In Defense of the 10 (non) Atheist Commandments

Greetings friends, and welcome to a special edition of Rent-A-Friend 2000. Today we’re seeing a reply to my recent series on the 10 atheist (non) commandments, showing that, no matter how simple I try to make things, people will tell me I’m wrong without actually reading what I’ve said.

Seriously, can anyone argue that I write at too high a level to be understood? Because I don’t think it takes a PhD to read my stuff. I don’t think it takes much more than a 5th grade education to understand me EVER, but still somehow I remain a mystery to some. Go fig.

For a great example of someone missing the point, read this reply by Makagutu, and then some of his readers. He fails almost immediately by claiming “atheism makes no claims.” How people can make this error over and over amazes me. This is a MAJOR concern of his. “HOW DARE you define Atheism to mean “Atheism”? It’s MEANINGLESS!” Which is almost true, but I digress.

But he also didn’t read my blogs very carefully because he sums up my arguments like this:

 This post isn’t really about the creative exercise but about those theists like Ken Ham and others who seem angered that atheists could actually conceive of making commandments, the reserve of their god!

If I wrote anything that sounded like, “I’m SO ANGRY that Atheists are being creative!” please copy and paste it in an email to me, because I do not remember saying such a thing.

But the errors persist all throughout his blog. He makes LITTLE attempt to understand what I have said and instead, jumps right in with name-calling:

“It has become apparent that most theists have the understanding of a roast potato.”

OK, points for making it a roast potato. Most atheists would have just said “Potato,” so this guy is going the extra mile. I can appreciate that.

He fails to even understand the comment, “Without God, there is no meaning and purpose to our existence.” As you’ll see by his reply, he somehow thinks this means Christians aren’t creative enough to pick a college major unless a priest chooses it for him. And in the comments, this idea is attacked by a reader who, instead of addressing it, goes off on a long tangent about WHICH God? As if the existence of various religions answers the claim. I wish people would learn to see when they have changed the subject, because the price of pineapple is far too high and when Bush was in office, the potholes on I-90 were NOT this bad- certainly not as bad at that last Adam Sandler film.

Makagutu says,

“To say live [I believe he means LEAVE] the world a better place doesn’t restrict you to one way of living. Struggle for freedom of expression in a place where this is prohibited leaves the world better than you found it especially if these fruits are achieved.”

Hmmm… What a great point. I wonder if I address this at all in the post he’s replying to? Let’s see…Oh, yup. I said this:

On Atheism, there is no good, and so there can be no better. For an atheist to ask if the world is a better place is like two bus station drunks having the following conversation:

Drunk 1: “Are we closer, or further away?”
Drunk 2: “From what?”
Drunk 1: “It doesn’t matter.”
Drunk2: “Oh. In that case, no.”

Thus, my argument is, with no God, there is no good, and thus there can be no better. He replies by telling me something he feels would be better. Please pardon me for being picky, but this DOES NOT ANSWER THE ARGUMENT I RAISED. If he was going to interact with the argument I made, he should say, “In a godless universe, XYZ would still be good because…” But he does NOT. Having been told, “With no GOD there is no GOOD and thus no BETTER, he merely says THIS would be BETTER…”

Pardon me as I go on an ALL CAPS RANT:

 ATTENTION WESTERN CULTURE AND OTHER WEIRDOS ON THE INTERNET. YOU HAVE FAILED PHILOSOPHY 101. PLEASE TO BE GOING BACK TO 3rd GRADE AND READING SOCRATES. LEARN HOW TO REPLY TO A STATEMENT AS IT WAS ACTUALLY STATED, AND LEARN HOW THAT DIFFERS FROM MERELY CHANGING THE SUBJECT.

THANK YOU.

Not to seem arbitrary, Makagutu does a drive by reference to the REASONS given for these (non) commandments as he says:

One would expect that since each entry has an explanation given by the author, the theist would at least read to understand but then it seems that is expecting too much.

So I followed the handy link to see how badly I misunderstood the purpose of the (non) commandment in question. Here is the explanation given.

When one does a good deed it isn’t because God tells one to do a good deed, but because one simply wants to be good person.

Hmmm… What a great point. I wonder if I address this at all in the post he’s replying to? Let’s see…Oh, yup. I said this:

On Atheism, there is no good, and so there can be no better. For an atheist to ask if the world is a better place is like two bus station drunks having the following conversation:

Drunk 1: “Are we closer, or further away?”
Drunk 2: “From what?”
Drunk 1: “It doesn’t matter.”
Drunk2: “Oh. In that case, no.”

Thus, my argument is, with no God, there is no good, just as in space there is no North or South. I don’t think you need a PhD to understand this. Am I wrong? Is there no one without a PhD who understands why there is no North or South in space?

The remainder of his comments is not really worth replying to, so I shall not. Instead, let me give this an example of why atheism is irrational. In order to defend it, you must first redefine it to mean nothing, and then avoid the arguments given by theists, instead quickly stooping to name calling and then rebutting the points they did not actually make and avoiding carefully the points they DID make. At the end, blindly assert your atheism again without arguments in its favor, and top it off with a little more condescending name-calling.

This is why Atheism has been a great tool for leading people to Jesus. When you see the best that atheism have to offer, you know atheism has nothing to offer. Perhaps that’s why he says, “atheism makes no claims.”? Because if we’re talking about a reasonable defense, then, yes, it certainly does make no claims.

I for one vote we put more emphasis on learning the art of debate starting in Kindergarten so people can learn how to listen, reply, and express their thoughts in a way that makes sense. I’d be willing to trade those little guys my debate skills for their naptime.

Think it over, won’t you? And thanks for letting me be your Roast Potato.

Advertisements

About rentafriend2000
Rocking my 40's with a heart full of love and muffins, science and technology. Jesus loves me and wants me to totally rock! And I am here to help.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics made Friendly

Reluctantly Aging

One man’s futile struggle against inevitability

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics Made Friendly

RaF Ministries News

What's new at Rent-A-Friend Ministries

Bible Science Forum

Creation Evolution Cosmology

Superhero etc.

ALL THINGS SUPERHEROES

Creation Science 4 Kids

creation science worded for all of us

christian ammunition

He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition...fortify thy power mightily--NAHUM 2:1

Surprised by Logic

Logic for the ordinary Joe and Jane

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

Rent-A-Friend 2000's Biblical Thinking and Good Times!

Part of the Creation Soapbox Apologetics Ministry

%d bloggers like this: