Would you ever go to an atheist for spiritual council? Probably not. That, however, is what several atheists would like to see happen in the military.
This article reports that several atheists are lobbying to have atheist chaplains in the military to offer support to atheist troops. But, from what I understand, military chaplains don't necessarily counsel soldiers in their particular faith, but in the professed faith of the soldier seeking counseling. So how could an atheist chaplain council someone in his or her faith, if said atheist chaplain had no faith whatsoever? If it sounds like it doesn't make much sense, it doesn't.
The article goes on to say that the atheists want atheist chaplains in order to "win official acceptance in the military." The only problem with that is that atheists already have official acceptance in the military. How don't they? They aren't discriminated against for their lack of faith. Nor are they prohibited from any type of military service in any way as a result of their lack of faith.
What's really behind this is that the existence of atheist chaplains will allow atheist groups to be able to publicly promote their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) and distribute literature. So it has nothing to do with faith (obviously) but more of an abuse of the chaplaincy, if you ask me. If you just want to be a chaplain to get yourself out there, you shouldn't be a chaplain.
But what's interesting about this is that if atheists truly feel the need to promote their worldviews (and counsel those who adhere to them within the context of such a worldview) then their views, it seems to me, must be identified as a faith group. Any and all worldview of faith system is guided by principles of belief and not fact, making every worldview a matter of faith. And certainly atheists hold beliefs that others don't, even if they are beliefs that state that beliefs are useless and ignorant (and they are beliefs, and don't let anyone tell you different), so what they think and believe is unique to itself, making it a matter of faith. So if atheists want to be chaplains in order to promote their beliefs and to counsel fellow atheists, go for it. They just have to admit that their supposedly faithless way of seeing the world is actually brimming over with faith (just faith in nothing).
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Sunday, December 26, 2010
A Cheery "Holiday Message"
After reading Gervais's article I only have one thought, and it's one that I've said before, and one that I'll say again now, and will probably say again many more times in the future: atheists need some new ideas. They keep coming back to the table with the same old things that have already been answered before, answered again, and answered one more time for good measure. It's getting old. I was going to write a response to the article and Gervais's thoughts, but it's been done before, a million times.
Monday, March 9, 2009
No Religion
More Americans say that they have no religion. Read the results of the study. I guess there's no reason to be surprised.
Atheist Conspiracy Thwarted!
About a week ago I posted this article about Ray Comfort's new book, "You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think," and also about his offer to debate Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most prominent atheist alive today. Well, it turns out that online atheists took it upon themselves to try to, at the very least, diminish the sale of Comfort's book by spamming his website, and writing terrible reviews on Amazon (even when they had not read the book). Check out the whole article below, from worldnetdaily.com:
Atheists strategize against book on God
Online plot reveals plan to give Christian writing low rating
The Christian author whose book "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think" bumped atheist Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" on Amazon.com's best-seller list says he's uncovered a conspiracy to attack his work.
Ray Comfort, who works with Living Waters ministry and has argued against atheism at Yale University, debated the issue on ABC's Nightline and has authored some 60 other books, including "God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists," "How to Know God Exists" and "Evolution: the Fairy Tale for Grownups," noticed an unusually large number of negative reviews on the book sale website.
"If you look at the reviews on Amazon.com," he said, "you could come away thinking that this is worst book ever written. It has masses of one 'stars' with scathing reviews, saying things like 'Comfort is a charlatan' and 'Dreadful piece of drivel.'"
But he said he also found five-star ratings with comments such as "Great logical thinking" and "a must read."
When he got to one that said, "You can tell how good this book is by how many atheists are claiming to have read it and then give it a one-star review," he got to thinking and looking around.
On the Reddit.com website he found the answer: a conspiracy among atheists to drag his book down through their responses on the Amazon website.
A participant identified as "The Milkman" wrote, "Let's all vote one star on this piece of s---."
"Mithridates" also commented, "Pro-tip for people reviewing the book: giving it one or five stars makes it painfully obvious that you're just giving it that number because you feel the author to be on or against your side. To actually make it look like a real review you're going to want to go with two or four stars."
"Atheists spammed my blog, spammed our website and sent abusive e-mails about our new billboard, so I suspected some sort of atheist conspiracy on Amazon, and fortunately I found it," Comfort said.
The best-selling author said it was no big deal when spammers attacked his website, because it is so big it just didn't make much difference.
But he said he's sure his book sales have been affected because of the negative reviews, "because people purchase upon other people's opinions."
Still, he said, the book can't be too bad.
"The atheist who wrote the foreword backslid," Comfort said. "I sent him a copy, and a week later he wrote to me and said that he was no longer an atheist."
Amazon, which had featured dozens of single-star ratings and comments before this article was published, later apparently edited its content to provide only two reviews, one positive and one negative.
"There are interesting theological books out there, but this isn't one of them," the mild negative review said. The positive one said, "This book will receive hate-filled reviews, but the points will not be refuted."
Comfort said the strong opposition easily is explained.
"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation," he said.
"I also show that the 'God' issue is moral rather than intellectual. No one needs to prove that God exists. Creation is clear evidence for any sane person that there's a Creator. But if I can convince myself that there is no God, it means I am not morally accountable, and evolution opens the door to a whole lot of sinful delicacies such as pornography, fornication, lying, theft, and of course writing bad reviews for a book I haven't read," he continued.
He said the logical problem that follows atheists, though, is that once they convince themselves God doesn't exist, they are left with the "insane" philosophy that nothing created everything.
"They will deny that through gritted teeth because it is intellectually embarrassing, but if I say that I have no belief that my Ford Truck had a maker, it means I think that nothing made it, and that's a scientific impossibility," Comfort said.
"When we said this on a billboard on a major Los Angeles freeway, Dan Barker, the President of Freedom From Religion, Inc., happened to be in California and happened to be on that freeway. He saw the billboard and wrote a scathing e-mail to me, calling me a liar. They hate their beliefs being exposed, and this book does just that."
One online review predicted such attacks.
Comfort "disproves every dumb atheistic assertion very simply with both scientific fact and common sense. This book is sure to enrage the atheistic and seculars of the world; but, their anger and 1-star reviews are only proof that they are not only losing the argument, but, have already lost," the reviewer said.
One of the critics went beyond attacking Comfort to cover all Christians in his opinion: "Ray Comfort appeals to the kind of people who would believe in Christianity. People who can't think themselves out of a box," the forum participant said.
WND has reported Comfort recently challenged atheist Richard Dawkins to a debate over God's existence, but Dawkins snubbed offers of both $10,000 and $20,000.
Atheists strategize against book on God
Online plot reveals plan to give Christian writing low rating
The Christian author whose book "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think" bumped atheist Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" on Amazon.com's best-seller list says he's uncovered a conspiracy to attack his work.
Ray Comfort, who works with Living Waters ministry and has argued against atheism at Yale University, debated the issue on ABC's Nightline and has authored some 60 other books, including "God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists," "How to Know God Exists" and "Evolution: the Fairy Tale for Grownups," noticed an unusually large number of negative reviews on the book sale website.
"If you look at the reviews on Amazon.com," he said, "you could come away thinking that this is worst book ever written. It has masses of one 'stars' with scathing reviews, saying things like 'Comfort is a charlatan' and 'Dreadful piece of drivel.'"
But he said he also found five-star ratings with comments such as "Great logical thinking" and "a must read."
When he got to one that said, "You can tell how good this book is by how many atheists are claiming to have read it and then give it a one-star review," he got to thinking and looking around.
On the Reddit.com website he found the answer: a conspiracy among atheists to drag his book down through their responses on the Amazon website.
A participant identified as "The Milkman" wrote, "Let's all vote one star on this piece of s---."
"Mithridates" also commented, "Pro-tip for people reviewing the book: giving it one or five stars makes it painfully obvious that you're just giving it that number because you feel the author to be on or against your side. To actually make it look like a real review you're going to want to go with two or four stars."
"Atheists spammed my blog, spammed our website and sent abusive e-mails about our new billboard, so I suspected some sort of atheist conspiracy on Amazon, and fortunately I found it," Comfort said.
The best-selling author said it was no big deal when spammers attacked his website, because it is so big it just didn't make much difference.
But he said he's sure his book sales have been affected because of the negative reviews, "because people purchase upon other people's opinions."
Still, he said, the book can't be too bad.
"The atheist who wrote the foreword backslid," Comfort said. "I sent him a copy, and a week later he wrote to me and said that he was no longer an atheist."
Amazon, which had featured dozens of single-star ratings and comments before this article was published, later apparently edited its content to provide only two reviews, one positive and one negative.
"There are interesting theological books out there, but this isn't one of them," the mild negative review said. The positive one said, "This book will receive hate-filled reviews, but the points will not be refuted."
Comfort said the strong opposition easily is explained.
"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation," he said.
"I also show that the 'God' issue is moral rather than intellectual. No one needs to prove that God exists. Creation is clear evidence for any sane person that there's a Creator. But if I can convince myself that there is no God, it means I am not morally accountable, and evolution opens the door to a whole lot of sinful delicacies such as pornography, fornication, lying, theft, and of course writing bad reviews for a book I haven't read," he continued.
He said the logical problem that follows atheists, though, is that once they convince themselves God doesn't exist, they are left with the "insane" philosophy that nothing created everything.
"They will deny that through gritted teeth because it is intellectually embarrassing, but if I say that I have no belief that my Ford Truck had a maker, it means I think that nothing made it, and that's a scientific impossibility," Comfort said.
"When we said this on a billboard on a major Los Angeles freeway, Dan Barker, the President of Freedom From Religion, Inc., happened to be in California and happened to be on that freeway. He saw the billboard and wrote a scathing e-mail to me, calling me a liar. They hate their beliefs being exposed, and this book does just that."One online review predicted such attacks.
Comfort "disproves every dumb atheistic assertion very simply with both scientific fact and common sense. This book is sure to enrage the atheistic and seculars of the world; but, their anger and 1-star reviews are only proof that they are not only losing the argument, but, have already lost," the reviewer said.
One of the critics went beyond attacking Comfort to cover all Christians in his opinion: "Ray Comfort appeals to the kind of people who would believe in Christianity. People who can't think themselves out of a box," the forum participant said.
WND has reported Comfort recently challenged atheist Richard Dawkins to a debate over God's existence, but Dawkins snubbed offers of both $10,000 and $20,000.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Banana Man Vs. Alien Man
Ray Comfort is the man - Banana Man, that is. I just read this article on worldnetdaily.com and I thought it was hilarious. It's especially sweet, knowing that Comfort's new book "You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think" just pushed Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion" out of the #1 spot on Amazon's Atheist book list. Read the article for yourself:
Atheist wants debate to cost Christian author $100,000
Dawkins snubs offer of $10,000 for hour-long event
Atheist Richard Dawkins says he isn't as much concerned with what he would get if he accepts a challenge to debate Ray Comfort as with what it would cost the Christian author.
As WND reported, Dawkins snubbed an offer of $10,000 for a debate, which would amount to an hour's work. Now Comfort, author of "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think," has suggested raising the offer to $20,000, but Dawkins still isn't impressed.
"Twenty thousand dollars is closer to the fees that I am customarily offered," Dawkins told WND in an e-mail. "However, I am not in this for the money.
"My interest is in getting the Banana Man to PART with $100,000 of his money so that that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense," Dawkins wrote.
"The fact that he would be making a substantial donation to a charity dedicated to Reason and Science adds to the humour of the situation," he wrote.
Comfort explained the "Banana Man" reference.
"For years I have held a Coke can in one hand and a banana in the other, and compared the two. Both have a tab at the top. The banana has a wrapper with perforations, is biodegradable, etc. It was a parody – the point being, if someone designed the Coke can then obviously Someone designed the banana. In the mid 1990's I published the parody in booklet form called 'The Atheist Test' and sold over a million copies. When we put it into our TV program, atheists removed the Coke can, and sent the clip all over the Internet, saying 'Ray Comfort believes that the banana is proof of God's existence.' I guess atheists don't appreciate parody."
Comfort cited Dawkins' response to Ben Stein, in the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," when the atheist was asked, "What do you think is the possibility that … intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics ... or in evolution?"
Dawkins said: "It could come about in the following way: it could be that, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet . . . and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe."
"So let's call the debate 'Banana Man Debates Alien Man' and let the audience decide who is the 'ignorant fool,'" Comfort said.
Dawkins had told WND he would participate in the argument only on a list of conditions, including a $100,000 donation to his foundation.
Dawkins also demanded a staff member for his website be allowed to film the event and then distribute it as a DVD, "if he thinks it is funny enough."
A spokeswoman for Dawkins' website also told WND Dawkins doesn't debate people from "the flat-earth society."
The original offer of $10,000 from Comfort, who also is co-host with actor Kirk Cameron of the award-winning TV show "The Way of the Master," wasn't taken seriously by Dawkins.
"Ten thousand dollars is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don't accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher)," he said.
"It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool," he wrote. "You can tell him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (it's a charitable donation, tax deductible) I'll do it."
Comfort said the offer was good whether Dawkins finished the debate with a win, lose or draw.
"Richard Dawkins is arguably the most famous living atheist, now that Anthony Flew doubted his doubts and backslid as an atheist," said Comfort. "Flew said that he simply followed the evidence. I would like to see Richard Dawkins follow his example."
The invitation from Comfort, who has spoken at Yale University on atheism and in 2001 addressed American Atheists, Inc., wasn't well received by the spokeswoman for Dawkins' official website either.
A respondent who identified herself only as "Liz" wrote:
"We know nothing about this – and it is a rather silly publicity stunt," the message said. "Richard has always made it known that he does not debate people from the flat-earth society, those who promote the stork-theory of conception and birth, or young-earth creationists."
Comfort debated atheistic evolution on ABC's Nightline in 2007 and earlier this year debated on the BBC. He is the author of some 60 other books including "God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists," "How to Know God Exists," and "Evolution: the Fairy Tale for Grownups." He is the publisher of "The Evidence Bible" and more recently, "The Atheist Bible (Unauthorized Version)" and, "The Charles Darwin Bible." His booklet, "The Atheist Test" has sold over a million copies.
On Darwin Day (Charles Darwin's 200th birthday – Feb. 12), Comfort's latest, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think," published by WND Books, pushed Dawkins' "The God Delusion" out of the No. 1 spot in the atheist category on Amazon.com.
"One of Dawkins' major gripes is against religion," said Comfort. "I am in total agreement on that one. I abhor religion. It is the opiate of the masses. It has left a bloody trail of destruction and human misery throughout history. Hitler even used it for his own ends. His other big beef is that he believes that the God of the Old Testament is a tyrant. If I had the image of God Dawkins has created in his mind, I, too, would be an atheist. The problem is that the god Mr. Dawkins doesn't believe in, doesn't exist."
Atheist wants debate to cost Christian author $100,000
Dawkins snubs offer of $10,000 for hour-long event
Atheist Richard Dawkins says he isn't as much concerned with what he would get if he accepts a challenge to debate Ray Comfort as with what it would cost the Christian author.
As WND reported, Dawkins snubbed an offer of $10,000 for a debate, which would amount to an hour's work. Now Comfort, author of "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think," has suggested raising the offer to $20,000, but Dawkins still isn't impressed.
"Twenty thousand dollars is closer to the fees that I am customarily offered," Dawkins told WND in an e-mail. "However, I am not in this for the money.
"My interest is in getting the Banana Man to PART with $100,000 of his money so that that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense," Dawkins wrote.
"The fact that he would be making a substantial donation to a charity dedicated to Reason and Science adds to the humour of the situation," he wrote.
Comfort explained the "Banana Man" reference.
"For years I have held a Coke can in one hand and a banana in the other, and compared the two. Both have a tab at the top. The banana has a wrapper with perforations, is biodegradable, etc. It was a parody – the point being, if someone designed the Coke can then obviously Someone designed the banana. In the mid 1990's I published the parody in booklet form called 'The Atheist Test' and sold over a million copies. When we put it into our TV program, atheists removed the Coke can, and sent the clip all over the Internet, saying 'Ray Comfort believes that the banana is proof of God's existence.' I guess atheists don't appreciate parody."
Comfort cited Dawkins' response to Ben Stein, in the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," when the atheist was asked, "What do you think is the possibility that … intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics ... or in evolution?"
Dawkins said: "It could come about in the following way: it could be that, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet . . . and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe."
"So let's call the debate 'Banana Man Debates Alien Man' and let the audience decide who is the 'ignorant fool,'" Comfort said.
Dawkins had told WND he would participate in the argument only on a list of conditions, including a $100,000 donation to his foundation.
Dawkins also demanded a staff member for his website be allowed to film the event and then distribute it as a DVD, "if he thinks it is funny enough."
A spokeswoman for Dawkins' website also told WND Dawkins doesn't debate people from "the flat-earth society."
The original offer of $10,000 from Comfort, who also is co-host with actor Kirk Cameron of the award-winning TV show "The Way of the Master," wasn't taken seriously by Dawkins.
"Ten thousand dollars is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don't accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher)," he said.
"It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool," he wrote. "You can tell him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (it's a charitable donation, tax deductible) I'll do it."
Comfort said the offer was good whether Dawkins finished the debate with a win, lose or draw.
"Richard Dawkins is arguably the most famous living atheist, now that Anthony Flew doubted his doubts and backslid as an atheist," said Comfort. "Flew said that he simply followed the evidence. I would like to see Richard Dawkins follow his example."
The invitation from Comfort, who has spoken at Yale University on atheism and in 2001 addressed American Atheists, Inc., wasn't well received by the spokeswoman for Dawkins' official website either.
A respondent who identified herself only as "Liz" wrote:
"We know nothing about this – and it is a rather silly publicity stunt," the message said. "Richard has always made it known that he does not debate people from the flat-earth society, those who promote the stork-theory of conception and birth, or young-earth creationists."
Comfort debated atheistic evolution on ABC's Nightline in 2007 and earlier this year debated on the BBC. He is the author of some 60 other books including "God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists," "How to Know God Exists," and "Evolution: the Fairy Tale for Grownups." He is the publisher of "The Evidence Bible" and more recently, "The Atheist Bible (Unauthorized Version)" and, "The Charles Darwin Bible." His booklet, "The Atheist Test" has sold over a million copies.
On Darwin Day (Charles Darwin's 200th birthday – Feb. 12), Comfort's latest, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think," published by WND Books, pushed Dawkins' "The God Delusion" out of the No. 1 spot in the atheist category on Amazon.com.
"One of Dawkins' major gripes is against religion," said Comfort. "I am in total agreement on that one. I abhor religion. It is the opiate of the masses. It has left a bloody trail of destruction and human misery throughout history. Hitler even used it for his own ends. His other big beef is that he believes that the God of the Old Testament is a tyrant. If I had the image of God Dawkins has created in his mind, I, too, would be an atheist. The problem is that the god Mr. Dawkins doesn't believe in, doesn't exist."
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Disappointed
A few years back, I heard about a group called the Rational Response Squad. These folks spend their time combating Christianity and figuring out ways they can fight against "theism." They see religion as being detrimental to society (specifically the Christian religion), and the group's leader, Brian Sapient, has implied that he is fighting against the forces of God for the betterment of humanity. The group enjoyed a brief stint in the national media by encouraging their followers to video tape themselves "blaspheming" the Holy Spirit and post it on the web. They also gained some exposure when Nightline held a debate regarding the existence of God between them and the people from The Way of the Master.
When I first discovered this group, they were pushing a newly released documentary called The God Who Wasn't There. The title of the film is a play on Francis Schaeffer's long-appreciated work, The God Who Is There. When I first learned of the film, I of course had a desire to see it, because the website promised me that I wanted to see what arguments these atheists had for the non-existence of God. But alas, my local Blockbuster did not carry the movie, and I was definitely not going to cough up the $20.00 and purchase the movie. But then, through the miracle of Blockbuster online, I was finally able to see the movie.
My original thought was that I would take a few notes while I watched the movie, and I would then post some of my thoughts and rebuttals in this blog. Well, I did not take notes, and I am not going to post any thoughts I had on the content of the movie, nor am I going to rebut any arguments with my own. Let me refer you back to the title of this post: "Disappointed." That's exactly what I was after watching this movie. After being promised that I would be astounded, have my faith challenged, and have my belief in God "fixed," I was utterly let down that none of these things even came close to happening. I wanted something to write about, an idea to challenge me to work, read, and study so I could give a response! But alas, it was nothing more than the usual atheist dribble. And even worse, it was extremely poorly put together atheist dribble. Let me share with you a few reasons why I was extremely disappointed by this movie:
1. The movie was less than an hour long. You don't even have enough atheistic arguments to fill an hour?!
2. The maker of this movie had/presumably has no credible knowledge of Christian history, or even secular history for that matter. His ridiculous, unhistorical, undocumented claims about Christian history and tradition were actually embarrassing. I actually felt bad for the guy. (NOTE: if you want some more info about just how bad this was, take a look at this guy's review of the lack of/misinterpretation of historical evidence cited in the move. NOTE AGAIN: the guy who wrote these reviews is NOT a Christian - he just knows bad scholarship and reasoning when he sees it).
3. Atheists seem to have no knowledge of traditional Christian theology or biblical interpretation. If you're going to make claims about scripture, at least do the work to know how and why scripture is interpreted the way it is. If I need to explain to you that the gospel of John is NOT based on Mark, and why the Bible does not endorse the stoning of homosexuals, you need to do some homework.
4. If you're going to cite/interview Christians in your movie, don't cite/interview the fringe, radical, religious activists that only represent 1% of 1% of all people who actually call themselves Christians. It should be obvious that Fred Phelps does not speak for Christianity. This gets back to the "knowing traditional and historical interpretations of scripture" issue. Come on.
But I think what really disappointed me most is that absolutely nothing new was presented by this movie. It contained no arguments or "evidence" that I have not heard a million times before. It was the same old tired line, and I'm sick of the same thing over and over again. If you want to be challenging to Christians, at least come up with some stuff that hasn't been done before, answered, explained, and reasoned out. Come on guys, get creative!
The website that promotes the movie has quotes from the LA and New York Times that say, "Provocative - to put it mildly," and "Explores the many mysteries of the Christian faith as never before," respectively. I'm afraid there was absolutely nothing "provocative," and nothing that explored the many mysteries of the Christian faith as never before to be found in the movie. Like I said earlier, everything about the movie has indeed been done before - and done much better.
All of this leads me to this closing statement: atheists, if you can't come up with something better than this, don't even bother. I am absolutely ready, willing, and able to have an intelligent dialogue about Christianity, history, tradition, etc., but let's do it intelligently, with a genuine pursuit of the truth. This movie was anything but.
When I first discovered this group, they were pushing a newly released documentary called The God Who Wasn't There. The title of the film is a play on Francis Schaeffer's long-appreciated work, The God Who Is There. When I first learned of the film, I of course had a desire to see it, because the website promised me that I wanted to see what arguments these atheists had for the non-existence of God. But alas, my local Blockbuster did not carry the movie, and I was definitely not going to cough up the $20.00 and purchase the movie. But then, through the miracle of Blockbuster online, I was finally able to see the movie.My original thought was that I would take a few notes while I watched the movie, and I would then post some of my thoughts and rebuttals in this blog. Well, I did not take notes, and I am not going to post any thoughts I had on the content of the movie, nor am I going to rebut any arguments with my own. Let me refer you back to the title of this post: "Disappointed." That's exactly what I was after watching this movie. After being promised that I would be astounded, have my faith challenged, and have my belief in God "fixed," I was utterly let down that none of these things even came close to happening. I wanted something to write about, an idea to challenge me to work, read, and study so I could give a response! But alas, it was nothing more than the usual atheist dribble. And even worse, it was extremely poorly put together atheist dribble. Let me share with you a few reasons why I was extremely disappointed by this movie:
1. The movie was less than an hour long. You don't even have enough atheistic arguments to fill an hour?!
2. The maker of this movie had/presumably has no credible knowledge of Christian history, or even secular history for that matter. His ridiculous, unhistorical, undocumented claims about Christian history and tradition were actually embarrassing. I actually felt bad for the guy. (NOTE: if you want some more info about just how bad this was, take a look at this guy's review of the lack of/misinterpretation of historical evidence cited in the move. NOTE AGAIN: the guy who wrote these reviews is NOT a Christian - he just knows bad scholarship and reasoning when he sees it).
3. Atheists seem to have no knowledge of traditional Christian theology or biblical interpretation. If you're going to make claims about scripture, at least do the work to know how and why scripture is interpreted the way it is. If I need to explain to you that the gospel of John is NOT based on Mark, and why the Bible does not endorse the stoning of homosexuals, you need to do some homework.
4. If you're going to cite/interview Christians in your movie, don't cite/interview the fringe, radical, religious activists that only represent 1% of 1% of all people who actually call themselves Christians. It should be obvious that Fred Phelps does not speak for Christianity. This gets back to the "knowing traditional and historical interpretations of scripture" issue. Come on.
But I think what really disappointed me most is that absolutely nothing new was presented by this movie. It contained no arguments or "evidence" that I have not heard a million times before. It was the same old tired line, and I'm sick of the same thing over and over again. If you want to be challenging to Christians, at least come up with some stuff that hasn't been done before, answered, explained, and reasoned out. Come on guys, get creative!
The website that promotes the movie has quotes from the LA and New York Times that say, "Provocative - to put it mildly," and "Explores the many mysteries of the Christian faith as never before," respectively. I'm afraid there was absolutely nothing "provocative," and nothing that explored the many mysteries of the Christian faith as never before to be found in the movie. Like I said earlier, everything about the movie has indeed been done before - and done much better.
All of this leads me to this closing statement: atheists, if you can't come up with something better than this, don't even bother. I am absolutely ready, willing, and able to have an intelligent dialogue about Christianity, history, tradition, etc., but let's do it intelligently, with a genuine pursuit of the truth. This movie was anything but.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)