why they stay online and look for opportunities to mock religious people and their beliefs.
Its comes at no surprise since one of the prominent atheist leaders has encouraged his followers to ridicule religious people.


At a reason rally a few years ago, during a speech, Richard Dawkins encouraged the masses to publicly ridicule religious people and their belliefs, this drew much applause from the Reason Rally crowd:
"Mock them. Ridicule them! In public"
He also says that religion makes claims that "need to be ridiculed with contempt"

I see similarities in Dawkins quote, and Quran 2:191 – “And kill them wherever you find them…”

One simply advocates killing someone psychologically, while the other advocates killing someone physically.

If Dawkins was as peaceful as he claims, then one would expect him to ask his followers to teach peacefully instead of mocking, ridiculing or deriding.

Unfortunately, the atheists who (by the way, advocate for peaceful coexistence) engage in these acts do not realize how deeply bitter and condescending they have become.

Albert Einstein understood this when he noted: "I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist, whose fervour is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an act of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being"

When asked if he was an atheist, Einstein continued “I’m not an atheist,” added Einstein. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

Einstein seemed to allude to the fact that, although he did not know the author, he knew someone must have definitely written the books and arranged them in a particular order, even though he didn't know how. This seems to be the direction of common sense as atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “Big Bang", once confessed that his disbelief was “greatly shaken” by the undisputed science, writing about the universe that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”


Worthy of mentioning, is another prominent atheist, Sam Harris. Even though Harris is aware of the biological nature of religion, he has the audacity to propose violence against those who hold religious beliefs.

“Some propositions are so dangerous, that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim but it is merely an enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extra ordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense…”(Harris, End of Faith p. 52-53)

“What will we do if an Islamist regime…ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime-as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day-but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.”(Harris, End of Faith)


These quotes are bigoted and is far from any process of peacefulness. When closely observed, it is a product of fanatism. Albert Einstein addressed such fanatism in relation to the cosmos: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres”, Einstein said.


It seems to me that fanatical atheism, crusading sprit, militant atheism and some other versions of new age atheism, are simply products of bigotry. Bigotry is referred to as intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
While he agreed that religious adherents could sometimes be bigots, Einstein yet addressed such bigotry.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3920520_s13083273edit_png7b63b1ba36e4195f4e203848e6d47f3c


Bigotry could sometimes influence our decisions and in fact our choice of words. I once observed a sample of some atheists on nairaland, and I demonstrated that there was some form of bitterness and hate in their choice of words. This led me to open a thread as a proof (See here)


Also, some atheist converts have alluded to the fact that there was some form of hatred for religious people and their beliefs. Below is a confession from an ex-atheist from reddit.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4331435_screengrab20161004160447edit_jpegdc8ef755fb6bdd6d290e0ec8a127b19f

In 2013, a study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found that Christians seemed happier on Twitter than atheists, judging from the words they used. Atheists also swore a lot more.

There was another study published on August 22, 2017 in the same journal about roughly the same topic. Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania wanted to know if there was a difference between religious and non-religious people when it came to Facebook statuses. To do that, they used a now-defunct app called MyPersonality. If you installed that app, among other things, you were consenting to let the program monitor and collect information from your profile. So all your status updates could be mined for research purposes. That app shut down a few years ago, but the data is still available, so these researchers got to work.

The most interesting result came from what they called a “differential language analysis” (DLA). In essence, DLA let them figure out which words were a dead giveaway that you were in one group or the other. Sure, we all use words like “person” and “feel,” but which words were strictly in one camp?

Here’s what the data showed for religious people:

www.nairaland.com/attachments/7051972_img20180501153718_jpeg12c00733aec5de78f643244e472a0e19

The size of the word tells you how much of a dead giveaway it was. And the more colorful the word, the more often it was used.

Now what the the data show about atheists…?.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/7051971_img20180501153815_jpeg9b3ecc6473c130c786adb2bbc7515ed8

Maybe hateful and swear words are not inherently bad. (because we've been raised to believe there’s something wrong with swearing). But such words can give an insight on the level of peace and tolerance of any individual.

The researchers noted this in their analysis, suggesting that “religion may encourage people to present a more positive facade, despite whatever emotions are actually being experienced.”

One might feel it's just words, but there is a ripple effect on people and even the society. More scientific researches show that a religious believer may be more healthy than an angry atheist.

For instance, a study showed that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11761504

Also, another study showed that lower blood pressures was observed among those who frequently prayed or studied the Bible (daily or more often)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9724889

Another interesting study akso showed that religiousity may have an influence on immune system
http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/663
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9565726

Religion and its effect on lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and substance use
American Psychiatric Association: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspxVolume=161&page=2303&journalID=13

It seems to me that when one is happy, there might be a reflection of such happiness on society. For instance, charity which is beneficial to any society may not be performed by angry humans who are condescending towards other humans, who share a different belief.

Apart from the fact that Christianity runs the largest charity in Africa, another study was conducted to show the correlation between religious people and charity
http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/16/local/me-beliefs16

This led an atheist, Hattersley, to criticize his fellow atheists for their lack of effort in relief effort: “You don’t hear of “Atheist Aid” rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army… I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor”..


In conclusion, the acts of mockery, ridicule and other condescending activities are simply products of hate. The seed of hate can germinate, grow fiercely and span across society.
There will always be people who have a different opinion from yourself. It is my opinion that if peace and love can substitute hate and mockery, there will be increased understanding, better coexistence and overall an enviable society.

Dalamama:
England. The king of England King Henry VIII used to be supreme head of the Church of England. Again, when the Europe was under the leadership of the church the period was regarded as the dark age.



Separation of church and state is a constitutional duty in most western countrie, it is the reason why Christianity has been separated completely from their state affairs and it is the reason that the church can not impose it's morals on the people in any way. Separation of church and state is the reason why Christians are constantly crying of persecution because they've been denied and refused to have their ways by providing a level playing fieldfor everybody.




Why are you pained? You made no point. Show me one scientific research or procedure that relies on the supernatural. So far all scientific theories and procedures rely solely on naturalism. The supernatural has NO role to play in ALL scientific processes. The scientific method and process is purely naturalistic and relies only on naturalism. The supernatural has NO role in it. So just ship up you liar.




Jesus in his show of stupid pasificm restored the guys ears according to the tale. The west does NOT believe in that kind of nonsense pacifism, the western nations were founded on a very violent culture, they still believe in serving instant justice to wrong doers and greatly encourage their citizens to defend themselves against their enemies and not to follow Jesus's stupid pacifism. A teaching so stupid that even you yourself will never abide by it.



Mirror, mirror on the wall. You just decribed yourself.

Guy you be fool jare, na this sh*t you want make I reply.

budaatum:
Where does one start? With the immense contributions of paganism, those of Islam, or those of atheists or Christians? Unless one wishes to raise one ideology above others, one would understand that they are all human influences in the end.

But I will consider.

You can start with the significant contributions of any, to western development. This should exclude the personal achievements of individuals in the selected religion, but should include the effect of the worldview itself on western development.

budaatum:
What op is actually extolling applies to all religions actually. Their purpose is after all to promote social cohesion. Pity he is only aware of the religion around him that he has experience of.

I'd like you to open a thread highlighting the contributions of any religion of choice to western development, like I did here. Many people will learn from it too.

MuttleyLaff:
Two years ago, on Facebook, when queried that, isnt he an atheist,
Mark Zuckerberg's response was:
"No.
I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things,
but now I believe religion is very important"

No, Seun, dalaman, hopefullandlord, superhumanist, cutemadridsta and other " famous" social media influencers seem to be of the opinion that religion must be outlawed totally if we must seek a better society.

gabe:
Please check Wikipedia for a 'list of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design' for what the scientific community thinks about ID. Take your example. The human eye. Darwin postulated that an incomplete eye designed over time by natural selection confers an evolutionary advantage to its user and such examples should abound in nature. If eyes were perfectly, irreducibly designed, we expect to see only perfectly designed eyes in all organisms with eyes. Darwin was proved right by the presence of primitive eyes and light sensing organs in some organisms. The evolutionary history of the eye has also been traced using comparative genetics.

I care more about truth than scientific consensus.

All these your story, we don talk am tire, I'm not interested in repeating myself.
https://www.nairaland.com/2917639/much-better-explanation-evolution
If you care

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3980959_1353325912111307855847593601288972119265443n_jpeg22bb58dc800fe4501ff9a5a9384c533e


www.nairaland.com/attachments/3980960_132266881743167462609206803864670214952096n_jpeg1a7e4a245eba31b90fb39d4a415a27b6

Dalamama:
Will you shut up and stop telling lies? When Europe was under the leadershipof the church we all know what happened. The period was referred to as the dark age. You could not go against church at all. If you do you'll be burned alive. The people had to revolt and put and end to it. More people have died in the name of Christianity that Islam, Christians have killed more Jews for example than Muslims will ever do. When Christians had the power they weren'tany diff5from the Muslims or atheist at all. If I were living in the middle ages when Europe was under the control of the church I would have been bred alive for my atheistic views. So shut up. Christianity has lost all its power that today you can NOT name a single Christian nation on earth.

can you name the christian countries that have ever existed?
Is there any other historically literate human reading this who thinks the dark ages had anything to do with the church?

Just to be sure you deserve my refutation cos this is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

Dalamama:
Separation of church and state is the reason why you can NOT use the bible to make or create any laws. It is the reason why no religion is held above another, and it is also the reason why religious activities and not promoted in public places. All laws are debated on their merits or demerits before they are ratified. Separation of church and state is the reason why gays have their freedoms for example and why no matter what you feel about your christian values you can not promote it over that of others. That I'd what has kept christians in check and emasculated them completely.

Lol even after efficiently refuting this, you still come up with something this stupid? Ehn dalaman?

Thomas Jefferson simply wrote a letter to the Danbury baptists assuring them of their religious freedom. Freedom from government interference. This is where the word "separation of church and state" was paraphrased from.

Even Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644,

"A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."

Can't you think by yourself for once? Must you regurgitate stale lines always?

Dalamama:
Until you show me any scientific law that is based on supernatural theories and beliefs and not based on naturalism , I will continue to tell that you have none idea of what you are saying. The supernatural laws that guides science can be found in which scientific journal.

You must be stupid if you think I'll refute this after my initial point.

Dalamama:
Ogbeni, the west has rejected your christian values and have embraced secularism and it's tenets. They have accepted gay union, cry all you want but they have thrown away your ridiculous morality. Go and fight with yourself.




Stop telling lies, which is capitalism promoted inside the bible? Show me.

I'm sure one or two people learnt from my initial reply. You're on your own if you're this dull.

Dalamama:
Shut up and stop telling lies. Jesus advocated a very stupid for of pacifism that NO christian in the world will ever enrage or practice because even they themselves know that it is idiotic.

Where in the bible is the right to bear arms promoted? We know if the wild gun culture in the west, where is such promoted inside the bible? The don't forgive people that break the laws in the west, they send them to prison and in the US some are executed. No western country abides by the turn the other cheek nonsense pacifism that Jesus thought. Any country that attacks the west will be crushed brutally, they will never turn the other cheek and they do NOT teach their citizens that nonsense. They teach them to bear arms and defend themselves vigorously.

Peter, a disciple of Jesus, while with Jesus, bore arms. He struck one of the men who came to arrest Jesus, we all see how Jesus responded.

But really dalaman, you really are bitter, unintelligent and willfully dishonest too. You should chill out, this is too much stupidity.

gabe:
*sigh* please read up on natural selection.

Just what are the evidences pointing away from a designer?

gabe:
Complexity as evidence for design has been debunked over and over, please google. Natural selection is the only designer with evidence to show for it. Again, google.

You debunked it? Or the scientific fraternity of today?

DeSepiero:
Hahaha...of course, the divergent views are the spice of this section.

Very true.
Another advantage is that many Christians will be challenged to pick up books and read.

In this part of the world, many Christians don't bother looking for answers.

gabe:
lol, there is no designer. Unless you're talking about natural selection...

I'm sorry I'm just following common sense as well as the direction where the evidence points.


If theres no way a 5mp Samsung camera can arise by chance, then a 574mp human eye is even out of the question. This eye that is out of the question is just a small part of a more complex machine. That destroys the question.

I know many designers exist in the world but I've never met them, I'm sure however that they exist. I'll like to meet the designer of my gionee android phone someday, more importantly, I'll like to try to know my own designer. This explains why religion has always and will always thrived throughout all generations of humanity. The need to know God.

DeSepiero:
Hey bro, don't take things too personal. I only made a simple observation in my first post on your thread and I did so because I saw your posts/responses. I have always known you to talk about atheists/atheism all the time and like I said, you haven't stopped.

Nothing personal bro, I'm simply having fun. That's what I do when I come here, fun, and its nothing personal.

Are my threads not healthy or do they not give strong religious views?
Opposition is healthy sometimes, that's why this religion section is interesting for some people.

DeSepiero:
Loads of them in your subsequent posts. You couldn't resist the urge

Lol, this guys just funny one kind.

Every post I made on this thread apart from the op is a reply to one person or another.

You missed those atheists who disagree with the honest atheist in the op. But you care that I hive them reply with quotes from more honest atheists.

Don't worry ehn, because if you, i'll stop opening threads concerning atheism. Only because of you

DeSepiero:
I didn't!. I also didn't miss that you felt the need to emphasize that John is an atheist in your post's title while still seizing same opportunity to criticize other atheists.

Can you please highlight just 1 criticism of atheists in the op?

DeSepiero:
It seems to me that you winner01 haven't stopped posting topics about atheism/atheists. � . Well, no hard feelings bro.

This is a topic on Christianity. Why Christianity is great. You missed that part right?

gabe:
'Morality is ingraved in our hearts'. Really? An organ that has NOTHING to do with thought apart from blood supply? Surely you can do better. Engraved by whom? Which is more plausible: engravement of moral codes on the body's blood pumping organ or an evolving of rules to ensure the perpetuating of a species as evidenced by behaviour present in the many other species present in our midst? Lest I forget, your God demands you eat his body and drink his blood as often as possible to be a part of him. Not much different from komodo dragons and your chickens now eh?

You are so cocksure of all the heart does, you probably were with the designer while it was being created. Little wonder many atheists think the tail bone in humans is a result of bad design like they know what it was designed for

Well my point remains, Morality is innate, and this is more plausible because there seems to be some form of objective realism across the human species.

Even if I drink his sweat, what difference should it make to an atheist? I'm probably more productive to my society that many of you talkatives here

gabe:
lol any atheist that agrees with religion is honest. The 'eye for an eye' concept in Mosaic law is straight out of the Hammurabi code. For more similarities, please use google.

Any atheist that is honest enough to point out the significance of religion in society is obviously honest. You don't have to agree with religion to do that.

An eye for an eye concept is different from turning the other cheek as stated by dalaman, where was turning the other cheek also stolen from?

I ask you to post evidence here, so that others can learn. It will do no harm to give 4 or 5 similarities in the mosaic law and the Hammurabi code. It won't take more than 6 lines. You can do it.

gabe:
Our conceit as the 'superior' species doesn't allow us look at examples that abound in other species. Why do lions not rip themselves to pieces?.

Oh well, Komodo dragons feed on their young ones, mother bears, felines , canids etc have all been seen killing and eating their young ones.

While I was also a poultry farmer, on several occasions, I observed my hens sucking their own eggs and sometimes attacking their chicks.
Our species consider this immoral. Can we give reasons for these exemptions?

gabe:
A cat rescued it's 7 kittens from a burning building. Real life story. It didn't need biblical instructions to do that.

Touching story, can we get some evidence to this?

And you obviously didn't get where I earlier pointed out that the Christian argument for morality is that "morality is engraved in our hearts". Humans obviously don't need a Bible before they can be moral. The Bible however is our guide through a dangerous path in a world full of misery.

gabe:
In my area some years back, a dog fought off a pig that was about to eat an abandoned baby until people arrived to take the baby.

As true as this sounds, Can we get evidence to this? Or we must believe it without questioning it?

gabe:
. Sacrificial, benevolent behaviour abound in nature. It just humans were gullible enough to attribute theirs to religion. And we know who profits from such gullibility.

Like I said earlier " morality is engraved in our hearts" this explains why some non theists are more morally sound that some theists.

As expected, we are gullible, but you, you're not?

Dalamama:
After reading the piece for the second time am at liberty to change my mind and say almost all what he said is false. The moral foundation of the western society is not based on the Judoe-Christian faith but purely on secular values some of which are condemned in the bible.

Many reasonable atheists avoided this thread due to obvious reasons. Like I pointed out earlier, a few honest atheists do not share the dogmatic outlook and crusading spirit of your type of atheism, and expectedly you don't agree with their honesty. It goes on to show how open minded you are.

Dalamama:
We all know the values that made the west what it is today, I'll list a few and yiu are to tell me which of them is advocated in the bible.

1. Freedom of speech and association

Freedom of speech and association is actually as a result of the socio liberal freedom of christianity as the op rightly pointed out. Compared to several Islamic states today and atheistic states that existed in the past e g atheistic Russia, Cambodia, Albania etc.
In those countries, freedom of speech and association is significantly suppressed as supported by their constitution. You could easily get arrested by speaking against state recognized beliefs and practices just as is happening in China today. Below are some evidences that shows that atheistic countries and their leaders had a dangerous idea of an utopia which suppressed freedom of speech, thought, opinion, association and religious beliefs (in order to spread atheism) just like Islamic countries.


Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stipulated: ‘The State recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic outlook in people’

"Party organisations must direct their most serious attention to the improvement of atheist propaganda. Anti-religious propaganda must be more offensive, combatant, more direct. . ." - Mzhavanadze (at the 20th Congress of the Georgian Communist Party), Zarya vostoka, 26 January 1960.

“It is furthermore imperative to put the propaganda of atheism on solid ground. … It is necessary to produce a book on the church's struggle against naturalism.” - Maxim Gorky (Founder of the socialist realism literary method and a political activist), Letter from Gorky to Stalin, November 29, 1929, on the organization of antireligious propaganda

"We want to sweep away everything that claims to be supernatural and superhuman, and thereby get rid of untruthfulness, for the root of all untruth and Lying is the pretension of the human and the natural to be superhuman and supernatural. For that reason we have once and for all declared war on religion and religious ideas ..."- Friedrich Engels (co- founder of Marxist theory), Review of Thomas Carlyle's Past
and Present, 1844

"The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is guided by the conviction that only conscious and deliberate planning of all the social and economic activities of the masses will cause religious prejudices to die out. The Party strives for the complete dissolution of the ties between the exploiting classes and the organizations of religious propaganda, facilitates the real emancipation of the working masses from religious prejudices and organizes the widest possible scientific educational and anti-religious propaganda."- Political Program of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union), adopted March 22, 1919 at the Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party, section 13

"We must deepen a revolutionary world-outlook, we must fight the religious prejudices in the youth and approach the youth, including those having religious prejudices, with the maximum pedagogical attentiveness of the more educated towards the less educated. We must go to them with the propaganda of atheism, for only this propaganda defines the place of man in the universe and draws out for him a circle of conscious activity here on earth."- Leon Trotsky, The Position of the Republic and the Tasks of Young Workers, 1922

“Communist society will bury forever all mysticism, religion, prejudice and superstition and will give a powerful impetus to the development of all-conquering, scientific knowledge. ... One of the most important tasks of the cultural revolution affecting the wide masses, is the task of systematically and unswervingly combating religion-the opium of the people. ... the proletarian State ... carries on anti-religious propaganda with all the means at its command and reconstructs the whole of its educational work, on the basis of scientific materialism.” - The Programme of the Communist International. Comintern Sixth Congress 1929

To mention a few, these are writings from the constitution of atheistic countries and the product of the minds of the leaders of atheistic countries. You will surely agree with me that I could have been killed if I was outspoken about my Christianity and at the same time against those forceful atheistic dogmatic quotes, provided I existed in those countries.

There are obvious reasons why we don't have too many outspoken atheists in Islamic countries and why we don't have too many outspoken Christians in countries like China.
Christianity is the reason we have many outspoken atheists in the western world, Christianity is the reason for your freedom, Christianity is the reason you have a voice son, be grateful.

Dalamama:
2. Separation of church and state

As expected, regurgitated atheist arguments.

"Separation of church and state" was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The intent of this clause was to limit the power of the Federal Government in regard to religion thus ensuring "freedom of religion in the United States of America."

In other words, you got this one totally backwards. Separation of church and state wasn’t put in place to protect the state from the church; it was created to protect the church from the state!

The founding fathers came to the country primarily for that very reason – for freedom of religion. They were fleeing a country that was attempting to impose restrictions on their ability to believe or worship freely. Their whole purpose was to make sure that the government of the United States never imposed itself upon a citizen’s right to believe or practice their belief without government interference.

So with that proper understanding and historical context, what does separation of church and state mean today? Or what should it mean?

The founding fathers were clearly not ignorant of what was going on in atheistic countries and many other parts of the world, and majority of them being influenced by their religion, Christianity, they sought to impose freedom of religious worship, thereby protecting their freedom of worship. This freedom contributes to the reason why atheists have a voice in today's western world.

Dalamama:
3. Naturalism which gave birth to all the scientific processes that is driving all the scientific/technological advancement they've achieved.

This is as wrong as they come. Naturalism did not give birth to all the scientific processes that drove their scientific achievement. As a matter of fact, many early proponents of science were against naturalistic ideologies.

Legends like Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, Fleming, etc. were against naturalism, darwinian evolution and other pseudoscientific notions.. Even those who lived before Darwin were strong opponents of earlier evolutionary systems, not to mention pantheism, atheism, and other such anti-supernaturalist philosophies, which were every bit as prevalent then as now.

Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method! They seem also to have been able to maintain a proper "scientific attitude," for it was these men (Newton, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison. The real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science.

I gave relevant examples in this thread, on how major breakthroughs in science was accomplished by several Christians as well as other religious believers.

Dalamama:
4. Equality of the sexes(male and female)and same sex union.

Really how has this made the west enviable?
I won't even bother to counter this until any atheist tells me if it is wrong to outlaw the following:

1. Sex between an adult and a consenting minor (paedophilia)
2. A human and a consenting animal (Bestiality). Several animals have different ways of communicating consent.
3. A human and a dead human (provided the dead human consented before death) (Necrophilia)
4. And other sick sexual acts.

If this can be viewd as sick by you and your peers, then you have no moral rights to blame those who view same sex union as sick. That's some double standard.
If one if confused on which gender he/she is, one can simply look inside his/her pants.

Dalamama:
5. Capitalism

Its still part of the socio liberal freedom associated with Christianity that created capitalism.

For those who are interested, you can click here to find out how Christianity created capitalism

Dalamama:
6. Individual Freedom

As explained earlier, you owe your freedom to Christianity. Women in Saudi were recently permitted to drive, they recently gained some level of freedom. Hopefully atheistic China and north Korea can follow suit and stop the clamp down on churches, Christians and online christian materials and watch Christianity grow massively.

Dalamama:
7. Justice and accountability in the here and nowe not the stupid turn the other check nonsense pacifism espoused by Jesus in the bible.

"Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished, but those who are righteous will go free". - Proverbs 11:21.

Jesus was simply speaking figuratively on peace and forgiveness. Peter for example, did not fully understand this, thats why he attacked those who came to arrest Jesus. Peace and forgiveness is very important in our world today and many people will agree with this. Peace and forgiveness is the only hope and voice of the repentant criminal and the wrongly convicted. Peace and forgiveness is why many federal government are reconsidering certain punishments such as the death penalty.


Its good that some atheists are not as dogmatic as you are, and its also expected that you won't agree with honest atheists. Its only natural that you guard your "religion of unbelief" with jealousy.

Because we know about Jesus but don't really know Jesus.

Butterflyleo:
You are not the OP but as a self acclaimed "logical guru" mumu you should have made that simple suggestion to the OP which I gave. But did you? Instead of that you are instead interested in telling others who cannot offer you the answer to swerve.

RIP logic

Many of them are not as smart as they claim bro.

gabe:
His assertions make sense, until you realize the 10 commandments and many aspects of the mosiac law are similar to the babylonian​
Hummurabi code written centuries before it. Given that most of the old testament was written by priests during the babylonian exile, it's hard to ignore the connection. Also, Jesus's golden rule : do unto others what you want them to do to you was also mentioned word for word in sacred Hindu texts written centuries earlier. It points to one conclusion: no single religion can lay claim to the development of civil or societal laws. The similarities in these religious moral laws simply show they are
rules made by man to ensure peaceful coexistence of human societies. Religious association to these rules simply invented some higher 'spiritual' authority to ensure compliance. Cue in human gullibility and the opportunity for priests of different religious groups to fleece their flock and it's not hard to see why different religions have appropriated basic human civil behaviour.

Can you give examples of the similarities between the mosaic laws and the Hammurabi code?

The argument from a religious point of view is that these moral laws are engraved in the hearts of all humans. Religious texts are simply reflecting the mind of God through his prophets. That aside, objective moral laws or values do not exist in the atheistic worldview.

This is quite significant as if this logic follows then it would not be possible to make objective moral claims; morality becomes relative. In other words, that one atheist thinks beating elderly people is a good thing because it provides him with entertainment such an act cannot be deemed to be objectively wrong by another atheist. Why? Simply because it’s one’s opinion against another. However, not all atheists view moral values as relative, but many do. The atheist activist and president of American Atheists David Silverman says:

“There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions….” “The hard answer is it [moral decisions] is a matter of opinion”.

Atheist nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would also claim that “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system”. Nietzsche would go on to see that if God does not exist then “everything is permitted”.

Arguably philosopher Julian Baggini captures this best: “If there is no single moral authority [i.e. if there is no God, then] we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are… moral claims are judgments [that] it is always possible for someone to disagree with… without saying something that is factually false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error”.


Philosopher Michael Ruse admits that morality is innate, he even tries to attribute our “sense” of morality to a byproduct of socio-biological evolution:

“In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony… Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject… ethics is a shared illusion of the human race”.


Atheist Richard Taylor seems to think civil and societal laws are meaningless and that moral values and duties is only truly grounded in God: “to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is…. perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone”.


Its is usually refreshing to hear from honest atheists. Unfortunately, there are very VERY few honest atheists.

HigherEd:
Atheist generally knows that lending any form of credibility to Christianity is very dangerous to their movement. So they resort into rewriting history and shaming Christians, especially the poor ones.

Atheists would rather support Islam than give support to Christianity because they know that while Christianity can survive in a modern society just as it has in years bye in Europe and currently in America it would be difficult for core Islam to thrive in any society without altering that society for worse.

South East today is the most christian part of Nigeria and yet unarguably the most peaceful. I'm sure it is not a coincidence. Infact I believe if Christianity did not exist in south west it would be exactly like the North. It was Christianity that brought education to the south west and gave it that early enough push.

Actually, Christianity is perceived to be the major obstacle to the atheistic belief system. It is the only religion that seeks to coexist peacefully with the atheistic worldview, while progressively thumping the atheistic worldview even despite the vituperations against its tenets. Despite the fact that many atheists push that Christianity is not peaceful, we have some honest atheists admitting the obvious.

Atheist Sam Harris is honest enough here:
“Our Christian neighbours… are right to be outraged by this pretence of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery than Christianity has been for a very, very long time”.

Similarly, atheist philosopher Michael Ruse believes that “it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard Dawkins claims… ”


Several other religions, most notably Islam, outrightly rejects any form of religious competition in Islamic societies. In mild cases, it can seem to tolerate freedom of religious worship, but it endeavours to keep the growth of other religions in check. This is similar to what China is doing with the growing number of Christians in China. They are simply keeping Christianity in check by banning online Christan materials, embargo on importation of bibles etc.

The major point I wish to highlight in the op and I've mentioned here severally is that atheists must be grateful to Christianity for the freedom of opinion and thought. Christianity is the reason atheism has a voice especially in the western world. Atheists dare not speak in many religious environment, Egypt proposed criminalizing atheism a year or two ago. You dare not speak of your atheism in many Islamic countries.

Similarly, even in the atheist countries that ever existed, you dare not speak about religion. In many of the atheistic countries of the 20th century, there was a clamp down on religious beliefs and its adherents and it led to widespread sufferings and senseless democide.

There exists and existed Islamic states, atheistic states even Jewish states. The word Christian state sounds conflicting because it negates peaceful coexistence. This is whey there are no christian states. Atheists need to be grateful for Christianity.

Butterflyleo:
Yes it is indeed a big blow when an atheist begins to sing the praises of Christianity and the morals found therein when other atheists like frank317 or is it franky317, hopeful landlord and dalamama would find a way to lie through it.

I don't think they are avoiding the thread though. If and when they see if, they will simply say their usual "hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of nonsensical situational ethics" as observed by the atheist John Steinrucken.

Winner01 do I speak your mind?

Totally Sir. And they have started saying it . Very few atheists will admit the positive role of christianity in western civilization. Its always relieving to know that there are a one or two honest atheists around.

There are several atheists that argue against the contemporary belief that religion is evil.
Richard Norman explains that “religion has inspired not only some of the worst but also some for the best human achievements…. To present religion and its works in a wholly negative light would in my view be hopelessly unbalanced”.


As also mentioned in the Op, Journalist and professed atheist Matthew Paris, upon reflecting of his journey to Africa in his piece As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God, noted the positive impacts Christianity has had. Essentially, Parris believes, that to remove Christian evangelism from Africa will “leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete”. Paris believes that “Africa needs God…Missionaries, not aid money,” as they “are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem—the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset”. Truly, will you honestly say Nigeria for instance, lacks money or natural resources?


Parris also saw how those professing belief in Jesus’ name has made life more bearable for many people in Africa. He explains: “Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good”.


He has also seen how Christians, irrespective of race, have worked wonders across Africa: “Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.”.


However, Parris explains that this doesn’t seem to fit his atheism: “It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my worldview, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God”.


Similarly, another atheist, Hattersley, criticizes his fellow atheists for their lack of effort in relief effort: “You don’t hear of “Atheist Aid” rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army… I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor”.

TayserMahiri:
So a scientist spends years working both in the lab and in the field, gathering evidence and comes up with a good explanation for how the eye evolved, then you think you can get out of your house and counter the claim by saying the eye never evolved but was built from scratch by an intelligent thing and the world needs no evidence? You must be so full of yourself. Believe what you must but science doesnt really care, science will continue to explain things in a CORRIGIBLE MANNER

Btw here is what Corrigible means - capable of being corrected, rectified, or reformed.

Which one evolved first? The eye socket or the eye itself?

Don't worry, lass lass, you go dey alright.

Dalamama:
Ogbeni, if you don't know where KingEbukasblog is or have anything sensible to say just waka pass.

So the one I talk no sensible?

Why are you so bitter?

John Steinrucken, an atheist writer at the American Thinker, is arguably one of the most honest atheists there might be. This is quite refreshing considering how so many atheists argue that Christianity is the most wicked thing ever to have been invented. So, coming across Steinrucken’s article made for some pleasant reading.


Steinrucken tells us that although “Rational thought may provide better answers to many of life’s riddles than does faith alone” it is still Christianity that “has made possible the advancement of Western civilization. That is, the glue that has held Western civilization together over the centuries is the Judeo-Christian tradition.” This is true in both the context civil rights afforded to all American citizens as well as the major advancements made in the scientific faculties over the past centuries. Steinrucken also believes that the Christian tradition has graciously allowed for him, and his atheist friends, the freedom of opinion & thought, he writes that “secular thought, depends on the continuance within our society of the Judeo-Christian tradition.” It would seem that Steinrucken believes that if such freedoms are to be continually guaranteed then Christianity needs to remain an influential voice within contemporary society. This also ought to happen as Christianity, although not exempt from misuse by those with certain motives, maintains peace in society as well as in the world at large: “it is the Judeo-Christian tradition which offers a template assuring a life of inner peace toward the world at large — a peace which translates to a workable liberal society.”


He then also praises Christianity for its morals, especially how morality (as a corollary of the Christian tradition) has benefited society at large: “Although I am a secularist (atheist, if you will), I accept that the great majority of people would be morally and spiritually lost without religion. Can anyone seriously argue that crime and debauchery are not held in check by religion? Is it not comforting to live in a community where the rule of law and fairness are respected? Would such be likely if Christianity were not there to provide a moral compass to the great majority? Do we secularists not benefit out of all proportion from a morally responsible society?”

Yet he seems aware that secularism has failed to ground moral experience in any objective sense as “There can be no such morality without religion” & “Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist!” In other words, naturalistic theories attempting to ground moral values cannot elevate themselves above the realms of moral relativism – in short, moral realism cannot exist on an atheistic worldview. So moral judgments, thoughts & feelings have no objective value on an atheistic worldview whereas Christian theology affirms the existence of objective moral values & duties as an extension of God’s own nature. Steinrucken seems grateful to the Old Testament prophet Moses: “Has there ever been a more perfect and concise moral code than the one Moses brought down from the mountain?” However, Steinrucken is clearly skeptical of the theories that have been proposed by his fellow secularists: “The best answer we can ever hear from secularists to this question is a hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of situational ethics.”


Yet I cannot fault him on his analysis & I am immensely grateful for his honesty. Most atheists will try and dodge this problem. However, the problem remains for the atheist for since morality is relative he is ultimately in no position to tell others that their views are immoral. He cannot tell the rapist that rape is wrong or the murderer that murder is a moral evil. It might be his opinion that such things are morally evil but they are not objectively evil in any sense; it’s simply personal preference.


Steinrucken notes the value that religion has on the lives of many people, according to him “religious tradition is inextricably woven into their self-awareness. It gives them their identity. It is why those of religious faith are more socially stable and experience less difficulty in forming and maintaining binding attachments than do we secularists.” However, that “Most men do have a need for God” is also why we find other religions such as New Age Spirituality, or some forms of Eastern religious philosophies, increasing in popularity in the West, especially since these are primarily “attempts to fill the spiritual hole” that atheistic philosophies cannot touch.


Steinrucken then argues contrary to what most atheists would be willing to admit, namely that it was an outpouring of a purely atheistic worldview, held by some of humanity’s worst despots, that “has not merely come to naught. [But] Attempts during those two centuries to put into practice utopian visions have caused huge sufferings.”


In short, Steinrucken believes that “Secularism has never offered the people a practical substitute for religion” & that attempts to create religion free (particularly Christian free) societies are mere “justifications for their fantasies.” In fact, Steinrucken goes as far as to ask: “And what harm will come to a child who hears prayer in the schoolroom? I daresay harm is far more likely to come in those places where prayer is not heard.” This is similar to the thoughts shared by the atheist writer Matthew Paris who once claimed that: “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God”. Evidently Paris, an atheist, saw the positive benefits that belief in the Christian God brought to those suffering the most in the world, as well as to those in the darkest parts of Africa.


Steinrucken ends with a strong challenge: “This means that our elitists should see that their most valued vested interest is the preservation within our culture of Christianity and Judaism.”







References.

1. Steinrucken, J. 2010. Secularisms Ongoing Debt to Christianity. Available.

2. Parris, M. 2008. As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God. Available.

To dey argue on the same thing over and over, day in day out, nor dey tire you?

I really admire the zeal of many atheists to remain here and win converts after so many years.

Shows how heavy the subject of God is, on your hearts.