Satanic Priests of Atheism

this is your brain on apologetics

If you can cause me to simultaneously headdesk and facepalm* with the title alone, you're getting your own category in hell!

The New Satanic Priests of Atheism

1) Implies that there were old satanic priests of atheism.

2) Once you've put "atheism" in there, "satanic" and "priests" are naturally excluded. You'd have to redefine either atheism, or satanic and priest to mean something they do not, and at that point, you're not even speaking English anymore.

“Only two things are certain: the Universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the Universe”-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955).

I’m certain about the stupidity of man because the Bible tells us we are all under sin, Furthermore the Bible teaches there are fools- when a person has said in his heart there is no God (cited twice Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1). That’s God’s position on the so called intellectuals of scientism. Einstein is considered one of the smartest humans to have lived- he believed there is something beyond us, that we would call God, he didn’t accept a personal god but one more in line with theosophy.

Well, fuck it. Einstein believed in something, so should I. Being a scientist and all.

Sin not only affects our moral aptitude of our mind and reasoning, we are unable to think correctly and make accurate judgments until we have the mind of Christ. No matter how intellectually smart one can only consider his works and not the one behind His works. for that they need revelation, input beyond a human source.

See? If you would just believe in Jesus, you would be able to understand why the Bible makes sense. If you would just believe in Jesus, you would see why science, with its experiments and falsifiable tests, is wrong. If you would just believe in Jesus, you would see that the universe is 6,000 years old even though all tangible evidence says otherwise.

Believe and then you'll have all the evidence you need for belief.

Humanist Manifesto H affirms: "We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. ... No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." ('Humanist Manifiestos I and II, Paul Kurtz, ed., (Prometheus Books, 1973, p. 16.)

There's a humanist manifesto? Why was I not informed? Actually, contrary to the cite, the original Humanist Manifesto was published in 1933. It's authors were primarily Roy Wood Sellars and Raymond Bragg. Cite fail. Which is probably why I've never heard of it. I certainly do agree that no deity will save us, we must save ourselves.

So humanists consider themselves masters of their own destiny who have no purpose from a creator so they create there own.

Yes, we are the masters of our own destinies, there is no purpose from on high and so we do create out own. So do believers. They just sign the name of god to it and pretend that makes it somehow different.

An atheist is one that is sure in an absolute sense that there is no God that exists. This does not have to to be there conclusion from evidence (which is not on there side) but from a hope. Which often relates to not wanting to be responsible to a greater authority because they do not like what the authority has to say about them and how they need to live. An agnostic is one who accepts the fact that he has not (yet) found proof of God. A dishonest agnostic says, "I don't know and I don't want to know." An honest agnostic says, "I don't know but I want to know." One cannot be an “atheist” if they are being honest with their pursuit of the facts and science.

No, that's not the definition of an atheist. One can be an atheist that is absolutely sure there is no god, one can also be an atheist that, like me, has seen no evidence of a god and therefore believes there is no god. I am not absolutely sure there is no god , but then again, I am not absolutely sure that there are no unicorns or fairies, but I don't see anyone pointing that out as a character flaw on my part.

The definition of honest and dishonest agnostics is disingenuous. If one truly does not care either way, then it is completely honest to say, "I don't know and I don't care". Simply because you don't understand how one could lack concern for such issues doesn't make that person a liar.

Atheists do not use the mind or logic to arrive at their conclusion, they use didactic reasoning that eliminates certain facts and evidence to stack the deck in their favor to satisfy their own ego’s pride of being right?

So, the question mark means you're not so sure on this point? What? The author also apparently doesn't know what "didactic" means. Colour me surprised**. Didactic refers to a method of teaching and learning, not particularly to a method of reasoning.

What they do is like someone building a two story house and after the first story they stop building to state there is no second story. They purposely forfeit there pursuit of where facts lead because it will change their conclusion. They are willing to believe the record of history in nearly everything else except when it supports the Bible; then they ignore it, unwilling to continue their pursuit of knowledge of the “Holy One.” Again this proves the sinful condition of man and his severed relationship to his maker.

Stop hurting my brain! If I stop building the house after one story, there is no second story. That is absolutely true. A theoretical second story is not the same as an actual second story. As for historical proof? You have no historical proof that god created everything 6,000 years ago, and a great deal of historical proof that no such thing happened. And don't even get me started on the Israelites spending 40 years on a journey I could make in a week, on foot.

Many atheists were brought up in Christian homes and went to church. They asked questions that were not adequately answered or were dissatisfied with what they saw and it repelled them. Some claim that they did research and found none of the story or history to be true, as in the case of a now famous atheist Dan Barker who was a minister and now has the Freedom from Religion Foundation. He has written a book called “Godless” about him being an evangelical preacher that turned to one of Americas leading atheists. Barker claims that Christians took secular songs and melodies and made them into religious songs so he has returned the favor and has taken little town of Bethlehem and set it to words for a celebration of the winter solstice (which is really a pagan celebration).

Yes, the winter solstice is a pagan celebration, from which Christmas was born, asshat. The day of the year, the tree, all that pageantry that you've claimed for yourselves originally belonged to the pagans of Europe first. Same goes for Easter.

Often one will hear the words “there isn't enough evidence to believe in God.” An theist would be hardpressed to believe in any modern day achievements man has done applying this same attitude they have toward the Bible. Can they actually prove man went to the moon or do they have to take others testimonies by “faith.” Can they prove that invisible particles are what everything we see is made of?

Yes, we totally can prove that man went to the moon. There are heaps of evidence of that one. And those invisible particles? They're not invisible once you have things like particle accelerators, and oh, yeah, freaking math. Just because you don't understand something, that doesn't mean no one does.

Hilariously, after listing atheist books, movies and websites:

The atheists established internet discussion forums--Internet Infidels,”The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”. [unless one is grounded in what they believe I do not recommend visiting these sites].

Well, yeah. You might learn something. That's never good. I spend all day long encouraging you to read the words of believers, he doesn't want believers to see anything we have to say. The truth will set you free, but it won't put more money in his pocket, I suppose.

*While my forehead doesn't hurt, this didn't work out well for my hand.

**A particularly virulent shade of chartreuse

pic link