new

rangerboo #fundie douglasernstblog.com

Ahh— The Internet Atheist. The prime example of a keyboard warrior and hypocrite. They feel strong and all powerful when on the internet and have a bunch of their buddies from other Atheist sites, or in YouTube case from other parts of the world like the disgusting cesspool that is Europe which amazes me that it still exist given whats going on over there, to come to their aid and spam the comment sections but when confronted in person they come off as a angry, hateful and joyless loon who no one takes seriously.

I have also seen internet Atheist come to the defense of other “religious” groups like those Satanist *coughPaganscough* who wanted to put up that statue in that Oklahoma courthouse next to the Ten Commandments just because they think it would piss Christians off when real normal Atheist would have said that having a statue of Satan is just as stupid as having a statue of the Ten Commandments. But Internet Atheist don’t care. All they care about is pissing Christians off and picking fights with them and will willingly side with anyone even if it means betraying the core fundamentalist belief of Atheism. For some reason they think that being a bully and acting like a arrogant ass will win all of their arguments when it doesn’t. It makes them look like petulant and obnoxious children. And Atheist wonder why so many people are so hostile to them. They have their Internet Atheist brothers to thank for that.

rawlenyanzi #fundie douglasernstblog.com

[rawlenyanzi is a commenter who is turning away from atheism.]

Atheism cannot determine what is “right” or “wrong” or what we “ought” to do. It can only tell me what is. All talk of ethics or morality defined by what is rational or evolved is nonsense, since it is ultimately arbitrary.

The atheist only has two methods of enforcing obedience to his arbitrary ethical code: rewards and punishments. If the subject or subjects aren’t dependent on the rewards and can avoid the punishments, the atheist’s “moral code” has no force at all (this perhaps explains why the Communists expanded state power and forbade anyone from leaving.) On top of that, what is “right” can change according to the fancies of the ruler or ruling class.

Also, if you’re an atheist, what’s wrong with, say, believing that the nuclear family, with the traditional division of labor between man and woman, is positively good? It’s not like you’ll go to Atheist Hell (a.k.a. Utah) if you’re an outright reactionary. Sure, the dominant progressive culture will punish you, but that’s hardly the same as something being “good” or “moral.” It shows that atheism, not religion, is based on the principle of might-makes-right — because it is the only way it can make right.

That sky fairy is looking more and more appealing each day.

Douglas Ernst #fundie douglasernstblog.com

[Italics in original]

Whenever I have extended conversations with atheists and they mock the teachings of Jesus, they never seem to stop and think about what guys like me would be like in the absence faith. I promise this: I would be a very, very different person if I believed there was no God — and not for the better. I know myself and I know that I am a very flawed man. I am selfish. I am greedy. I struggle with a whole host of thoughts and desires that are clearly not in my higher self’s best interest. However, it is through my faith that I have been able to “embrace my better angels” more often than not. Deep down, I know when I have fallen short of the behavior God expects of me, and I rightly feel shame. I then pick myself up and attempt to become a better person.

Douglas Ernst #fundie douglasernstblog.com

[Regarding the recently-compiled "Atheist 10 Commandments", one of which states "There is no one right way to live."]

If “there is no one right way to live,” then why should anyone “be willing to alter” their beliefs? If there is “no one right way to live,” then why do we have “a responsibility to consider others”? If there is “no right way to live,” then why should a man consider the perspective of others? If there is “no right way to live,” then it can not be wrong if one man decides that his “right way to live” includes controlling the bodies of those around him.

This is the conundrum atheists face: if we are all just cosmic accidents and God does not exist, then no man has the moral authority to tell another man how to live. If we are all just sentient space dust with no soul, then there really are no objective truths — right and wrong are relative — and there is no valid argument against those whose sole existence is based on taking advantage of their fellow man.

Even the authors seem to realize this. They told CNN about the inspiration for writing their book:

“A lot of atheists’ books are about whether to believe in God or not,” he said. “We wanted to consider: OK, so you don’t believe in God, what’s next? And that’s actually a much harder question.”

“What’s next?” is a very hard question, indeed. Perhaps the reason why so many atheist books concentrate on “whether to believe in God or not” instead of “What’s next?” is because it leads to “There is no one right way to live.”

On another level, it is incredibly telling that with limited real estate, atheists would use one of their “ten commandments” to emphasize the importance of not believing in a non-existent god. Try as he might, the atheist can not escape God. Perhaps for their next book, Messrs. Figdor and Bayer could write “Atheist Heart, Humanist Mind: We Can’t Escape God No Matter How Hard We Try.”