Can Anyone Explain the Atheist Attack?
Article Tools
-
9
Liked it 
Subscribe to RSS
Over recent years a growing group of atheists have become adamant about ridding God from the public eye. What exactly is the point of this? Is it warranted or just plain silly? You hopefully will find my thoughts on this interesting.
I will begin by saying I am not here to say what should or shouldn’t be or whether there is a right or wrong over each objection the atheist sector is positioning themselves against. I did however have a few thoughts that I find pertinent and therefore wanted to throw out there.
Interestingly over the last several weeks here in Southeastern Pennsylvania, they have been running a promo for a radio show that would discuss a group of contentious atheists who are taking a combative stand toward stamping God out of the public eye. According to the promotion the litigation over this matter has dramatically increased.
Let’s take a brief look at some of the expostulation declared by the atheist movement. Let us start with the “In God We Trust” on money.
This one is very intriguing to me. Despite the fact that I wholeheartedly endorse the existence and reverence of God, I personally agree that money should not have this inscription. For entirely different reasons though. In my view it is implying that the nation or government responsible for the making of the money has a implicit trust in the creator. That is clearly not the case. Regardless of your religious beliefs surely any one can see that the decisions and actions rendered by government is far from adhering to Godly standards. So I would not oppose the idea of removing that phrase from the currency. I do not feel an aversion to it being there however. To me it is basically irrelevant.
The atheist protest it is provoking the thought of God and/or religion. This seems a bit exaggerated. Seriously what is the probability that someone or any one person is going to see “In God We Trust” inscribed on money or on anything for that matter, and think “Oh my I better believe in God. Or wow I better go to church?” Really the notion that this is an influential or biased statement is ludicrous to me. Not to mention that the insisting it should be removed isn’t exactly not trying to elicit a dogma or agenda of your own. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
Take for this for another example. A few years back an atheist group was taking aim at a local courthouse having the Ten Commandments on a plaque at the entrance of the building. Their reason again being that this pressures or influences a “false” ideology of a God or a need for religion. This too is an interesting debate.
On one hand if you believe that the Ten Commandments automatically suggests a religious compulsion than it probably has no business on a government building. Since there should be a separation of church and state that is not unreasonable to have that opinion. Nevertheless the Ten Commandments are fundamentally about judicious standards of living. What nation or municipality does not have laws that mirror the Ten Commandments? Honestly does “do not steal” truly imply that you have to believe in God?
Now their are those who will say “now wait a minute there fellow. How about the first 4 Commandments? Clearly they are suggesting a deity.” Let’s analyze this for a moment.
First Commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” This commandment, according to Biblical history was given to the then nation of Israel who pledged their desire to worship their one God. So it was intended as a religious statement. However the commandment was also exposing the fact that the nations surrounding Israel also had their own deities. Clearly then this is showing that individuals ultimately decide if they are going to declare a belief in a god or not. So reading this commandment does not render you under a compulsion to serve a god.
The Second Commandment is “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Like the first commandment it was directed at people who served God. Again though, the fact that other nations had idols to represent other gods shows that people can use their free will in this matter. Also how exactly does this compel any one to feel forced or pressured to acknowledge a deity?
Commandment Three is “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” For a third time I ask how does this offend someone who doesn’t believe that such a God exists. If anything it should make that person laugh that in their view there are people gullible enough to accept a God.
And the Fourth Commandment is “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” This one I find odd to have a problem with. For one if you know Bible teachings then you know that after the death of Jesus the sabbath was not a part of the now established Christian congregation. Another point is most people probably don’t even know what a sabbath is so how could they be influenced by the command to remember it? Finally how does taking the seventh day of the week off of work demand or imply a person believe there is a God?
To reiterate an earlier point, any one who thinks that commandments 5 through 10 aren’t just common sense, than you have a problem beyond whether you believe in God or not.
So the question is really why do some of the self proclaimed atheists display such an audacity to place their interpretation of what these things imply? If they are so intellectually sound why are they offended by the religious overtones of these types of things? Again I state loud and clear that I personally think it is a farce for government to link itself to God but the types of protests that are being raised seem like a colossal waste of time and money. I or may I dare to say everyone I have ever met, is not even remotely influenced by these religiously rooted displays. So why does any one care?
I ask the atheists of the world “how would you feel if there was lawsuits over science suggesting that evolution is fact and not theory? Undoubtedly that could be interpreted as a provocation to those who accept creation.” In fact people have fought to take the creation teaching out of schools but the theory of evolution is still taught in school. How is that a reasonable approach? If your point is that people should not be influenced by fanciful or contrived ideology than how do you not have an objection to science being given a free pass on children and the rest of humanity?
The irony of that is also riveting. For I unabashedly am certain that their is a creator and I couldn’t care any less that schools and/or scientists use their freedom of expression to propose that I am wrong.
Along that similar line of thought their are a host of professed believers of God that distinctly contradict that assertion by their actions. I am not going to get a group together and sue them for false proclamation or that they are unduly projecting a misrepresentation of faith. In fact I would find it disturbing if I even thought about doing that. So no matter how absurd I believe that evolution is or how hypocritical people can be, I certainly am not offended if people express their conviction in the evolution theory or expose their pseudo devotion to God. In fact I encourage more dialog on these subjects.
In conclusion I surmise my biggest concern over the atheist standpoint is the inference of close mindedness over such a dispute. And the superficial assumption that any prelude toward a belief in God has any negative bearing on any one persons life is baffling to me. Seriously folks are you that desperate for attention?
15 Comments
Allow me to address a few of the fallacies here. First, removing siomeone else’s political or religious statements from government issued publications, including currency, or from government owned spaces, like courthouses or public parks, is not “promoting an agenda,” it is preventing others from promoting one. Neutrality is not an agenda any more than a blank piece of paper is a treatise.
Our government should not have a partisan political or religious agenda, period. The implication that our legal system is based on a particular religious viewpoint clearly suggests that those not sharing that viewpoint will not be treated fairly, something no rational person would desire, since that would obviously increase disrespect for our legal system – and, given our state of crminality, perhaps already has.
More of my response can be found by searching for Ninth Sense.
I see what you are saying but I disagree. Why I believe I clearly stated that government has no business posturing itself as having a trust in God, I smell agenda from those fighting to remove it all over the place.
The thought that anyone is treated fairly by corruption is fantasy to begin with. That is my point. Government doesn’t represent any religion it simply is putting out a cloak of Bible speak to appease the majority of professed Christian population.
And why I see your point I ask you do you honestly think one person is swayed by any of these inscriptions or statements?
Thanks Ninth Sense
I used to believe in God and Santa Clause. Then I grew up.
This page takes forever to load but its a very well drawn out article.
I am an atheist and I think that the Ten Commandment stone that is talked about in the article should be removed because its goverment property and is in violation of the separation of church and state. As for the dollar bills I don’t really care either way however it should be removed.
I live in a town where on one of the foothills overlooking downtown is a very large white cross that is lit up at night and can be seen from as far as roughly 10 miles or more. This cross is on privately owned land. Awhile ago there was a group that came here asking for signatures to remove the cross yet I did not sign the petition since I consider it a landmark (it has been there for over 20 years) and is on privately owned land.
The article goes on to mention that if creation can not be taught in schools then why can evolution be taught in science class. To me the reason is because it is science and is based on well researched FACT. I am not implying that the bible is not fact however there has been little to no evidence to support that there is a God. To me the bible is important because of its underlying historical significance and recordings of major events that happened during the time it was written.
There are schools here that have a separate bible study building. I think that parents should be given the choice of having there child either take one or the other or both. Because I think in large part they are both valuable in education and I believe that religion should be a choice and not forced upon a child. I don’t know anything about the bible because I have never read it and honestly I don’t care to. I have made up my mind by weighing the evidence between multiple religions and what I choose to follow.
I congradulate the author on his convictions and hope that he recieves the answers to his questions. Sorry for the extremely long post heh.
The reason many atheists are so upset about god on money (and in the pledge of allegiance) and the commandments in front of court houses is not that they are scared of people being converted by seeing those things.
Atheists are upset because those things are unconstitutional. The government has no business endorsing any religion (even harmlessly). By mentioning god, the government alienates nonbelievers and violates the separation of church and state. Whether anyone changes their mind about god is not the issue. Whether or not the commandments are a good standard of morality is not the issue. The issue is when people assume that the majority completely represents the whole.
We have no reference to any other majority in money, courthouses, or the pledge. The majority of Americans are Caucasian and heterosexual, yet if the government put phrases about that on money or courthouses, people of both the minority and majority would object. Atheists are fighting for their rights as other minorities have done before.
References to god in our government are just one small part of discrimination against atheists.
I suspect atheists are more aggressive because their arguments are becoming increasingly futile, and because the so-called secular Western societies, instead of turning further away from religion, are embracing religions of all sorts.
It always puzzles why atheists get so upset at people believing in God/gods. If they want to be atheists, let them; but why do they insist on evangelising their cause? Nobody actually stops someone being an atheist. They’re not punished, they’re not persecuted, they’re seldom mocked – in other words they get virtually none of the flack that people who believe in God do.
If you want to be an atheist, fine, go ahead. But just keep it to yourselves, will you?
Saying that god does exist is only a belief, and is a belief backed by absolutely no evidence. It is much more sensible to say that god does not exist than if you say god does exist because THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE! Write another article when you can back up your arguments with proof.
Saying that god does exist is only a belief, and is a belief backed by absolutely no evidence. It is much more sensible to say that god does not exist than if you say god does exist because THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE! Write another article when you can back up your arguments with proof.
if you want to believe in god, keep it to yourself.
Thank you all for your thoughts.
rutkowskinator I thank you for sharing but if you think my article was about me aspousing my belief in God then you have horrible reading comprehension.
I think my point is being missed somewhat. I do not belive government should be in the religion business. But also feel that it is an exageration to think that it matters one way or another.
Also if atheists are truly seeking equality and balance than my school anology needs to be revisited. The fact is scientists still call evolution a theory. So I am saying if creation is dismissed from school as having no proof than evolution also should be dismissed since proponents admit it is not fact.
By the way if you believe in evolution that is even more of reason not to care. Because evolution teaches that the cream will rise to the top. So the future will correct itself. So put your money where your mouth is. Don’t worry about it it will all work out on its own.
Our Conscience and Creation itself testify of God so there is plenty of Evidence of His existence, and no excuse in the end for unbelief. As for why Atheists attack us Christians so often, it is just the fulfillment of Biblical End time prophecy, sad thing though is these atheists that attack us don’t even understand that they are fulfilling prophecy, but
2 Timothy 4:3 says this
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
1 Timothy 4:1-2 also says Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
I pray God will reach hearts, and that even now there will still be tender hearts open to heed His voice,
Atheists get so hung up on the word “God” that I think they more times than not simply look to rage against the machine of compliance, yet they still fail to consider the deeper of underlying probability past that which they may have been denied — or have simply opted to focus on all ill-begotten measure ever encountered with no inclusion of the fact that they are able to make any distinction thereof.
Let’s face it — not even happenstance could fulfill coincidence to the degree of all that ever was is and shall ever be.
For those disputing God’s existence, have you ever considered why you are able to consider anything at all?
That evolution is one facet of man’s progression is hardly a means by which to deny that something had to have created the pinnacle to all conscious thought and reason.
Why are you and I able to sit here deducing and debating any and all issue? For even had the very stone we use to beat God’s “assumptive existence” into the ground been created of nothing more than cosmic dust it still cannot explain why we are able to conclude any such synopsis and/or why we even care to.
No hand of any clock ever devised could possibly explain the greater of the very surroundings it is but a quantum component of; Nor can mankind refute the probability of that of his greater likening in any regard.
I nor anyone need prove that which already exists any more than you can deny your ability to come to any conclusion at all.
To deny your greater makings is to deny your ability to surmise them.
Why can you think? Why do you have emotion? Why are you able to read this statement? Where did any of these abilities come from if not from a greater source than that of our own known device?
Prove to me that you cannot think, reason or feel and I will believe there is no God!!!
In the mean time please come up with better and more proficient means by which to negate God from your assumptive lives and leave the rest to those who know better and have given the issue some real thought.
In God we trust!!!
You’re a Christian and that’s the primary driving force behind your writing the article. All your points lead to one fact: that you’re only protecting the interests of your religion. (What about the adherents of other equally valid religions?) It’s really more of the secular humanism movement you’re tackling here, and NOT atheism per se.
It’s not about religion. It’s about the fact that something had to have created all that is. Not to mention the fact that what created yours and my ability to contemplate, surmise or conclude anything whatsoever?
Religion is merely what contorts and maligns God’s true purpose for the universe and keeps truth in darkness.
I do not adhere to religion. I simply adhere to the idea that something greater than us has created us, otherwise what is the point of not only all that is, but our ability to think and reason.
Even evolution had to have been born from something other than itself, as too the heavily contemplated notions of UFOs etc.
Who or what created UFOs and/or other beings of mindful nature from other galaxies?
Again, prove to me that God doesn’t exist and in the same vein prove to me that you cannot think or reason; Or prove to me where you got your ability to do so.
You can no more or less disprove your ability to think because thought is the proof in and of itself in that, you are able to do so; As is God the very same means by which we seek to prove or dispel him.
You’re overlooking the most important thing here: We are supposed to be a secular nation. In the beginning, this was the most secular country in history. Now, thanks to religious fundamentalists and Christian groups, that is not so. Constitutionally, the government is not supposed to sponsor or take the side of any religion, but since “In God we Trust” is on our dollar bill, it’s obvious that they are.