Atheism

Most atheists are just bitter and despondent individuals who are against the world, themselves, and by extension God. This usually runs parallel to a desire to be seen as "sophisticated". Scripture, to a large degree, is expressed in metaphor and represents complex human interactions-situations that are, nevertheless, common experiences we've all had to navigate and will have to until we die.

Within any metaphor, such as being swallowed by a whale, there is room for doubt because it is, after all, an abstraction. This makes it easy for atheists to poke holes and invalidate, so long as they stay on a rudimentary and, if you will, literal level. They don't invalidate anything, but, by hearing themselves talk or parrot what they think are new-age, rational "arguments" provides edification to individuals who are insecure and look for and, ultimately, depend on some semblance of superiority. The smug arrogant neck bearded basement dweller comes to mind. A sort of Comic-book Guy from the Simpsons persona.

I also think there's a strong vein of resentment against God. Apropos of Jonah and the Whale, God has His way and that is that. There are rules and they can be exacting. Today's secular humanistic ideology is "do as thou wilt" and anything standing in your way of achieving this is what's evil, because, you're trying to live your life on your terms. This results in hostility to rules across the board, not just chewing bubble gum in school, but relinquishing your duty to your family. So, this is not trivial. Denying God and His ways have consequences and right now people are trying to live without consequences.

But all of this is in vain and the joke is ultimately on the atheist. They're not "sophisticated" they're just gluttons who want to use advanced forms of sophistry to justify things like their obesity or perverse sexual habits. And, speaking of the devil, both gluttony and lust are primary sins. Both of these are highly desired by leftists because they're sources of immediate gratification. Got to have that sugary rush.

God's way is never about instant satisfaction, rather, it's more like going on a diet, denying appetites, and enduring some hardship, but, being rewarded six months down the road with perfect health and a runner's high. No surprise which course is more popular, obviously, most people will choose the former over the latter. But then again, when Pilot asked the people, they voted to kill Jesus, so, this shouldn't be surprising.
 
There's a Youtube channel called Modern Day Debates that does a lot of these atheist vs Christian debates. These debates are usually done online via Youtube streaming but they also hold a live event each year called DebateCon where these debates happen live with a n audience watching. Earlier this month during this year's DebateCon, they had Andrew Wilson who is an Orthodox Christian against Matt Dillahunty who is one of most well known atheist debators (he debated Jordan Peterson before a live audience at a similar type of event). In this debate, Dillahunty raged quitted and walked out right after Wilson gave his opening statement and has become a bit of a laughingstock after being feared as one of the best atheist debators on the scene.



It's a sad thing watching those Christians in the audience exchange with Andrew after Matt rage quits. They don't see the mechanism being used against them. The whole virtue-posturing and victim-maneuvering has completely subsumed true virtues. Everyone is so worried about looking charitable that it has come to the point that they are now toying with absurd and horrific falsehoods. They are so upset Andrew used the word "lunatic". I don't think they'd recognize Christ if they met him. Andrew even hinted to that (Christ calling people swine) and they didn't see it. Their vision of Christ is not Christ at all.
 
I saw a discussion which turned to a debate on Dyer's link, something like jimbo, that RC guy who smokes, the gnostic somebody, and a myth guy that couldn't understand a category of arguing that Jay honed in on. The idea was that he was asked why isn't his analysis equally considered a similar myth as the ancient stuff he all claims to also be myth, which is uncomfortably true for the "observer" who has no real foundation for his thoughts, just "science." A commenter then said a really pithy thing, which is that debates with atheists go like this:

"I can't prove why X is true, but I do know that Y is false, based on X."
 
I just wonder how much of the popularity and force of atheism is simply because it helps Jews undermine Christianity.

Talmuds do it naturally. Because their religious worldview is spiritually and theologically bankrupt, it is only natural that Talmudism produces hordes of Atheist Jews. From Marxism to modern secular Jews, Talmudism is not grounded on anything other than some kind of delusion that they are carrying on with Moses' promise of a coming messiah, even though he was supposed to come out of the Second Temple destroyed 2000 years ago.
 

Wasn't quite sure where to link this but figured putting it as a reply to this tweet could work since this articles talks about how there's been a rise in interest in Christianity in the mostly secular UK even if it's just from an cultural and agnostic approach.


The New Atheists of the early 2000s – led by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett – predicted a utopia founded upon science and reason once we had abandoned religion. But their bestselling books proved to be full of empty promises. All that our post-Christian society has delivered so far is confusion, a mental health crisis in the young and the culture wars. It’s not surprising then that a movement of New Theists has sprung up.

Influencers such as Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray are increasingly talking about the value of Christian faith and the dangers of casting it off. The former new atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been praising the virtues of our Judaeo-Christian heritage, after becoming convinced that secular humanism cannot save the West. The women’s rights campaigner Louise Perry has been advocating for a return to traditional Christian morality since writing her book The Case Against The Sexual Revolution. The evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein often describes religion as ‘metaphorically true’. Secular psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt and John Vervaeke have written extensively about the value of faith in the midst of a ‘meaning crisis’ in the West.

Where this movement is headed remains to be seen. The statistics show an overall picture of continued decline of religiosity. Churchgoing in some denominations has been in free fall for decades. Yet one recent piece of research has given me pause for thought. In Finland, church attendance among 18- to 29-year-old men more than doubled between 2011 and 2019. The same uptick applies to their prayer habits and belief in God. The stats might just be a weird anomaly (this hasn’t been recorded in other Nordic countries), or it may be a canary in the coal mine.
 

He's not the only one. (((Adam Silverman))) was the president of a group called American Athiests, which were an athiest activist group. He recently wrote an article bemoaning the paganization of America, and mused that perhaps Christianity is a necessary evil.

One thing is clear: the athiest utopia of enlightenment and science that they used to circle-jerk over 10 years ago is a total myth. Humans by nature are designed to worship something, and if they're not worshipping the One True God, they'll worship anything else. The Seculorum is the religion that must be destroyed.
 
This thread should be moved to Other Religions.

For as smart as Ehrman is, I do not understand how someone can claim to be a former Christian and be so well-read in the field and still flounder at topics like this. There is no greater power that compelled God to put forward Jesus as the propitiation other than His own holiness, or in the words of Paul, God cannot deny Himself.
 
Last edited:
This thread should be moved to Other Religions.

For as smart as Ehrman is, I do not understand how someone can claim to be a former Christian and be so well-read in the field and still flounder at topics like this. There is no greater power that compelled God to put forward Jesus as the propitiation other than His own holiness, or in the words of Paul, God cannot deny Himself.

Because head-knowledge is not the same as heart-knowledge or faith. Just adhering to or defending a set of theologic principles will not save you. Only a childlike faith in your heart in Jesus Christ will.

 
Last edited:
Its a spiritual sickness
This is true.

In some sense I have a respect for atheists. Because unlike someone who merely doesn't care about spiritual matters and are very much embroiled in a debased lifestyle. Atheists at least consider the deeper questions.

My sense is that the sincere atheists are grappling with something and have a desire for God but are experiencing deep spiritual conflict because the God Who is, isn't the God they want.

Its like Saint Seraphim of Platina said:

"Atheism, true 'existential' atheism burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God, is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God.… Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ."
 
This is true.

In some sense I have a respect for atheists. Because unlike someone who merely doesn't care about spiritual matters and are very much embroiled in a debased lifestyle. Atheists at least consider the deeper questions.

My sense is that the sincere atheists are grappling with something and have a desire for God but are experiencing deep spiritual conflict because the God Who is, isn't the God they want.

Its like Saint Seraphim of Platina said:

"Atheism, true 'existential' atheism burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God, is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God.… Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ."
One thing Iv noticed about the atheists Iv engaged with is they dont really think about the afterlife and death its not a topic they really discuss
 
They hope that if they ignore it, it will go away
This is more in line with agnostics. Atheists at least have a vitriol with which you can work.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." - Revelation 3: 15-16
 
This thread should be moved to Other Religions.

For as smart as Ehrman is, I do not understand how someone can claim to be a former Christian and be so well-read in the field and still flounder at topics like this. There is no greater power that compelled God to put forward Jesus as the propitiation other than His own holiness, or in the words of Paul, God cannot deny Himself.

But Ehrman is right in the first part when he says that God doesn't require a payment. There is nothing we can give Him that is not already His. Jesus died so that we can be free from sin, united to God, and finally overcome death.
 
But Ehrman is right in the first part when he says that God doesn't require a payment. There is nothing we can give Him that is not already His. Jesus died so that we can be free from sin, united to God, and finally overcome death.
God does not require a payment from us, sure. But being Reformed, I believe that Christ's death was necessary (even predestined according to Acts 4) according to God's own Holy nature, He does let sin go unpunished because He is perfectly just.

Ehrman thinks we are saying that there is an external force outside of God that is forcing Him to require justice and that is what he is misunderstanding about the Atonement. We believe that both God's Justice and Mercy are revealed in the Atonement, not just one or the other.
 
A theme I've brought up a few times that lot of the pagan neo-Pagan LARPers who are atheists only revere the gods in their pantheon because these gods are a projection of their tribe/nation and they are essentially engaging in self-worship of themselves. Anything they do for these gods is done because these rituals, sacrifices, odes, and what else are seen as something that connects them to their tribe - meaning the the ultimate purpose of the worship is to glorify themselves. The typical modern secular Jew practices Judaism for the same reason. Here's a Catholic guy making the same point


CWR: In your 2009 book The Character of Nations, you go into quite a bit of detail about the Establishment and its hostility toward traditional structure and beliefs. In analyzing the roots of this situation you state that “all modern regimes increasingly resemble ancient rather than medieval ones.” What are some ways in which ancient and modern regimes are similar, and how do they differ from medieval regimes?

Codevilla: Ancient regimes were intellectually and morally self contained. They themselves were their own frame of reference for good and evil, better and worse. Their gods were the gods of the city or of the empire. When they worshiped those gods, they essentially worshiped themselves. There was no difference between politics, religion, and society. Hence, there was no basis for individual freedom. The closest to ancient polities in our time, prior to, say, the last forth years or so, was Japan—the world’s largest tribe.

Christianity, which gave medieval regimes their character, which character endured in the Western world up until recent decades, revolutionized life by recognizing each individual’s direct relationship to God—the creator of the universe, the essence of goodness, and hence the one and only standard of right and wrong. This, including Jesus’s mandate to separate duties to God and to Caesar, made it possible for life in the West to be lived on several independent levels. This is (or was) our charter of freedom. As Luther put it: “Be on you knees before God, that you may stand on your feet before men.”

Modern regimes, by denying the existence of God and his laws have, once again, placed their own human authority beyond any challenge but by power. Collapsing the distinction between freedom and power quite simply destroys the autonomy of individuals and of society—hence of freedom.
 
Back
Top