I just read this post by Evan May, which was responding to this post from the fine folks at Debunking Christianity. Needless to say, it has piqued my interest in the whole subject of Atheistic Evangelism.
Now while Evan dealt with what John Loftus said, I was more intrigued by the comments from the atheists on that site. For instance, we read exbeliever stating:
Not to sound too much like John Lennon, but I debate this stuff hoping that people will give up religion, because I think the world would be a better place without it.
This is revealing because, in the atheist’s worldview, there is no such thing as “better.” If atheism is true, the natural world exists as it is with no rhyme or reason. There is no inherent good or evil in anything. There are merely actions and reactions. The actions that happen are the actions that happen, period. There is no “good” action, there is no “bad” action, and thus there is no way to determine what action is “better” than another action. In reality, all exbeliever is saying is that he personally would like the world more if there were no religious people in it.
Now that gives us just as much content as if I said, “I think the world would be a better place if there were no tomatoes.” It most certainly would be the case that I would like the world better if there were no tomatoes, because I really hate eating tomatoes. But just because I like it that way doesn’t mean that’s the way the world actually is, nor does it mean my stating that the world would be a better place suddenly, and magically, becomes an argument for why you shouldn’t believe in tomatoes.
Then we read this from Zachary Moore:
Regarding this post, I’m interested in debunking Christianity now because I found out that the years I spent as a Christian were bunk. I thought I knew the truth then, but I was wrong, so I’m doing my best to find the truth now. And if it turns out that Christianity is immoral (which I believe it is), then I have a moral responsibility to share that knowledge with others.
That’s wonderful that Mr. Moore is interested in the truth, but what basis is there for him to say that Christianity is immoral? In the atheist worldview, there is no morality. There are simply actions and reactions, neither of which are good nor bad. Thus, Mr. Moore has no “moral responsibility to share that knowledge with others” because there are no morals to begin with. Again, all this puts forth is that Mr. Moore would prefer there be no Christians, but a preference is not an argument, and simply wishing for something does not create the morality for that action.
Bruce then said:
Would I want a representative who still believes in the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause or thinks that he has been abducted by aliens? If they are naive enough to believe in the Jesus fable, then what else can they be convinced to believe in that has nothing to do with reality?
This, at least, is finally a reason that makes some sense for why an atheist would evangelize his position–he’s afraid of theists! Of course, he presumes that the atheist is able to know anything about reality. But what does the atheist worldview allow for him to know about reality? He can only know that which he senses–and even then, he may sense things in error. An atheist cannot make any meaningful statement about something beyond his own experience, for he cannot prove that even those things he experiences are actually there–he can only prove (to himself) that he has experienced those things and nothing more.
One final comment to hightlight is that from Willis:
I agree with exbeliever. The worst problems, and the greatest risks, that the world faces today are due to religion. Nothing else enables people to feel justified in murdering each other the way religion does.
Now there are two things with this. First, why is it that the atheist assumes murder is wrong? In his world view, murder is simply something that happens when one bag of atoms decides to end the life of another bag of atoms. It’s just cause and effect, with no morality whatsoever involved. Thus, the fact that he thinks it’s wrong to justify murder on religious grounds cannot possibly come from his atheistic worldview.
Secondly, it seems self-apparant that it is much easier to kill someone who you think is just a random sack of atoms than it would be to kill someone who you considered created in God’s image. It seems to me that since atheism provides no morality, it is atheism and not religious belief that would result in more murders. After all, murder isn’t wrong in the atheist world.
So there we have some of the common arguments presented by atheists. As you can see, I find them less than convincing, and no one would be convinced by these arguments if they were presented in any other realm.
