"The language is loaded. Christians are “mythologists,” he says, deluded into thinking we’ve got some imaginary overseer coercing us into behaving."

Isn't this the logical implication of Pascal's Wager? That it is rational to behave because the costs are small and the possible rewards infinite?

I don't disagree with Tom here, but what's missing is what I learned from Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God," is that atheists and agnostics have their own faith commitments, and they must be forced to defend their worldviews. Put THEM on the defensive because atheism is the least plausible, the least defensible, and the most idiotic worldview option on the planet. As I've taught my kids over the years, just ask people questions about why they believe what they believe, and you'll soon find out they have absolutely no idea. If they give reasons, they are facile, sophomoric, ignorant, and usually self-refuting. The only reason atheism has any traction in our culture because Western cultural elites are secularists, and they promote secularist/materialist views and assumptions in everything they produce (Hollywood, education, media, etc.). The King not only has no clothes on, he doesn't even exist!

(I'm posting this a second time, as it is unclear if my first comment, which contains a link, will be approved. Ideally, it will be.).

The blogger Neil Carter ("Godless in Dixie") spent a long time, and a
whole lot of words, working through Tim Keller's "The Reason for God."
I found his criticism to be dead-on (but, then, I don't identify as a
Christian. Nevertheless, I found his reasoning to be convincing.)

Just google "Godless in Dixie" and 'Tim Keller" and I think you will find it. There are 15 or 16 blog posts in the series (one for the introduction, each chapter, and the epilogue.)

Philmonomer (is that a real name?), thanks for passing this along. I wish I could make the time to read all the blog posts, but I read Neil's first post, and it's such typical atheist claptrap it amazes me that anyone buys such "logic." The problem I have with atheists, every last one of them (and I assume Neil is one; it is called Godless in Dixie after all), is that they are convinced to the core of their being that their view of reality, the Godless one, never has to be defended. I note how he got all worked about over Keller supposedly "shifting the burden of proof." DAMN RIGHT!!! Actually, that's not totally right. The burden of proof is on EVERYONE. The atheists stands athwart the benighted religious masses and say, YOU must defend, defend, defend. And if I deem your arguments worthy I might consider questioning my obviously self-evident position. The arrogance of many atheists, as I suspect of Neil, is stifling.

I've written my own book on apologetics, to parents no less, which I'm sure Neil would find exceedingly tedious as he did Keller's. But as I've taught my kids over the years, the LEAST plausible, the LEAST defensible, the LEAST logical of all worldviews (and there are surprisingly few options) is atheism. To believe that everything came from nothing for absolutely no reason at all is a leap of faith I'm simply not prepared to take.

Cheers!

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes. Surprisingly, Hospitals are full of sick people who need saving.

You would have thought a Hospital would contain only the perfectly healthy, amirite?

I wouldn't be sorry at all, Linda. The church is filled with saved sinners, but sinners nonetheless. If you had the impression that saints were somehow perfect, you were misinformed. My experience, though, over 39 years as a Christian, though, is that most all the Christians we've ended up meeting and knowing at the churches we've attended were kind, decent, well-meaning people. if you read the Bible you'll see God's people in every age have been just as flawed as we all are now. That's why a cross, and mercy and grace, are at the heart of our religion.

It also has a lot to do with what you put in it yourself.

Ooooh ... so sorry about bad experiences like that. Nothing worse than dried up church people. BUT, my brothers and I came on with the outpouring of the early '70s, Jesus People (not us, but we got to know them in our new church) and a host of very happy folks thrilled to find out God is love and his people are the best, real friends, joy --- hey, all this and Heaven too!

Another one is a very large church in our city where the incoming Catholics particularly in the home group, say, hey, who knew church could be so much fun.

The response to this filth is simple. I do it on almost a daily basis with these bigoted anti-theists:

Stone your daughter if she isn’t a virgin on her wedding night.
Where in the Bible does it command Christians to do this? And where are Christians doing it, in direct obedience to such a command to Christians?

Don’t eat shellfish.
See above.

Commit genocide if you think God is telling you to.
When did you read the OT in order to come to this conclusion? (Answer 99 times out of 100 - NEVER.)

“Religion is the main cause of war throughout history.”
Provide your evidence.

“Faith is believing what you know isn’t true.”
Where does the Bible teach this? Oh, yeah, you've never read it.

“The Bible promotes old southern American-style chattel slavery.”
See above.

"Jesus probably never existed.”
Provide your evidence.

See a pattern? The response to ALL of these claims/accusations is 1) Provide your evidence and 2) When did you read the Bible in order to come to that conclusion. They will never provide #1, because they've never accomplished #2.

The mistake Christians make is going on the defensive. This can go on for days or even weeks. That's a waste of time. I know, because I fell into the trap. First of all, most of these anti-Christian bigots have zero desire to have a productive discussion. None. But more importantly, most of these anti-Christian bigots have never read the NT much less the OT.

They need to be called out on it, every single time.

Atheism is inherently irrational.

They even admit it. When asked to prove that God does not exist, they claim that that is impossible.

So, an atheist believes, by blind faith, a thing he cannot prove.

Then the atheist proceeds to mock those who believe what CAN be proved (See: Five Ways), sneering at "faith" and creating a false definition of the word.

"But one cannot prove that God does exist either."

Yes, one CAN prove that God exists. I take it you've never searched for, nor read any of the proofs of the existence of God?

"If you can't observe and test something, you can't prove it."

Sorry, but the scientific method is not the only method that is available for us in determining what is true or not. Mathematics contains truths, for example, that are neither observed, nor can they be tested, only logically verified.

Christians (and atheists) eventually lose all credibility when they become incapable of uttering three simple words that are undeniably true in millions of contexts, questions, and situations..."I don't know."

This approach never works. It just leads down a long rabbit hole of denial. At the heart of Christianity are some mysteries that absolutely cannot be explained. This sort of "dig in your heels and answer everything" approach just leads to madness...literally.

Not ALL Christians are "homophobic haters" .... but a helluva lot of them sure ACT like it.

I'm not sure who you consider not homophobic haters, or what you consider homosexual hatred, but my suspicion is you'd accept those who reject Jesus and the Bible, yet reject those who accept Jesus and the Bible.

I'd also point out that while not all homosexuals are Christophobic bigots, all too many act like it.

@ Chuck Anziulewicz

Stating demonstrable fact: That this is a deviant behavior that is destructive and goes against biology itself does not mean we have an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Your name calling is an attempt to silence us from stating these facts. You will not bully us into silence.

It's not Christians who are bullying homosexuals, ruining their reputations, and suing their businesses out of existence. Hypocritical homosexuals are the ones doing that. They are the worst bullies on the planet! And the worst hypocrites as well, doing this while pretending they are the victims.

We will not bow to your BULLYING.

Hmmm .... will have to check, but I do think they cuss less for emphasis than you. And while I'm doing that, I'll look up how definitive rather than gratuitous is the application of subjective personal opinion. I need to do that about someone else here anyway.

"I have not once heard anyone say any of the above comments."

I have. Quite often, and sometimes, quite loudly.

I'm a Catholic, not an Evangelical Protestant, and we have nearly 2,000 years of such examples to draw from.

I'm always amused when Christians in the U.S. say that they're somehow being persecuted. Most Americans are Christian, virtually ALL religious programming on TV and radio is Christian oriented, and the ONLY religious holiday that causes the private and public sectors to grind to a halt a Christian holiday. And yet Christians think they're getting the short end of the stick? Please.

I guess when you are accustomed to preferential treatment, a more level playing field feels like persecution.

Was this supposed to be a serious post?

"Most" Americans are Christian only if you count them by self-identification. Count them by regular church attendance (at least weekly) and the number drops by more than half. Count them by adherence to Christian doctrine, and it's slashed again.

That claim, while fallacious, at least made a little sense...much more than your appeal to Christian dominance of the microscopic slice of TV/radio devoted to religious programming, or to a single culturally appropriated federal holiday (alongside nearly a dozen other holidays of secular origin).

Meanwhile, the examples of secular persecution of Christians--from bakers and florists put out of business, to sitting US Senators explicitly claiming that adherence to Christianity should be a disqualifying factor for federal judges, to the New Mexico Supreme Court declaring that public apostasy is the "price of citizenship," and many others--grow more numerous by the day.

But sure. It's just "a more level playing field." It's all in our minds. Whatever you say.

And this guy, after having the plan of salvation laid out to him, said he'd rather go on to hell than sacrifice his "intellectual integrity"

Guess again

"Being around" is not synonymous with cognizance.

One can be around and have a lot get past them. From this and some of your other comments, that's likely what's happened in your case.

Huh, your openness to differing opinions is not yet evident. That would be a good aim though. I hope you get there. You might read Chuck's post above about imaginary persecution, which would apply to imaginary "castigation." Very strong claim. Calm down. Remember that everyone else here is subject to your opinions as well. Who is to say where the larger challenge lies ...

One place to find some of them is in comments on The Stream's Facebook page. Or in a college classroom. My daughter's biology prof told the class, "Jesus probably never existed, and if he did, how do we know he wasn't a druggie?"

If you haven't heard the charges of homophobia and hate, well, that surprises me quite a bit. Same for most of these charges. They really aren't that uncommon.

Or in a college classroom. My daughter's biology prof told the class,
"Jesus probably never existed, and if he did, how do we know he wasn't a
druggie?"

I'm still wondering how this statement makes sense.

My daughter's biology prof told the class, "Jesus probably never existed, and if he did, how do we know he wasn't a druggie?"

Huh? In what possible context would a biology professor say this in a classroom? It seems very, very weird.

Atheists have got to be the dumbest people on the planet. It is not coincidence that as our schools have gotten stupider and stupider, turning out stupider and stupider kids, that the number of atheists has risen.

"But, just because someone has different beliefs than you is not a reason to trash their intelligence."

I can't answer for Samton, but in my experience, most atheists are just about competent to repeat (oft times badly) some memorized bits of nonsense of the type the author lists.

IOW: the charge leveled against atheism is not simply a trashing of different beliefs, but the rational, knowledgeable, critical analysis of what atheists say they believe.

After quite a bit of study and reading about atheism, I was forced to agree with this assessment: "Atheism is the most ignorant and irrational of all the new age religions."

You say: "Atheists can be decent, moral people, just as Christians can."

False equivalence. Atheism cannot even define "decent" or "moral" (it's called: The Problem Of Good, as opposed to theodicy, which is a challenge thrown at Christianity . . . and one that it has decisively answered).

An atheist (a person), can be good despite their atheism, by simply not fully living out their atheism. Indeed, when challenged, many atheists simply admit to following part of the Christian moral code, using one of the arguments put forth by Saint Paul.

On the other hand, a Christian seeks the true, the good and the beautiful because of and in coherence with his belief system, not in spite of it. This is highly advantageous for the Christian.

To be fair, that is why atheists are so often irrational in discussion: they face a huge burden of cognitive dissonance, which damages their ability to reason about the topic at hand.

Have not heard of the "Freedom From Religion" group?
It their goal to stamp out all public expression of religion.

I think that this is simply not true. What makes you think it is?

But maybe you are meaning it to say “It is their goal to stamp out all government expression of religion.”

Not from what I have seen. They conflate a student Christian group being allowed by the school with the school then promoting religion.

Ok. Now I definitely don't know what you mean. What does "It is their goal to stamp out all public expression of religion" mean?

So the students can still pray in public? And the atheist group is ok with that? Sounds like FFR isn't trying to "stamp out all public expressions of religion."

let’s back up. What do you mean by “public expression of religion?”

I take it to mean individual people’s expressions of religion in public.

"If you switch around the words in your own statement above, you would likely believe that the person saying those words was indeed persecuting you."

Sorry, no. I made a rational argument, one that does not work if you reverse the terminology.

Christianity has the philosophical foundation to answer both the Question of Good, AND the Question of Evil. Atheism does not.

In short: a critical analysis is not persecution.

Would you care to try to give a reasoned response to my argument?