Even blogger getting annoyed with atheists’ crap
posted at 8:56 pm on July 21, 2009 by Allahpundit
Hey, remember when one of the benefits of not following a religion was being spared that religion’s rituals? What’s next, Sunday atheist mass?
I might as well go back to the Church. At least there’s wine and music.
In a type of mock ceremony that’s now been performed in at least four states, a robed “priest” used a hairdryer marked “reason” in an apparent bid to blow away the waters of baptism once and for all. Several dozen participants then fed on a “de-sacrament” (crackers with peanut butter) and received certificates assuring they had “freely renounced a previous mistake, and accepted Reason over Superstition.”…
For mainline Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians, baptism is commonly understood as a sign or means of grace and a covenant that God maintains even when humans turn away, said Laurence Stookey, professor emeritus of preaching and worship at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington. He said “de-baptizers” misunderstand baptism when they caricature it as an attempt at magic.
Baptism “is a kind of adoption where you become a child of God, of the church and of the family,” Stookey said. “You can renounce your physical parents, (the church and God), but they cannot renounce you because you are their child. Anybody who makes fun of baptism probably hasn’t gone into it in enough depth to know that.”…
Public ceremonies to confer de-baptism, however, seem to be primarily an American phenomenon.
“I think a de-baptism ceremony (in Europe) would strike a lot of secularists and atheists as kind of pointless,” Evans said. “They would leave the ceremonies to the religious.”…
Meanwhile, organizers of de-baptisms are broadening their mockery to include other religions. At the American Atheists’ national convention in Atlanta last April, the de-baptism event included a dance where women in burqas stripped down to red-sequined leotards, according to Blair Scott, the group’s national affiliate director.
Coming soon: Atheists dressing in robes and scourging themselves as punishment for the sin of youthful religiosity. Exit question: Has the godless movement outlived its usefulness? Why, er, no.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
And would you turn down the hamburger if it had already been paid for and freely given? The only price being that you ask for it?
.
GT on July 22, 2009 at 2:55 PM
the second paragraph, very true…I didn’t think the persians were descendants of esau and jacob…the arabs for sure…
right4life on July 22, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Maximus, surely thou art tiresome!
You argue without weighing what it is your interlocutors says. Those of faith need not reason, and those of reason need not faith. They are inherently mutually exclusive. Yet you still attempt to blend oil & water and reconize not the futility.
Archimedes on July 22, 2009 at 3:03 PM
And would you turn down the hamburger if it had already been paid for and freely given? The only price being that you ask for it?
You cherry pick & over simplify by ignoring the lead in.
Sacrifice/ to forebear one’s wants and desires, not to mention 10% off the top of grss income.
Service/ to live for the sake of another, servitude, obediance, slavery.
Methinks somehow this be a far cry from FREE!
Archimedes on July 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM
The problem with that comment is that it isn’t true.
Atheism assumes that it is Reason. Yet to believe that there is no God and that all of this which we are and which we see came about by happy little accidents contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is in itself nothing more than another “faith”. Atheism requires just as much “faith” if not more so than Theism.
GT on July 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Check your facts, none of what you state is required.
Marine_Bio on July 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Sorry, wish I could address this , but I’m unfamiliar with thermo-dynamics. A wise man recognizes his limitations.
As to the definitive, that is not true, by what means do propose to prove that I need faith?
Absolutism can lead to very thin ice.
Archimedes on July 22, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Not quite sure to which you refer, a little clarity please.
Archimedes on July 22, 2009 at 3:27 PM
This just proves how deluded your concept of freedom is.
Freedom is freedom from death and freedom from the Passions.
It is your slavery to the Passions that block your ascent to God.
Listen to what Christ God said:
I feel sad for atheists because they are on such a low state of existence.
Their entire philosophy encourages them to simply be nothing more than slaves to the Passions and to never grow in spiritual development and never experience more of reality than the extremely far removed state of reality that they exist in.
This selfless love and humble service that you are referring to negatively.. IS the way to spiritual growth.
This is what the Cross is all about and this is what Christ is constantly speaking to us about.
These are the Divine Energies of God..Christ is telling us and showing us the example of how to unite with His Divine Energies, experience Deification by Grace and experience true Salvation.
MaximusConfessor on July 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Then you condemn Atheism because you’ve just defined it as selfishness and arrogance.
GT on July 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Check your facts, none of what you state is required.
Marine_Bio on July 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Wait a minute.
You may not be aware that this convo started last night but,
on the assumption your professing Christanity, the bible is quite emphatic on the requirements stated. It is not as if you speak with someone unfamiliar with the text.
Archimedes on July 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I didn’t say that you needed it. I’m saying that you already have it. Atheism requires faith just as much as Theism. The problem for Atheism is that I have far more evidence supporting the existence of God than you have that He doesn’t.
GT on July 22, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Check your facts, none of what you state is required.
Marine_Bio on July 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I do not speak for atheism, I speak for myself. Let me state again that I am a Objectivist. As per the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
I will not re-address that which was covered last evening. This thread has come full circle, and so has served its usefullness. I wish you all well (except Maximus) and bid ado.
Archimedes on July 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM
The atrocities you refer to were atrocities, not of atheism, but of Marxism (in its Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist variants). Atheism can only be blamed for the outcomes of Marxism in the same sense that your religion can be blamed for the actions of the Saudi Religious Police.
hicsuget on July 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM
What a stupid thing to say! Cf:
hicsuget on July 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Adieu? Without giving me the chance to reply? Bit of a shame really, because you’re fairly reasonable.
The short version of what I would have said is that a choice made to foster a relationship is not a stringent requirement. That is the difference between the Law and the completion of the law (Jesus).
Marine_Bio on July 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Atheism requires that we were not created but rather through a unique series of accidents, protons and electrons combined into the exact combination necessary to create life. However, these happy little accidents run contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. – entropy).
In a nutshell, Entropy states that “…the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity.” (Henry Morris, PhD.)
Not once has any person of “Reason” been able to observe through natural environment something change from something less complex to something more complex without intervention. Whereas, Entropy is a completely observable and measurable phenomenon. Therefore, by their own definition of “Reason”, Atheism is faith in something that has never been seen or measured and runs contrary to science.
GT on July 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Having to resort to insults to disguise your ignorance? Guess that means I win. Points for me.
Since you are by your own admission smarter than the rest of us, explain how evolution (the universal law of increasing complexity) is not contrary to Entropy (the universal law of decreasing complexity).
Amuse me.
.
GT on July 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM
To take a quote of Einstein’s out of context: “One would be enough.”
hicsuget on July 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Lame.
Try again.
GT on July 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Easy.
1) Entropy only holds in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. (That big, bright, yellow orb that circles overhead each day has something to do with it.)
2) The idea that a thermodynamic law applies to genetic material (except as involves its thermal vibrations) is a risible concoction of creationist pseudoscientists.
If I were feeling particularly snarky, I’d ask you if the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that God is becoming increasingly less complex as time goes on.
hicsuget on July 22, 2009 at 4:22 PM
the universe is a closed system and is subject to entropy…everything decays and dies.
ah yes, the sun…by its mighty power complexity arises out of dirt…I put a few pieces of plastic and metal in a pile, a few years ago, and put it in the sun, and it did NOT evolve into a computer…go figure…oh I know only living things ‘evolve’…but how did molecules become self-replicating, and then become ‘alive’ in the first place???
2) The idea that a thermodynamic law applies to genetic material
so we don’t decay and die huh?? sure.
right4life on July 22, 2009 at 4:28 PM
hicsuget,
A side note on scientific laws and theories…Scientific laws are based on observations and are 100% repeatable, or in other words, are always produce true and predictable results. There are very few scientific laws, gravity is another for example. Theories however are the best explanation, and are supposed to produce predictable results of phenomena. These results must be in compliance with the established laws, or you get into the science fiction realm.
You do not understand the profound nature of the entropy discussion. Any organic reaction requires an amount of energy to drive the reaction forward, but the end result is an increase in entropy. When you have a chaotic system, in essence a state of high entropy, to organize into molecules, and then into polymers, then into self replicating polymers, then bingo into life, you are going to a more ordered state. This is in the opposite direction of the second law of thermodynamics.
When you really look at the complexity of cells, the engineering is spectacular, and different between eubacteria, archaea, and the eukaria. If you assume that you start with nothing, and from nothing all of this has evolved, then the very large differences in cellular machinery in these domains is in contradiction to common descent, and would imply several genesis events, or a nearly unlimited supply of time. Neither of these, or arguments that try to explain these differences from an evolutionary standpoint are intellectually satisfying. In the absence of a satisfactory and plausible explanation for origins a theory, such as Darwinian evolution is missing a critical piece. Without a plausible “reasoned” explanation of origins, there is no reason to believe in atheism over any other explanation.
Marine_Bio on July 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM
re evolution:
list the mutations that led to the eye, in order. you cannot, yet you believe the eye ‘evolved’…you take it on faith.
explain how the tuatara, with the fastest rate of molecular evolution found, is still a living dinosaur.
explain why the fossil record shows stasis.
how many failed darwinian concepts, ‘junk dna’ ‘vestigial’ organs, tree of life, adaptive radiation, etc…do you need before you give up on it?? or will you admit that evolution is just a faith?
right4life on July 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Took you a while on Google and you still don’t know what you’re talking about.
Atheism say that their opinion is based on “Reason”. Ok, reason this….
Satisfy the conflict between Evolution as the universal law of increasing complexity and Entropy as the universal law of decreasing complexity.
When you do, lets be sure to submit it to the Nobel Institute because you’ll have done something no other scientist in the world has been able to do.
GT on July 22, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Hehehe….priceless!
Continued….
GT on July 22, 2009 at 5:57 PM
So what do you atheists say when your children learn that Grandma has died, and they ask, “Will we ever see her again?”
KyMouse on July 22, 2009 at 7:57 PM
I can’t speak for others, but I told mine the truth – no.
OldEnglish on July 22, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Making up stuff to support your “view”? Okay.
“hicsuget is a complete moron.”
-Al Gore
Squiggy on July 23, 2009 at 5:53 AM
Have they started speaking to you again? Or are they forever locked in a padded room?
Squiggy on July 23, 2009 at 5:59 AM
right4life
Thanks for your post. Actually the comment about Hellfire and Brimstone was sort of a joke. The days of that sort of preaching are long over, or at least I hope they are. I rather like the American/Australian preaching of Christianity. Its actually very positive. I do watch the God channel from time to time. But I’m also aware that its complete nonsense, if enertaining and feelgood nonsense.
Oh, and as for the person who says that Jesus came to us to preach morality, I don’t buy it. Sorry, I just don’t. If Jesus really had an opportunity to come to Earth to tell us poor humans anything, why did he leave out so much that was important? Why did he make morality more important than living a long and productive life? And what was all that nonsense about eating shellfish? Why is that immoral?
If you want to believe in a bronze age moral system of beliefs you go right ahead. Me, I’m a twenty-first century kind of guy.
dcpolwarth on July 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4