Atheists Aren’t Any Better At Being Atheist Than Religious People Being Religious

June 2, 2013


CNN’s website gave a list of famous atheists along with some quotes. I wanted to give my thoughts on these particular ones which stuck out to me, as they are tantamount of the views and assumptions held my many atheists I’ve come across. I realize I don’t have the full context of their words, but I still wanted to say a few things about the quotes given:

Keira Knightley: “If only I wasn’t an atheist; I could get away with anything. You’d just ask for forgiveness, and then you’d be forgiven.”

Right off the bat we see that Keira hasn’t thought things through very much. One could just as easily say the same as an atheist, namely, there is no such thing as “forgiveness”, it’s just an illusion caused by random neuron firings in the brain, thus do whatever you want. In addition, she’s not critiquing Christianity, only a one-sided misconception of Christianity. And she’ll probably never realize this because atheists hardly care to look into these things and be balanced. James 2 teaches that faith without works is dead, meaning dead faith. Works will evidence whether or not our faith is real.

Andy Rooney: “I don’t understand religion at all. I’m sure I’ll offend a lot of people by saying this, but I think it’s all nonsense.”

I wish I could ask him to be more specific. Does he really believe it’s “all” nonsense, including the world wide care and relief that is given due to the belief that God has called us to help those in need?

Penn Jillette: “If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true, and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”

Atheists assume they hold the market on science, whereas it was theists whom broke away from Rome, it was theists whom sparked the Scientific Revolution, and it was a theist whom challenged the atheist scientist’s belief of a finite universe. Atheists assume that science is inherently atheistic. They believe it is a better book than the Bible in terms of truth, and that this book will necessarily lead to atheism.

But science first requires observers that observe the observable. All 3 of which can’t be accounted for by Naturalism. Naturalism can’t even theoretically account for life (observers), logic (observe), and the universe (observable). Science deals with “what is”, not “what should be”, yet we are creatures whom possess a “should be” paradigm, thus even atheists will extrapolate the “should be” from their perceived paradigm of “what is”. But there isn’t any logical connection. This is why the Bible is more powerful in written form in showing us what “should be”.

James Cameron: “I’ve sworn off agnosticism, which I now call cowardly atheism.”

If I were not a Christian I believe I would be an agnostic. Some Christians openly admit to struggle with atheism, and all of us have doubts at times if we’re honest. But for me, the temptation towards agnosticism is much more greater than atheism, that is, if I were to be intellectually honest. Atheism is too much of a fulfillment of the Bible’s anthropology, and as an atheist that would not settle well with me. It would reveal to me my unfounded bias.

Agnosticism is much more intellectually honest than atheism, as many agnostics understand that truth and morality require absolutes and that there is nothing fantastical about believing in God, whereas many atheists I’ve come across take a hard stance against these. Yet, in being more intellectually honest in this regard, as an agnostic it would also be intellectually difficult to weed through the various voices claiming to be true. Atheism is not more honest, it’s less honest. Agnosticism is not more cowardly, it’s just that atheism allows the pride to take over more.

Seth MacFarlane: “It’s like the civil-rights movement. There have to be people who are vocal about the advancement of knowledge over faith.”

The pitting of “faith and reason” is a trendy jingle that atheists love to throw around, which unfortunately creates a false dichotomy where there need not be. But nobody seems to notice. I’d like to ask Seth if he’s a naturalist, and if he has certainty of Naturalism or if he takes it on faith (=propensity, likelihood, inference, etc). Also, I’d ask him if nature being designed to be profoundly complimentary and contingent goes against Naturalism.

Ricky Gervais: “Wow. No God. If mum had lied to me about God, had she also lied to me about Santa? Yes, of course, but who cares? The gifts kept coming,” he said. “And so did the gifts of my new found atheism. The gifts of truth, science, nature. The real beauty of this world.”

It is for this very reason why I also wrote an article about why it’s dangerous to lie to our kids about Santa. I’m very shocked that an atheist would be so blind and make a statement about the beauty of nature and attribute it to a non-mind ultimately. The Bible does not set out to prove God’s existence via our 5 senses. The ancient Hebrews struggled at times with the fact that their God was mocked by pagans since they didn’t have a statue of him to worship. Times haven’t changed much after thousands of years, only now Christians are mocked for not worshiping the God of Chanclea and Accidentlea whereby all design is a result of an ultimate impersonal existence.

Rather, the OT shows that God created the world with wisdom, and the NT in Romans says that, “for his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Special revelation of “which” God is another topic we can put aside for now. Just the acceptance of the divine, in terms of the Bible, we are to expect to see clear evidence of invisible attributes and eternal power in the creation around us. And we do. Again, everything is profoundly complimentary. Atheists see this but they don’t see it, which perfectly matches the teaching of Jesus.

Kathy Griffin: “A lot of people come up here and they thank Jesus for this award,” she said. “I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. He didn’t help me a bit. … So all I can say is suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now.”

Jesus is an easy target for atheists, because they must be careful not to mock Allah openly. And doesn’t she realize that she’s flattering Christians by demonstrating that Jesus affects her?

Richard Dawkins: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

Atheists love to say this. It will be written down in the Atheist’s book of parables someday if they ever get one. Of course we reject all other gods, because all other gods are too small. They are all said to be finite, not eternal. What Dawkins may not realize is that only the Christian God is specifically revealed to be eternal. Ancient Jews believed God was eternal, whereas even modern scientists (up until the 70’s) all believed the universe was eternal. Now we realize it is finite and had an eternal starting point. All Roman and Greek gods are finite and never said to be eternal, hence why it’s easy to logically reject them. And even if these finite gods did exist, we’d still be monotheists in that we worship the one true eternal triune God.

Sam Harris: “We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself.”

This demonstrates the foolishness of the atheist’s un-holy war against religion. A culture and society which believes in God is the “greatest problem confronting civilization” to Harris.

No differently than the Jews whom crucified Christ, atheists don’t really know who or what their real enemy is. Our real enemy is sin and death, and these exist regardless of one’s worldview. Yet, atheists are quick to assume all our problems stem from religion. They give off the pretension that they themselves are the smartest, most rational, choicest stock of civilians and thus, are on a crusade to rid the world of religion.

Sam, if you could secretly push a button to kill all religious people in the world, would you push it? Would you be tempted? And if so, is that evil in your heart?

Yet, our society needs no help from religion to destroy itself. It does that just fine without religious reasons. Turn on the news or read a newspaper on a daily basis to discover this basic truth. Apart from the terrorists, most people are committing evil, not because of religious reasons, but because they are fully capable within themselves of doing wrong and evil. We live in a selfish, prideful world thus, have selfish and prideful actions which affect many others for the worse. This perfectly fits the Bible’s anthropology. Atheists should not be confused at the human condition if one really believes in survival of the fittest. We would then expect that people should always want for themselves at the expense of others.

Daniel Dennett: “You don’t get to advertise all the good that your religion does without first scrupulously subtracting all the harm it does and considering seriously the question of whether some other religion, or no religion at all, does better.”

Again, you don’t need to be “religious” to do harm. Think of all the wars in the last century where millions and millions have died, which were not fought over religion. In addition, how does atheism account for why this type of harm is wrong in the first place. If Naturalism or relativism is true, “wrong” is ultimately just an illusion. Here is another atheist seeing without seeing.

Stephen Hawking: “Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he wrote. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Hawking is turning possibilities into certainties. When Christians do this we are labeled idiotic, biased, and un-scientific. Yet, when the naturalist attempts to align science with their worldview of Naturalism, which can’t be proven, it gets a free pass. One confirmation bias is accepted, while one is watched like a hawk and slapped if not minding its P’s and Q’s. But saying that matter can arise from the sub-atomic is only a small part of the problem if your goal is to kick God out of the equation. Again, Hawking cannot scientifically demonstrate how nature is profoundly complimentary within his paradigm. Another atheist seeing without seeing.

Greg Epstein: “This is not a book about whether one can be good without God, because that question does not need to be answered — it needs to be rejected outright. To suggest that one can’t be good without belief in God is not just an opinion, a mere curious musing — it is a prejudice.”

Where atheism used to consistently lead some to nihilism, now atheists love to help grandmas cross the street to show religious do-gooders that they can hold their own in the peeing contest of charity. Yet, I have no clue why anyone would write a book about how atheists can be good people too. The Bible even teaches this. The real argument is how the atheist “accounts” for good in the first place.

Kurt Vonnegut: “[anthropology] confirmed my atheism, which was the religion of my fathers anyway,”

People being intrinsically selfish confirmed atheism?

Isaac Asimov: “If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul.”

He hit on a Biblical truth. Mat 7 says “not everyone whom says to me “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does my Father’s will”, meaning not everyone whom claims to be on God’s side is. Look at the WBC. But basing one’s salvation on the totality of their works only leads to pride of self-righteousness or despair of not being good enough. This all assumes a shallow view of God’s holiness as well. One sin is enough to separate Adam and Satan from God for eternity, so it is with all of humanity. But the free gospel of grace is that God saves us from the penalty of the law by fulfilling it for us in order to become a living law for him, and in him.

Ayn Rand: “to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.”

Intertwining aspects of philosophy with science isn’t going back to the days where the church and state were one. Naturalistic interpretations of science, which are dominant today, have philosophical implications as well as ID. But no one cries foul when philosophical naturalism is heavily implied, or even outright taught. If there ever was a philosophical bias worn on the sleeve of scientists, pop-scientists, and those whom are the face of science to the public, it is philosophical Naturalism. So forget going back to the days of church and state. Rather, we could presently liken ourselves to a Communist regime whereby intelligence beyond our own is never allowed for fear that it may bolster people’s belief in God.

I can’t, yet can, believe that this is still repeated today non-stop. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that religion can’t inform politics. The Constitution is explicitly against a monopoly of one religion. The two are distinguishable, yet not to those whom have an anti-religious religious agenda. Separation of Church and State was mentioned in a letter by Jefferson when the state was controlling the church, not the other way around! The state of Connecticut was forcing the Baptists to pay taxes to the Congregationalists.

Katharine Hepburn: “I’m an atheist, and that’s it. I believe there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for each other.”

How does she know that? This happens all the time. People say “don’t trust that book”, or “don’t trust that belief”, etc. yet what they are really saying, and offering as an alternative, is “trust me”. Again, seeing without seeing.



  1. Fun with competing generalizations and moral caricatures. Many an incorrect correction above.

    • Hi again Daniel. Such as?

    • Daniel, are you scared to have a dialogue and actually have your assumptions challenged, or are you always just going to do an Internet drive by on here? If you’re in the truth then it should be easy for you to correct me. Are you in the truth?

  2. Dawkin’s quip is one of the many foolish things he has said. Using his logic, being a bachelor is nearly identical to being a married man. After all, the married man isn’t married to 3,499,999,999 women and the bachelor isn’t married to 3,500,00,000 women.

    • I believe you since I never liked that guy. If you ask me, he’s a liar who’s full of himself.

  3. Gervais’ comment shows the importance of knowing the Bible and answering basic questions that kids have. When those claiming the name of Christ get defensive and/or are woefully uninformed about the faith they often give horrible answers to kids or convey a “just believe” attitude. Ugh.

    • Absolutely! I’ve seen it many times. Although the gospel is foolishness to the world and is the wisdom of God, we are still called to give a defense for the hope that lies within us.

  4. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    (Romans 1:20 KJV)

    I had to post this in light of the Scripture used above. I realize you said, “Special revelation of “which” God is another topic we can put aside for now.”, and understand what you meant in scope of the entire post. I only use the above Scripture because of the difference in meaning between “Godhead” and “divine nature”. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that by using the term Godhead rather than divine nature, we automatically dodge the New Age and Pagan agendas of trying to lump it all up into one giant ecumenical sludge.

    New Age and Pagan believers believe in a “divine nature” but not in the Biblical sense, hence the importance of using the KJV. It’s also another reason I avoid using the term trinity or triune – terms that appear nowhere in Scripture. These terms and their original meanings, though used interchangeably by many Christians, imply that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate but equal. Godhead is defined in Scripture as being all one simultaneously (1 John 5:7 KJV – removed in other versions), a concept not easily grasped even by some Christians let alone atheists. After all, this is why Jesus was a stumblingblock to the Jews but was foolishness to the Greeks (1 Cor 1:23). Jews knew of the wholeness of God but some couldn’t and can’t accept Jesus in all His humility as God because He was made flesh (John 1:14). Greeks couldn’t (and as we see above, still can’t in some cases) accept this because it goes against their preconceived notions of what they deem to be logical and scientific.

    I would love for an atheist for just once to sit down and ponder in the (false) light of naturalism and post-modernism where their morals originally stem from. And saying, “I don’t do ‘such and such’ because it’s wrong.” is not an acceptable answer. We born again believers in Christ Jesus want to know WHY you think it’s wrong. 😛

    Amazing post and awesome retorts to the atheists.

    God bless.

    • Amen and thank you. 🙂

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: