You Might Actually Have Taken a Verse Out of Context

Ever had a Christian tell you you’ve taken a verse out of context? You think you’ve found a silver bullet of a verse, but apparently you haven’t considered the context. Of course it’s too easy to see this as ducking and weaving from the Christian. In atheist circles the word context is almost like a dirty word when discussing the bible. But what if we are actually taking things out of context? 

Lately I’ve come to a different conclusion about context ie it’s incredibly important given when looking at the bible.  Context is not just a matter of reading the chapter again or even the book. Context is larger than that and extends to understanding ANE culture and the meaning of specific words in Koine Greek or Hebrew. We can’t expect to read the bible plainly as if it was written to be read by an english speaking audience in 2015. We certainly can’t expect to be taken seriously by Christians who do know their bibles if we read it in a way that is plain and shallow. But that probably won’t stop someone from claiming it’s just a book of fairytales anyway.

You Have to Admit, This Begs Ridicule

Yes. I do agree. You do have to admit this meme begs ridicule.

Theists reject any answers not in this single book? Think about the monstrous amount of information that a theist couldn’t have if this was the case. No cooking unless the recipe is in the bible. Really ridiculous. 

Evolution Isn’t a Silver Bullet

How odd. If it wasn’t for evolution Dawkins couldn’t imagine being an atheist. Does this mean Dawkins would have a faith akin to a Young Earth Creationist, whose faith might be eroded by evolution?

Frequently on threads, people express thinking like this, making evolution seem like the sliver bullet for faith. You find atheists arguing about how evolution invalidates creation and therefore the rest of it is bunk.  Some will admit they mean this as a critique of YEC, but others apply it to all forms of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. If you were to say, “some Christians accept evolution completely”, you get a really odd answer. They say, “well they obviously haven’t read the bible” and then parrot a YEC perspective on creation. 

Why did they come to accept the YEC postion as the most accurate reading of the bible? Does a religious upbringing, like mine, in fundamentalist YEC style environments effect your view of the bible even after you leave? Either way, it seems that evolution isn’t the nail in coffin we might want it to be.  I’d go even further and say it can certainly be compatible with faith.

An Ongoing Conversation

So I think this would be the rebuttal of the rebuttal to the rebuttal? lol. Again thanks to Makagutu for the post.

He argues that by defining atheism as a lack of belief, this belief includes children and stones.  The first is correct, the second is absurd.

Yes this is how absurd the definition is for encompassing what atheism is. It would include anything that lacks the belief in gods. Now even if we said well let’s only include people. It keeps being absurd because a baby is now an atheist. 

Is there any absurdity in not polling children as atheists? No. It is absurd to call them this or that believer.

On this we agree, it would be absurd to poll a child as an atheist. I also agree it’s ridiculous to label as some sort of believer.  But if I believe this then I would find the label of atheist as just as absurd.  Bringing us back to why ‘a lack of belief in gods’ tells us nothing meaningful about atheism.

If it is an argument against atheism, it is silly.

Not sure why you would jump to wondering if it’s an argument against atheism. An atheist arguing against a poor definition of atheism can’t be an argument against atheism. Not unless you get hyper sensitive about anything related to atheism. 

If it is an argument for theism, it has no legs.

Again not sure how this leap would be made. But always be on the lookout for sneaky arguments for theism lol

To argue because there are atheists, god must exist means Santa is real, fairies are real, unicorns exist and so much more. It is silly to say the least.

Has nothing to do with the article.  Seems like a seperate point but I think it’s likely to get a few cheers from the fans.

Atheism is the Default Position

Ever heard that argued? David G McAfee actually does argue this.  Think about how meaningless this for a second.  You’re just saying that because we start of with no belief in gods, in fact no beliefs in anything as far as we know, it’s meaningful to call this the default.  Oddly enough some people use this triumphantly in debate followed by “and then we get indoctrinated into believing bullshit religion” or something to that effect. Well here’s a twist on that demonstrating the issues with this claim being used as an argumentative point.

If atheism is the default position that means babies are atheists. However as they mature mentally and develop the capacity to reason they overwhelming choose theism. See the problems with claiming atheism is a default? It actually appears as if the ‘default’ correlates with the inability to reason fully.

So it makes little sense to say atheism is the default as if it points to something favourable about that stance. 

Gish Galloping Your Way Through Threads

Ever debated a Young Earth Creationist? You know how some of them just come at you with a stack of arguments, most ridiculous, or questions of the style?

If people came from apes why are there still apes?
If evolution is true where are all the missing link fossils?
What about Mt St Helen Eruption?
The bible clearly provides evidence for a young earth!

You get the picture.  Since evolution is a complex concept and the area it covers is enormous it takes time to properly answer those questions and combat terrible arguments. Hell, even if the arguments were good it’s sill going to take time. But usually by the time you’re done answering the first question properly, they’ve left claiming you can’t answer the questions or combat their viewpoint.

It’s disappointing to see our fair share of Gish Galloping in threads arguing against religion. Firing off questions in rapid succession and making frequent and silly arguments, just don’t cut it. It might win you a few cheers from the atheist cheer squad, but how well have you engaged? I know some might say “well it doesn’t deserve proper engagement it’s a load of bullshit”. Well if that’s you then please ignore this.  But if you are interested in engaging for the sake of understanding and rebutting arguments I think you need to slow down. We can’t expect the theist to provide a quick and easy response to “What do you believe?” (God I hate that question, broad much?) that is convincing. You are expecting them to sum up a complex belief in a comment or two.  To finish here’s a little sample of the atheist Gish Galloping I usually see on threads.

There’s no evidence for your god!
Show me a shred of evidence for your god?
We’re all atheists, I just go one god further than you!
So you’re saying Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists etc are going to hell?
How can their be free will if God exists?

The ‘Atheism is Just a Lack of Belief in Gods’ Defense.

How often have you seen the ‘atheism is just a lack of belief in gods’ defense? Yes I purposely used the word defense, because typically this is when someone pulls out this useless definition. If someone points out that atheism motivated an atrocity, then all of a sudden ‘atheism is just a lack of belief in gods’ stalls any further criticism. Nothing bad could ever be attributed to atheism because there’s nothing there just a lack of belief in something.

There are two major problems I have with this idea. The first being that if this works as a definition for atheism, then an atheist is someone who just lacks a belief in gods and that’s that. However we know this isn’t the case for a host of people who call themselves atheists. In particular those that were formerly religious and rationalized their way out of the belief system. So they don’t JUST lack a belief in gods, they have at the very least a belief about whether gods exist or not. More accurately they have beliefs about why gods don’t exist. Ask the atheist you find arguing on threads why they are an atheist and you won’t likely get told, “well I just lack a belief in gods”. They will usually explain that there wasn’t enough evidence, the bible is not accurate and many other rationalizations.  Now the funny part is that it is these same people, who will employ the ‘just a lack of belief in gods’ defense, as if it applies to them in some way.

The second problem is that ‘just a lack of belief in gods’ is casting the net so wide as to become useless. It would include the agnostic, the person who doesn’t think it’s even worth talking about, hell it would even include babies who don’t have the cognitive capacity to have a stance on the issue. They lack a belief in gods like they lack a belief in most things. Unfortunately the obvious problems of calling a baby an atheist doesn’t stop the atheist memes featuring babies with a slogan like “We are all born atheists”. Truly profound stuff and hey it ups the numbers over at Team Atheism right?

Now if we want to be honest we do have a belief about gods and that being they don’t exist. It is more in line with what it means to be an atheist for many of. When comes to being someone who just lacks a belief in god, well if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.

The Bible Was Written By Bronze Age Goat Herders

As a nice compliment to “The bible is a book of fairytales”, you may see someone claim that the bible is written by Bronze Age goat herders. The weirdest thing about this is that some people take it seriously. If it’s an insult, it’s an odd one, but ok.  Now if it’s taken seriously, it’s demonstrates how easily some people will accept rubbish if it’s couched in anti-religious terms.  What I want to know is where did this idea come from? The source, I assume is golden, as so many atheists will drop it proudly into a thread and we know how well read the atheist crowd are. Reason, evidence and logic above all else.

I wonder also do they mean the whole bible was written by Bronze Age goat herders? Passed from goat herder to goat herder until this very day, where the masses of mindless theists shun modernity for it’s ancient drivel.  Or some scenario like that right?

Religion Causes Harm: Can You Prove It’s Unique?

The claim that religious belief causes harm is often trotted out by atheists in debates.  Now it would be foolish of a religious person to deny that religous beliefs have caused harm.  It’s evident in so many cases it would be difficult to deny, from JW’s denial of blood transfusions to extremist religious violence.  However some people take this a little further. They say if we got rid of religion the world would be a better place. Particularly because of the absence of harms religion causes the world.

The atheist claiming this may even consider all the positive things that would be lost with religion.  However they might say well you know none of those things would be unable to be found outside of religion, so no big deal. Things like charity, community and spiritual experiences can all exist without religion. They’d be right too.

The issue here is that if you claim the good done through religion can also be done without it, then you should apply the same reasoning to the harm. You need to show that the harms claimed as the product of religion, can’t also be found outside of religion. If not, all you are arguing for is the ending of harms that in some cases are religiously motivated. When the world is rid of religion, why wouldn’t the same harms pop up again, just motivated by something else?

So next time you find yourself claiming the world would be better off without religion due to the harms it causes, ask yourself “What makes this harm unique to religion ?”.

Rules For Dodging Criticism As An Atheist

God being an atheist is good. You can dodge criticisms of atheism and the atheist community in so many ways.

1. Say we aren’t actually a community, we have no churches, no leaders etc. This way anything that gets done in the name of atheism or by atheists is just humans being human.

2. Fall back on “atheism is just a lack of belief in gods” when confronted with critiques of atheism. Especially if it’s about being motivated by atheism to do horrible things. 

3. Dismiss the bible as a book of fairytales when someone points out your poor understanding of the bible.

4. Psychologize the believer. Make sure to insinuate that they are mentally ill. If not just outright say it. Or if you want a lighter touch, just make it seem like they are being overly emotional about their beliefs and this is what is driving their critique of your arguments.

5. Finger point. When confronted with poor arguments from atheists or bad behavior just say “Yeah but religious people have done…”  Then insert anything from the Crusades to modern examples of war and the moral failings of religous leaders. In this way you won’t have to have your own standards, you can just make sure you aren’t as bad as the religious, which equals being good.

6. Insist someone must read a library worth of books you’ve read, so they can understand your argument. Don’t bother to actually explain your argument, they should just know better.

7. If you meet a Christian who doesn’t fit the usual mold of the YEC style bible belters you’re used to, don’t believe their nuanced view of the bible. Make sure to be dismissive of it and just forge ahead as if they were YEC.