We are rebelling against God according to this guy.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We are rebelling against God according to this guy.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100318/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism/

Notice where the writer talks about the author of the book and says:

Quote:
He admits that it could appear unseemly or offensive to suggest that a person's lack of belief in God is a form of rebellion. But he said in a recent interview with the Evangelical Philosophical Society that he was compelled to write the book because he is convinced that "it is a clear biblical truth".

It is "offensive" but not in the sense, at least for me, that one should take it as bigotry. It is offensive because it makes no sense to "rebel" against something we don't hold a belief in. It would be like rebelling against Micky Mouse.

But it is a "rebellion" in the general uprising against unproven naked assertions. There is a cause for atheism because there are still people claiming magical disembodied super brains with magical super powers.

I don't think this believer is being a bigot as much as they are falling for stereotypes because of their delusion.

So I do think it is ok to call us rebels, but against any unproven claim. I don't think it fits to try to paint us as spoiled bratty teenagers.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100318/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism/

Notice where the writer talks about the author of the book and says:

Quote:
He admits that it could appear unseemly or offensive to suggest that a person's lack of belief in God is a form of rebellion. But he said in a recent interview with the Evangelical Philosophical Society that he was compelled to write the book because he is convinced that "it is a clear biblical truth".

It is "offensive" but not in the sense, at least for me, that one should take it as bigotry. It is offensive because it makes no sense to "rebel" against something we don't hold a belief in. It would be like rebelling against Micky Mouse.

But it is a "rebellion" in the general uprising against unproven naked assertions. There is a cause for atheism because there are still people claiming magical disembodied super brains with magical super powers.

I don't think this believer is being a bigot as much as they are falling for stereotypes because of their delusion.

So I do think it is ok to call us rebels, but against any unproven claim. I don't think it fits to try to paint us as spoiled bratty teenagers.

 

On the basis of a broadbrush, nothing makes sense... however, broadbrushes save time.

Just about everything you claim is 'inaccurate' about atheists, is actually quite accurate about me.

Secondly, evangelicals always go for the 'victim card' because they enjoy self-martyrdom......

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
But I do rebel against Micky Mouse!

And Ronald McDonald too!

http://banksy.co.uk/

http://banksy.co.uk/indoors/napalm.html

Banksy is a genius. He is a rebel against oppression and injustice and his weapon is art. Check out his site, there is some really amazing stuff there.

Brian37 wrote:
It is offensive because it makes no sense to "rebel" against something we don't hold a belief in. It would be like rebelling against Micky Mouse.

Whether I think deiti(es) are real or not, I do rebel against the actions people take in their names. Same with Micky Mouse. So "rebel" is what I do, whether its against a person or a concept. But that doesn't change the fact that the writer of that garbage is an asshat.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Haha!!So instead of

Haha!!

So instead of butchering biology and cosmology they've decided to go for psychology this time.
Out of all the Christian approaches; others make me cringe but I think this one actually offends me.
It's one thing to disagree with my view of the world, but to attack my morality because I have an honest opinion rather than just "being obedient"?

Not cool...


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Rebelling against something

Rebelling against something that is not there. I think I'll go cash this invisible million dollar check too.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin