![[img]](/images/sml_cmi_logo.png){kind=logo}
The lies of Free Inquiry—a response
‘Bold and Brave’ atheist publication shows no morality
Published: 21 February 2012 (GMT+10)
Often, our readers send in various atheist publications or promotions, hoping that we will answer them. In reality, there are so many that we are rarely able to do so in detail. However, when a supporter sent in a Free Inquiry promotion, with a note telling us it was sent to his mother, who has Alzheimer’s and lives in a nursing home for the elderly, we decided this warranted an exception. So, we are bringing it to your attention to highlight how aggressive the ‘new atheists’ are becoming.
Free Inquiry magazine claims to be the largest humanist publication in the English language, and features contributors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. As you read on you will see that they are going to attempt to take the high moral ground, but right off the bat their promotional material boasts that it is “blasphemous, sacrilegious, irreverent, impious, godless, profane, sinful” and then adds “(sounds like something you would enjoy, doesn’t it?)”. So much for their own warped version of what they think is ‘good’. They say that Free Inquiry is “the magazine religious fuddy-duddies are afraid of and don’t want you to read.” Their publication is, in their words, “bold and brave”—though mailing their advertizing to Christian little old ladies in nursing homes does not exactly match that self-awarded accolade.
Moreover, if they had any real concern for others, why would they not allow the elderly, who might only have a few good years left, to feel some comfort in their belief in God and that there is something to look forward to after this life? After all, the atheists don’t believe in an afterlife, so what difference does it make what someone believes? If their aim is to eradicate religion, these elderly folks in nursing homes are hardly the ones to be targeted. That is, they are most likely not ‘on the streets’ evangelizing others.
The mailing features a letter from Richard Dawkins, claiming that “If there were a God, I’m convinced He would want you to read Free Inquiry.” He elaborates:
Just for a moment, imagine that there really is a supreme being who created all things, including the human race. Would he (or she or it) give you such a highly developed brain and then punish you for using it?
…
He would be committed to the application of reason and encourage scientific discovery and the cultivation of moral excellence. He would want us to be more concerned about living a valuable life than enforcing arbitrary rules to avoid a vindictive punishment in an afterlife.
And in my opinion, he would undoubtedly want you to read Free Inquiry. Why? Because let’s face it … a guy that smart wouldn’t want to spend eternity with anyone dull enough to blindly believe in him!
So maybe, just maybe, Free Inquiry is your ticket to salvation …
Elements of the mailing such as the above seemed to be geared toward the believer who may harbor doubts. Preying on confused and doubting believers, and moreover, claiming that this is what God would want them to do—that doesn’t sound “bold and brave” to us!
Mind you, Dawkins is right about one thing: God does expect us to use our minds that He gave us—see Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation—and a major part of CMI’s ministry is equipping Christians to do just that. We also encourage science—indeed, a Christian world view led to modern science, while it was stillborn in other cultures.
The mailing includes a list of questions that their publication covers, designed to invoke emotion and doubt in the mind of the reader. We’ll deal with them individually.
Can you lead an ethical life without believing in a Creator?
We have never said that all atheists are immoral people. Rather, we argue that atheism does not, and cannot, provide the logical basis for their morality. That is, the conclusions “you should do X” and “you should not do Y” cannot logically be deduced from the atheist’s premise, “God does not exist.”
Although atheists claim to be rational free thinkers, they are actually being very inconsistent with their worldview. Dawkins himself showed this glaring inconsistency when he claimed to be “a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but … a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.”1 If humans have risen to the top of the evolutionary tree, because we endured the dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest environment over millions of years, then any form of morality or altruism would actually be counter to one’s evolutionary worldview.
This just highlights the fact that living under a consistent atheistic worldview, Darwinian morality would be horrific—a world where the strong prevailed over the weak. In fact, one of the worst genocidal evolutionists in history, Adolf Hitler, actually did take his evolutionary beliefs to their logical extension, by killing tens of thousands of handicapped people who were deemed unfit by his regime. And indeed, atheist dictators killed more in the 20th century than died in all recorded wars in all the previous centuries. See also ‘Christian’ vs evolutionary atrocities. Interestingly, the old lady with Alzheimer’s disease would be disposed of under a regime like Hitler’s. And Dawkins, as well as some of the other New Atheists, has shown a sympathetic bent to some of Hitler’s ideas. See Dawkins and Eugenics.
A moral atheist must borrow his morality from the Judeo-Christian culture. See our articles Can we be good without God? and Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation. As Dawkins himself admits:
“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”
It’s notable that ardent atheist and ‘ethicist’ Peter Singer is a staunch advocate of euthanasia for patients with Alzheimer’s (as well as infanticide and bestiality), but made an exception for his own mother. That is, he applied the Judeo-Christian ethic ‘honor your father and mother’ rather than his usual evolutionary ‘ethic’.
Are church-goers actually more giving and charitable?
Free Inquiry claims that Christians are not more charitable than atheists. But let’s have a look at actual research from a Hoover Institute study:
Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
…
The data show that if two people—one religious and the other secular—are identical in every other way, the secular person is 23 percentage points less likely to give than the religious person and 26 points less likely to volunteer.2
The author of this study, Prof. Arthur Brooks, later wrote a book about his research, Who Really Cares? He found that conservatives donate about 30% more than liberals, despite having lower incomes. They also donate more time, and are even 18% more likely to donate blood. Indeed, if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the US blood supply would increase by 45%. (Brooks uses “liberal” and “conservative” in the American political sense, but his study shows that religious people were much more likely to donate to charity, and when they did, it was four times more. See also Helping the needy—with Creation? Surprising research facts about who really helps the poor.)
This is an example of ‘Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.’ Then again, if one is just evolved pond scum and there is no Creator or ultimate authority to be accountable to, then what’s the problem with lying if the end justifies the means? (See also Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution.)
Did Mother Teresa really let her parents suffer in the name of God?
Anyone who has followed the late atheist Christopher Hitchens’ writing knows about his disdain for Mother Teresa. But we were unable to find any details to support their claims outside of Hitchens’ writings (many others have parroted what he wrote, of course). It is possible that Mother Teresa behaved badly in any number of ways (as much as one may admire her dedication to the poorest of the poor, she was still human, after all), but the shortcomings of a professed believer do not prove that Christianity itself is false. Their example could easily be turned back on them; it’s like saying because Hitler was an evolutionist, every evolutionist must be a genocidal maniac.
In fact, if any Christian acts in an unchristian manner, then that Christian would be acting inconsistently according to their belief system, but such actions would not necessarily falsify the belief system. See The Haggard tragedy; ‘Christianity must be wrong because of all the hypocrites in the church!’
But based on the atheists’ own belief system, how can they define what is good/moral or not except what they pick and choose for themselves? And moreover, why do they even care? If their claim about Mother Teresa is correct, wasn’t she doing them a favour and actually acting more in accordance with an evolutionist’s worldview? We are sure it would be very easy to find fault with many of the world’s charitable organizations. It seems to be only too convenient for these atheists in targeting one that claims to do its works under the banner of Christianity.
We suggest that the prevailing concept of morality in the Western world is primarily composed of Christian virtues that come from the Bible, and which grew under a Christian worldview, i.e. “Love your neighbour as yourself.” In other words, the only reason some atheist can point the finger at anyone else is because he was raised in an environment where such concepts prevailed—and these concepts came from the Scriptures in the first place. Most of our moral codes and laws today had their origins in the Bible’s teaching about such things. See Biblical Christianity is the basis for Western Law and Freedom and the contrast, by the same author, who is a legal scholar, The Darwinian roots of the Nazi legal system.
One of us (GB) gave an example of the atheists’ own hypocrisy during the Haiti earthquake tragedy in January 2010. In recent years, atheists have been stung by comments that show they have no logical basis for their morality. So Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer, said:
“It’s all well and good to say that we nonbelievers are just as moral as believers (we are, but that’s a philosophical point)—actions count more than words and real donations are where the theoretical rubber meets the practical road. This is our time to pony up and show the world our true character.” (Emphasis ours).5
Note that Shermer’s motivation was not necessarily to help the struggling Haitians, it was to show the world that atheists can be good too. The Lord Jesus had something to say about giving in such a way. He said:
“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honoured by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:2–4, emphasis ours).
Shermer was being a complete hypocrite. Christians should give based on the recognition that all people everywhere are human beings made in the image of God—displaying the same love and compassion that God had for us when He came to this earth to rescue us.
British politician and author Roy Hattersley had this comment to make about the Salvation Army:
“ … it remains a vibrant organization because of its convictions. I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I’ve been out with them on the streets and the way they work amongst the people, the most deprived and disadvantaged and sometimes pretty repugnant characters. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse. And I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe for myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army.”3
In his classic treatise, One Human Family, Carl Wieland highlighted the failure of atheist aid organizations and their hypocrisy in publicizing their ‘good works’. He wrote:
“Other atheists, seemingly ‘stung’ by the increase in similar comments over the years, have launched their own charitable organizations, but mostly these just highlight the contrast. In preparing this book, I googled ‘atheist aid’, and the website www.atheistaid.org.uk popped up prominently. Under the heading “Compassion without Religion”, it stated on the front page (12 October 2010):
‘This site highlights current charity work and philanthropy by atheists and agnostics. Please mail me if you’d like to publicize your good works.’
“The rest of the page had two entries, one highlighting the Haiti Appeal by Richard Dawkins’ foundation and listing a good number of atheist groups that had declared their support for it. The other was an atheist writing in to tell of how she and other atheists were helping edit a book, The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas, in aid of an HIV charity.
“That’s it. There was nothing else on the site. When I checked again on 19 July 2011, it seemed to have gone defunct.”4
Is there anything about Christmas that’s genuinely Christian?
Well, yes, but what does it matter anyway? The truth of Christianity depends on the historical facts of the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ, not on Christmas traditions. Many alleged pagan parallels are either nothing of the kind, or actually post-date Christianity, so were borrowed from Christianity. See Was Christianity plagiarized from pagan myths? Refuting the copycat thesis and Copycat copout: Jesus was not made up from pagan myths. But let’s take a few common claims:
December 25th
There is no evidence of a 25 December date for Mithraic mysteries, as liberal theologians once asserted. There was a 25 December date for Sol Invictus, or ‘Unconquered Sun’, but this did not specifically pertain to Mithraism, which had no unique public festivals. Furthermore, like the alleged Mithraic parallels, this celebration post-dates Christian celebrations of the same date. Observation of this date by Christians goes back at least as far as AD 202 by Hippolytus of Rome in his Commentary on Daniel:
“For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [29 or 30 AD], while Rufus and Roubellion and Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus were Consuls.”
But it wasn’t until AD 274, 72 years later, that Roman Emperor Aurelian proclaimed a celebration of Sol Invictus, and there is no clear evidence that such a celebration on this date actually took place until AD 354. One article, “Calculating Christmas”, concludes:
“Thus, December 25th as the date of the Christ’s birth appears to owe nothing whatsoever to pagan influences upon the practice of the Church during or after Constantine’s time. It is wholly unlikely to have been the actual date of Christ’s birth, but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.
“And the pagan feast which the Emperor Aurelian instituted on that date in the year 274 was not only an effort to use the winter solstice to make a political statement, but also almost certainly an attempt to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Christians. The Christians, in turn, could at a later date re-appropriate the pagan ‘Birth of the Unconquered Sun’ to refer, on the occasion of the birth of Christ, to the rising of the ‘Sun of Salvation’ or the ‘Sun of Justice.’5
So clearly the pagan date is the counterfeit, not the original. The real source of the 25 December date is an extra-biblical Jewish tradition, called the ‘integral year’. This means that a prophet’s lifespan would be an exact number of years, so he would die on an anniversary of his conception, the real beginning of life. Jesus’ death was calculated as March 25th by the Western church, and April 6th by the Eastern Church. Therefore this same date was celebrated as the date Christ was conceived. Nine months later is December 25th or January 6th, and the latter date is still celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox church (and many branches of the Western church celebrate ‘Epiphany’ on the same day, now to commemorate the arrival of the magi and their three gifts).
CMI doesn’t say that Christ was born on this day (we doubt that it’s possible to know for sure), or what we should or should not do then. But we do say that many common arguments against this date are fallacious (see Christmas and Genesis). And as shown above, the claim that the 25 December date stems from paganism is totally lacking in historical foundation.
Santa Claus
It’s often overlooked, but Saint Nicholas is a real historical figure. He was known for his generosity. Hanging stockings comes from an instance where he gave some girls money for their dowry by putting it in their stockings, which were drying by the fireplace. Of course, the mythology that has grown around this figure and the associated rampant commercialization distracts from any remembrance of the Saviour’s birth.
Gift-giving
This originated from both the gifts of the Magi and from Saint Nicholas.
Yule log
A modern tradition that has no origin in either Christianity or paganism—it never had any specific religious significance, pagan or otherwise. It was simply a festive decoration with a practical purpose.
Christmas tree
This is also a modern innovation that has no origin in either Christianity or Paganism. There is no evidence of this earlier than the 15th century, in what is now Estonia. Then in the next century, Christians in what is now northern Germany performed mystery plays with an evergreen “Paradise tree” hung with apples, and one apple was plucked. December 24 was a traditional “name day” for Adam and Eve. We can appreciate this link of Christmas to the Fall, which is the whole reason Jesus came to die, according to the New Testament (see 1 Corinthians 15, for example) .
The Christmas tree was introduced to England by Queen Victoria’s German consort, Prince Albert. In fact, many of what we think of as ancient Christmas traditions began in Victorian England only a little over a century ago!6
Did priests and ministers really conspire with Hitler before WWII?
Once again, even if true, how do the actions of a few individuals falsify Christianity or make it an invalid belief system?
However, the usual charge is about the Reichskonkordat between the Third Reich and the Catholic Church under Pope Pius XII (1876–1958). While CMI is not Roman Catholic, we find that the book The Myth of Hitler’s Pope by Rabbi David Dalin7 argues convincingly that “the concordat was a pragmatic and morally defensible diplomatic measure to protect German Catholics and the relative freedom of the Catholic Church in Germany.” Dalin also provides incontrovertible proof of pro-Semitism in the Roman Catholic Church, and that Pius saved far more Jews than Oskar Schindler—Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide argued that Pius “was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands”, compared to the 1200 on ‘Schindler’s List’. See also The Darwin Hitler connection.
In any case, Hitler hijacked churches by stacking them with his own priests and pastors, and invoked the name of God in his speeches and writings, although he was clearly not a believer. This even led to a disgracefully anti-Semitic and anti-Christian butchering of the Bible (see Did Hitler rewrite the Bible?). This was so that he could fool many Christians into believing that he was actually on their side. But at the same time he secretly killed real Christians or threw them into the concentration camps, including the Christian White Rose resistance movement that came out of University campuses in Germany. Led by Sophie Scholl,8 who is a modern-day hero in Germany, these Christians actively campaigned against the Nazis and became martyrs in the process when they were guillotined for their beliefs.
Also, see our review of The Swastika against the Cross, which shows how true Christians were persecuted under Hitler. Furthermore, during the Nuremberg trials of leading Nazis, Prosecutor William Donovan documented copious evidence that the Nazi regime planned to wipe out Christianity (see Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity).
Summary
If you look at these Free Inquiry arguments objectively, they are particularly weak—many are merely abusive ad hominem arguments. If this is the best they can do, then it really demonstrates the logical weakness of their own belief system.
Unfortunately, most people who receive this sort of mailing won’t have the motivation or resources to challenge these statements. And of course, by sending them to nursing homes, they are picking on the more vulnerable ones. The nature of the advertisement is such that they can just throw the assertions out there without the supporting data, to invoke the idea that ‘Where’s there’s smoke there’s fire’. That’s a really nice tactic if you are the one blowing all the smoke! Their hope is, of course, that one will shell out the money for a subscription to get the supporting information. That seems disingenuous at the very least.
So, why not forward (see the email button at the top of the page) this article to others to show the weakness of the atheists’ arguments? Print this out for your church family so they can be prepared with answers, and meet the challenge head on. You might need to visit your local nursing home too, and deliver a few copies!
| Please take a moment to download this free printable version of this article. |
Related Articles
Further Reading
References
- The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Commission, 22 January 2000. Return to text.
- A. Brooks, Religious Faith and Charitable Giving, www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577, 1 October 2003, access 17 January 2012. Return to text.
- Broadcast on BBC World Service, 2 January 2010, bbc.co.uk. Return to text.
- Wieland, C., One Human Family, Atlanta: Creation Book Publishers, 2011, p. 349. Return to text.
- Tighe, W., “Calculating Christmas” touchstonemag.com, accessed 20 January 2012 Return to text.
- B. Abshire, ‘Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas’ christian-civilization.org, accessed 20 January 2012 Return to text.
- Dalin, D.G., The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis, Regnery, Washington DC, 2005. Return to text.
- Sophie Scholl, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl, 20 January, 2012. Return to text.
and on what basis do you have that a "creator is an uncaused cause?". Atheists do not profess to have all the answers but at least we have some evidence i.e. creation backed up by the fossil record. You have absolutely none. Everytime a religious person has been asked, you have yet been able to provide one itoa [sic. iota] of evidence other than your fictitious book written by ignorant goat herders.
Firstly, if you had abided by the Feedback Rules of this site you could have easily found answers to the questions you pose. The fact that you used your comments as an opportunity to hurl unfounded straw man arguments about the authority of the Bible and insults reveals a great deal about a person’s knowledge of the issues and to argue rationally. For example, please indicate where and how it claims to be written by ignorant ‘goat herders’? Such a trite comment in many ways doesn’t even deserve a response, but in the possibility of having you actually ‘open’ your mind to the truth I shall provide some information.
As to the question of an uncaused cause please read If God created the universe, then who created God? and also Who created God?. You are probably not aware that evolutionists like yourself also have an uncaused cause or that you have your own supernatural method when you try to explain the origins of the universe. The common view being that a particle no bigger than the head of a pin suddenly appeared out of nothing and for no reason or cause (remembering that there is no universe for it to even appear into). And that all the matter and energy of the universe was contained in this pinhead sized particle. It then suddenly expanded outwards and over billions of years the energy became matter that somehow transformed itself into stars, planets and ultimately human beings.
With your regard to the fossil record, what does that prove? Creationists have exactly the same evidences and the same fossil record to observe as evolutionists. We see it primarily as a record of burial at the time of the great Flood of Noah’s day. In fact, the evidence of the geologic column is more consistent with rapid deposition of sediments burying creatures in situ. The geologic column is not an even distribution of the fossils throughout the rock layers nor is it a record of evolutionary progression or transitions because well over 90 plus percent of all the fossils ever found are those that are placed at the bottom of the fossil record. This is consistent with what one would expect from a rapid and catastrophic global catastrophe. See The Fossil Record. To strengthen your arguments in future you would do well to actually find out what creationists believe before firing off poorly thought out arguments on the presumption that we cannot answer same. There are almost 8,500 articles on this site for you to research, and it is all provided freely, so respectfully there is no excuse. I hope you will take this challenge to seriously consider another point of view.
Kind regards.
you christians and all other religious people still fail the most basic test. provide one piece of evidence that proves the existence of god. Even if you could lump us atheists into one description you would fail as an atheist is mrely someone who rejects the belief in god (ironically only one more than you! as there are thousands of "Gods"). And yes, not that there is a god, but if there was I hate him/her. your religion is vile, vicious and evil, please read the old testament, which in only one example excuses slavery.
Dear Rusty,
For some evidence for God, you could check the articles on our God Q&A. But what evidence do you have that quantum fluctuations caused a singularity to suddenly expand? That sounds like a materialist creation ex nihilo to me—at least we have Creator to be our Uncaused Cause!
See also If God created the universe, then who created God? and Is the Bible evil? for more information.
In response to Rochelle, I have become aware that in most cases where youth leave the church after starting college, they already had doubts about the faith even before they started college. I remember being indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas as early as elementary school. By the time I was in middle school, I already was having a crisis of faith and went through serious anxiety and depression because of those doubts. I thank God that I was saved when I was (in high school), and then, within years of that, made aware that the scientific evidence does not disprove the Bible. I thank God for creation ministries like CMI who defend the Bible from the very first verse. I once thought I had to reject science to believe the Bible, now I know that I don't have to leave my brain at the door to believe God's Word.
What motivates an atheist such as Hawkins? If I have good news, then I spread it to help others. Atheism is not good news, unless you want justification for the evil that you do. It does not uplift the soul and make people feel better about themselves. Instead, it strips the individual of dignity and makes them think that they are gods or there is no consequence for their actions. If they feel or think it is right, then it is.
Why would they spread their message? It is self serving to say that I am going to convince you that I am right if it is the last thing that I do. If you win, it feeds your ego. If you lose then everyone is a fool.
Some Christians have gone overboard in persuading others to be Christians. But, even they knew Someone greater than themselves and wanted others to know Him too. What can an atheist offer - there is no higher than man.
If atheists are so convinced that they are right then why do they hate those who disagree with them? In truth, they call themselves atheists but are not convinced enough that if people disagree with them to walk away with a grin and at peace. Instead, far too many that claim to be atheists fight continually to make everyone else agree with them rather that to be at peace with their beliefs. Christians or anyone who say that they believe in something and can't allow free choice to others and peacefully coincide are wrong. As a Christian, I want everyone to know My Lord Jesus but I recognize that I should not try to cross the barrier of free will (that God Himself won't violate). I will reason with people but will not try to force others to believe what they do not want. I get along with atheists and agnostics - I want them to see how I live and what I believe without going beyond reasoning with them. Some people are fools and there is no reasoning with fools. A fool thinks they are right in their own eyes and reject knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. You can't force people to agree with you - enjoy life and avoid disputes if possible. I will defend myself if attacked by anyone but I desire to be at peace with people as much as possible.
Many socialist atheists are right and have no tolerance for anyone who does not 'stroke their feathers' by agreeing with them. If they were true atheists then someone of a different conviction and understanding would not bother them. If I did not believe in God and you said that you do not then I would respond, "I believe that you are wrong" and leave it at that. Atheism has no hope, no future, no answers for mankind's heart, no solution to real problems plaguing mankind. I call it the 'blank' belief system because it comes from nowhere, proceeds nowhere, and ends nowhere.
I just wanted to make a quick comment on the concept of morality. I am a Christian, and to me the idea of being moral can even corrupt those with the strongest faith. Morality is the idea that we as humans can "be good." Simple as that. But the truth of Scripture (Romans 8) tells us that The Law (which can be thought of as the ideas of morality) is not what gives us any amount of confidence in ourselves, but instead it shows us our faults--or sins. We as human beings are not meant to follow the Law alone! Morality can only get anyone as far as being praised by man (because man rarely sees our real downfalls)--it is forgiveness that begins a believer's tranformation into a true difference maker in this corrupt world! It is the love of Jesus that makes us good (he died so that we might become his righteousness)--no amount of "being good" can ever add up to the debt paid by Jesus on the cross. So, as can be exemplified by the lack of success in atheistic charity, the bottom line is: if you want to be good to the people around you, you have to know and believe in the God who gave everything to be close to them.
Kelly, thanks for the email. I wanted to comment because I think the definition of terms, or the way your response might be understood could lead to a bit of confusion. I think we would actually agree with much of what you wrote. The concept of morality, can refer to a moral code or set of ethics. "It is the differentiation between intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong) [Wikipedia], as it related to the character of an individual. We would agree that the law (a huge set of moral codes) was not capable of being kept by human beings, thus, exemplifying our fallen state before God. However, even though Jesus came to take our place, both He and the New Testament authors had some strong things to say about still performing to moral standards as specified in Scripture. The point made in the article is that atheists don't really have any logical basis to determine what is wrong or right according to their 'survival of the fittest' mantra, except what they determine to be wrong or right in their own eyes.
I am afraid that you give Peter Singer far too much credit when it comes to "respecting his mother". According to Wikipedia, "In an interview with Ronald Bailey, published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live." The Wikipedia biography is frightening enlightening. Abortion and euthanasia, bestiality (along as there is no "abuse of the animal"), are all acceptable to him. On the positive side, he does allow for a little charity. Just don't overdo it! "If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it; absolute poverty is bad; there is some poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance; therefore we ought to prevent some absolute poverty." And this is just one prominent atheist - it sickens my heart to think of the evil all of these "evolved animals" perpetuate upon our race.
How sad and pathetic that the "great" Richard Dawkins does not realise he's just been used again - a pawn of the enemy. Has he become so desperate in his pride and wilful rebellion that in the face of his much cherished but crumbling bastion of evolutionary theory, all he can muster is a feeble attempt of a ruse on old saints in their nursing home beds? Shame Richard, shame. There are surely none so blind as those who will not see. Those who are the Lord's, are the Lord's. They will not be swayed by such petty schoolboy arguments - even if they are in their sunset days. Obviously, Dawkins has come come to believe in the very small straw-god which he espouses and then denies. He has no idea with Whom he is dealing. Poor Richard!
If Mr Dawkins truly believes that 'conversion' to his way of thinking is important enough to fund the publication of 'Free Enquiry', what importance is it to target those who are shortly to become mere 'compost' and are those who are frail,fragile, at the end of their life and oft times comfortable with the conclusions they have reached regarding a spiritual dimension. What are the rewards or benefits for his converts? There is reference in the Word to a millstone, the connotations of which are not very nice, but then neither is a Godless eternity
One is left to wonder where the real motivation for evangelical atheism comes from. If Dawkins,Hitchens, et al are right, then what does it matter? When I read their articles, I can hear the same lame refrain in everything they write: "There is no God and I hate him."
Thank you for this excellent and really helpful article. The comments section was extremely interesting too.
John C from the States said “I know right from wrong all on my own” Isn't that PRECISELY the root of original sin? Man chose the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" instead of the tree of life. In other words Adam, by eating this fruit, deliberately chose the "right" to decide for himself what was right and what was wrong, instead of maintaining a childlike dependance on God to tell him what to do.
in response to John C. = I believe in God and obey His commands not because I fear punishment (I serve a loving God who made a way for me to be reconciled to Him) nor am I seeking a future reward (my reward is Jesus himself right now in this life, my portion, my hope, my peace). I believe and obey because it is a natural response to the One who loved me first—a love that atheists cannot really respond to or even understand until they get to know and experience Jesus for themselves.
Many Thanks for your discussion. I am struggling with my daughter who lost her Christian belief in college (as near as I can tell). I need your information to fight against her support of Richard Dawkins. I also need your prayers to help her.
Dear Rochelle,
We are very sorry to hear this. The statistics of children abandoning the faith in college are startling, and at CMI we have been trying to sound the alarm bell in churches over this issue. We recommend sending her some basic creation resources like a subscription to Creation magazine. As a ‘glossy mag’, people will often pick it to peruse its contents, and then hopefully she’ll see there is another side to the story. Also the Creation Answers Book, Refuting Evolution are key books (and The Greatest Hoax on Earth? that refutes Dawkins directly). If she won’t read then try some DVDs like Creation Not Confusion, and if she is studying any of the sciences we have DVDs in specific areas. if you phone our office our staff will only be too glad to help you.
Blessings.
Excellent article. Responding to the contents of "Free Inquiry" is almost obligatory for CMI, and the comparisons of atheists and Christians is unavoidable in these responses. It would however be erroneous for readers to conclude however, that comparison is the point. Are Christians more charitable? We only know we are not charitable enough. Did Mother Theresa have faults? She would probably have been the first to admit and confess that she did. I am sure many atheists have high morals (although claiming to "know right from wrong all on my own" is probably a bit of an insult even to atheist parents), as I am sure many Christians have high morals. BUT why would a Christian WANT any other human to believe? Well, for that person's salvation. Why would an atheist want any other human not to believe? So that they might not live a lie? Why then target the elderly? So that the don't die a lie? REALLY?! What is Mr.Dawkins' real motive? If God doesn't exist then you should be guided to the truth, but if God does exist He would want you to believe the lie that He doesn't exist. SAY WHAT?! "A guy that smart wouldn’t want to spend eternity with anyone dull enough to blindly believe in him! So maybe, just maybe, Free Inquiry is your ticket to salvation …" So God's plan of salvation is to sift the smart from the dumb, the smart being those that didn't believe in Him with the scientific evidence at their disposal, and then save the smart. If this wasn't serious it would be hilarious.
A little off-topic, but this article and discussion about atheists reminded me of a recent interview (22/2/12) on ABC's 7.30 Report [Australia] where atheist Alain de Botton talked about all the good aspects of religion and how atheists could 'use' them. I was so intrigued by what he had to say that instead of turning off the TV in disgust as I had intended to I was compelled to keep watching and listening to the end. I'll make it clear at this point that I don't have much respect for someone's
intelligence if they can see the 'good works' of 'religious people', but are unable to 'join the dots' and perceive where the intense and lasting motivation to do these good works comes from. It's like someone who sees the outside of a person and how that person is alive, but has absolutely no concept of what is going on inside, such as the activity of the heart and lungs etc., things that in fact are keeping the person alive.
As well, I am put off by the sometimes 'flip' attitude-like Dawkins boasting about irreverence-towards morality, because it seems very hypocritical then, in the next breath, to want to be taken seriously about the big questions in life; questions, which of course always include morality. And yet I would like to hope that perhaps at some stage the good Lord will turn the heart of a person such as de Botton and the scales will fall from his eyes, and he will see that the good works he perceives and admires are just the tip of the iceberg and are only a small part of something infinitely bigger, better and more beautiful-and
more consonant with truth and reality.
Before electrical power was harnessed, people were unable to conceive of the notion of electron behavior. Had everyone laughed at the prospect of hidden (from us) energies capable of being harnessed. We wouldn't have today's technology. Mr. Dawkins' statements evidence dismissal of possibilities. Logic demands allowance of all possibilities. It is the soul of risk management. God gave all of us brains so we could exercise all possibilities, be open to them, and eventually come upon the Truth. We who do that are daily, through reflection on His Word, far better apprised of reality than Mr. Dawkins.
The reason Hitler claimed to be doing what he did in the name of God was that he believed in his own version of God, which is called idolatery. This God didn't judge men in righteousness (for murder or transgression of any of the Ten Commandments). Instead he believed in an "eternal courtroom" situation where the Lord would weigh good and bad, listen to all objections (instead it will be a scentencing by a Holy God). Hitler thought he would be able to bribe the Judge of the Universe, and as such he created his own moral code which he thought "fate" was confirming. Nevertheless we live in a world of chaos after the rebellion of the first man and woman from God. Hitler, God and the Bible is a reccommended read. On the subject of morality, this might make it clearer for any athiests present: [URL withheld per CMI's feedback rules]. And yes, we all do have a conscience to tell right from wrong, and no, no 'works' will earn us favour with God. He gave us everything we have, as if he needs anything from us! But he does expect us to 'depart from iniquity' when we accept the gift of redemption in Jesus. See also [withheld]. It's cool.
I have always thought, to paraphrase Shakespeare, that atheists protest too much. If I were an atheist, I might as well sit outside my children's playhouse and make fun of their imagination. If I truly believed that God is not real, why would I care if people I considered stupid believe? I think they are very afraid and are whistling past the graveyard.
Would you do something kind for your parents just because you are afraid that they might punish you if you don't or do you do it out of love and respect for them knowing it would make them happy? Would you only do something for your parents if you thought they were seeing or would you do something for them despite them not seeing? The latter is how we feel as Christians in doing things that will please God our Father.
I would just like to comment that as a Christian I can fully accept that some people don't believe in God. Not that I think it makes more sense but because it is easier to live life as an atheist... or is it? How does it feel to always want to prove that whatever you don't believe in does not exist? I don't believe in fairies but I don't build my entire being around trying to disprove their existence! Where on earth do they get the idea that God punishes us for using our highly developed brains? Maybe they should read the Bible and try to get to know God before they make a statement like that!
Despite the fact that I am a Christian I don't want to judge atheists and I love them like any other human being and if they are ever in real need I pray that there is a Christian around since they will most likely be looked after - not because of our fear of punishment but because our Christian moral compass is why we are referred to as the body of Christ and is what makes us feel most connected to our creator and saviour!
I have really been enjoying reading the feedback on this article. I'm glad to see that even atheists are reading it and thinking about it. I suspect that atheists' arguments would go a lot further if they could actually provide a logical basis for their morality (but of course they can't). Otherwise comments like, "Atheists do the right thing just because it is right" make no sense.
Just to back up Gary Bates' remarks to John C.
I became a Christian at the age of 57 when Jesus found me and revealed Himself to me as a heart experience. I am obedient to Him not out of fear but because I know, with complete certainty, that He is my Creator and that He loves me with an eternal love. It is love which drives my obedience, not fear. Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Dawkins says that evolution (aka atheism) offers nothing but "blind, pitiless indifference". Atheism is of no comfort when you are in a situation where you are desperately in need of help but no one can give it to you. Conversely, Jesus is all you will ever need in this life and the next. This should not be a difficult choice to make unless you just enjoy living in a bad place.
This is more 'feedback' from a friend [rather] than myself (I love your work and link to CMI frequently). This is the first article in a while that has received commentary by my Atheist friends.
[Atheist writes] "The ignorance this article exudes is monumental. Love the mis-interpretation of Dawkins' quotes too, truly shows a lack of understanding. Also, I particularly love the hypocrisy of saying "atheist dictators killed more in the 20th century than died in all recorded wars in all the previous centuries" then trying to say that if priests and ministers did conspire with Hitler it wouldn't matter because that's just a few bad eggs. If you're going to hold up standards for others, at least try to adhere to them. I'd like you to remember Cam that atheists are not a group of people that share beliefs. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, nothing more. No atheist has ever killed in the name of atheism, as far as I can tell. One more thing, if you're going to try and say that you "encourage science" (as claimed in the article), you can't then openly deny some of the most important scientific discoveries ever made."
[Cam] I'm not planning on responding directly to this comment (I feel no need) but your responses, either Gary, Lita or Jonathan, would be appreciated.
Cam, first off he doesn't specify how Dawkins’ was misrepresented or how we are supposedly ignorant. At CMI we go to a lot of effort to detail our arguments, but as usual, there is a lot of elephant hurling from the opposition with little content. We posted extracts from the actual publication and used his quotes. “We think he doth protest too much.”
And he conveniently ignored our comment and article on how the Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity. So it would appear that if any priests were complicit then they were duped or tricked into it. Why would they actively engage in something that was designed to get rid of them, if they knew the true motives of the Nazi’s actions? Moreover, the atheist bloggers continually miss the point that if priests or any Christians did wrong things then they would be acting inconsistently with their belief system. The whole aim of the Free Inquiry letter was to tarnish by association. As we wrote (which was also conveniently ignored), such inconsistent actions would not invalidate Christianity, unlike Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot etc. who were acting completely consistently with their worldview. Their view was atheism, which was derived from an evolutionary worldview, which states there is no Creator. So to assert that no one has ever killed in the name of atheism is simply wrong. What about the school killers at Columbine or in Finland? Once again, not everyone who believes in evolution will resort to such extremes measures, but these guys were taking their evolutionary beliefs to a logical extension. Even Dawkins has advocated eugenics. This is the dirty little secret or rather the natural ugly extension of evolution into human society, know as Social Darwinism. Treating people as nothing more than animals.
It’s interesting that your atheist friends mentions some of the most important scientific discoveries ever made. Ironically, these were made by Christians who believe in an ordered rational universe designed by God. He also mistakes what constitutes science. Evolution has nothing to do with the way real science works. See It’s not science.
That atheists are targeting nursing homes show how weak their own position is. I'm so thankful that there are ministries like CMI who are ready to give an answer to skeptics. I just wish the rest of the body of Christ would follow the command of 1 Pet 3:15.
By the way, just one thing to be careful of: "Free Inquiry claims that Christians are not more charitable than atheists. But let’s have a look at actual research from a Hoover Institute study:
'Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money...'"
Sharp-eyed atheists might point out that, "Free Inquiry" states that Christians aren't more charitable than atheists, not simply religious people in general.
According to CIA World Factbook, Protestants, Catholics, and other Christians together make up 76.8 of America's population. Other religions together make up 7.2% of the population, while "unaffiliated or none" makes up 16.1%. Given these numbers, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that a study on the charitable behavior of religious people will reflect the giving of Christians, given that over 91% of the sample will be Christian.
Furthermore, if you read the study, it breaks down the figures for charitable giving of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and atheists, and supports our claim.
Your section on the 25th of December being the birth of the Messiah has a few details missing and a few details wrong.
First off, that date is probably close to the time that Jesus was *conceived*, not born. He was born on the Jewish feast of Sukkot, which is an eight-day feast celebrating God being with us in the desert. How fitting it is that God used that to bring the Messiah, who God said “You are to call his name ‘Emanuel’, God with us.” It wasn't until Emperor Constantine came along and mandated a December 25th celebration of the birth of the Messiah in bitter hatred towards the Jewish people. Constantine also mandated the Sabbath to be on Sunday instead of Saturday in a bitter hatred towards the Jewish people.
Also, the December 25th celebration actually does have pagan origins relating to the winter solstice. The primary reason for celebrating the birth of Jesus on that day was in a bitter hatred towards the Jewish people. In fact, many of the Christian holidays were in an act of bitter hatred towards the Jewish people. None of these holidays are actually Biblical, nor do they have a Biblical foundation.
For the death and resurrection, of the Messiah, the death took place during Passover, which is a feast day celebrating liberation from Egypt. The Messiah's death and resurrection on that feast day symbolizes liberation from sin. Once again,
It's also the case that the Christmas Tree has a significant pagan origin in the ancient middle east. It was originally a palm tree and was associated with the pagan gods worshiped in the lands by the people that Israel was ordered to destroy. Of course, there are rarely, if ever, any palm trees in Europe or in the mid to northern North American continent, so pine trees became a good replacement.
Your section on the 25th of December being the birth of the Messiah
Actually, we made it clear that: “CMI doesn’t say that Christ was born on this day (we doubt that it’s possible to know for sure), or what we should or should not do then. But we do say that many common arguments against this date are fallacious (see Christmas and Genesis).”
has a few details missing and a few details wrong.
Well, of course it has details missing, since I couldn’t write a whole book. But details wrong, that is a different matter.
First off, that date is probably close to the time that Jesus was conceived, not born.
But as we pointed out, the 25 December date was the result of Christian writers trying to determine His conception date, with the Jewish tradition that a prophet’s conception date was the same as His death date.
He was born on the Jewish feast of Sukkot, which is an eight-day feast celebrating God being with us in the desert.
I doubt it. The reason is that Matthew frequently referred to Jesus fulfilling a prophecy or type (see Did Matthew misuse the Old Testament? Typology in Matthew’s birth narrative). Yet he never argued that Jesus was born on a special Jewish feast day. Note that this is not an argument from silence, but one of conspicuous absence. Matthew so often cited a fulfilled prophecy that it would be an uncharacteristic omission. In formal logical terms, this is a valid argument called denying the consequent, while an argument from silence is an invalid argument called denying the antecedent (see the explanation in Conditional Statements and Implications, from Logic and Creation).
How fitting it is that God used that to bring the Messiah, who God said “You are to call his name ‘Emanuel’, God with us.” It wasn't until Emperor Constantine came along and mandated a December 25th celebration of the birth of the Messiah in bitter hatred towards the Jewish people. Constantine also mandated the Sabbath to be on Sunday instead of Saturday in a bitter hatred towards the Jewish people.
Evidently you didn’t read the article too carefully, because we documented that the Christmas celebration pre-dated any Roman celebration on that day.
Also, the December 25th celebration actually does have pagan origins relating to the winter solstice.
Once again, the pagan celebrations post-date Christian ones, so that should tell you who borrowed from whom. Also, the solstice is actually the 21st, so the Saturnalia festivals around that time went from the 17th to the 23rd. So the date is wrong as well. As usual, claims of pagan derivation look plausible superficially, but collapse in a heap when analysed in depth.
The primary reason for celebrating the birth of Jesus on that day was in a bitter hatred towards the Jewish people. In fact, many of the Christian holidays were in an act of bitter hatred towards the Jewish people. None of these holidays are actually Biblical, nor do they have a Biblical foundation.
I am Jewish myself, so I would staunchly oppose antisemitism. But as shown in the article, the 25 December date was derived from a Jewish tradition!
For the death and resurrection, of the Messiah, the death took place during Passover, which is a feast day celebrating liberation from Egypt. The Messiah's death and resurrection on that feast day symbolizes liberation from sin. Once again,
Here we have real history, because the Gospels tell us so (see When was the Last Supper?).
It's also the case that the Christmas Tree has a significant pagan origin in the ancient middle east. It was originally a palm tree and was associated with the pagan gods worshiped in the lands by the people that Israel was ordered to destroy. Of course, there are rarely, if ever, any palm trees in Europe or in the mid to northern North American continent, so pine trees became a good replacement.
Again, it seems like you didn’t read the article, which points out the far more recent origin of the Christmas tree in medieval Estonia then northern Germany.
"The magazine religious fuddy-duddies are afraid of and don’t want you to read."
It always amuses me how much credit these atheists give themselves. Sorry, gentlemen, but you give us "fuddy-duddies" nothing to be afraid of!
A atheist who does the right thing simply because it’s the right thing, is infinitely more moral than a religious person who is only pretending to be moral because s/he fears punishment or seeks reward.
I know right from wrong all on my own. If you’re telling me that the only thing that keeps you from doing terrible things to other people is that you are afraid that some invisible entity is watching your every move… and if your only reason for doing the right thing is that you are greedily looking forward to a reward… then I am *afraid* of you. If the only thing standing between you, and immoral behavior, is your belief in a god, then what would you be capable of if you decided there was no god?
Thanks for your email, but respectfully you are invoking something that is not the case. You make several straw man arguments in your response. And sadly it typifies why atheists often reject the Christian faith—it’s because they do not understand it. This is either through genuine ignorance or willing ignorance. The latter is what the Bible suggests, because, for example, in Romans 1:20 it tells us that all persons are without excuse because God is revealed in His Creation (albeit that it is now fallen). Have you investigated some of the 8,000 plus articles on this site that seeks to provide evidence for the biblical Creator? Are you willingly ignorant? (2 Peter 3:3–7). In your response, you most certainly did not deal with the arguments raised in the article.
Christians are not moral just because of fear of retribution. Christians recognize that as humans we are sinful fallen human beings and unless something is done we would have been separated from our Creator for eternity. But fortunately, God did something about our fallen state—He sent Jesus to pay the penalty on our behalf. So it is in recognizing that God loved us first, that through this new found relationship we can love him in return. So, it is out of love that we try to obey. Jesus actually said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15). However, if one fails to accept the free gift of God then there will be a judgment. Love or judgments are the options—you choose!
You say that you know right and wrong on your own. However, this comment fails to address one of the arguments in the article. What is right and wrong? What measure do you use because you have no logical or consistent reason for deciding what it right or wrong except what you choose? Such is the failure of a humanistic worldview. Perish the thought that we should allow people to freely decide what is wrong or right, because our sinful natures will choose self. However, this might be consistent with your evolutionary foundation of ‘survival of the fittest’ so you could perhaps choose to harm others for your own self gain (greed for self gain). For example, see this candid admission of same by two evolutionary authors in http://creation.com/rape-and-evolution. It seems that you also sidestepped what the evolutionary hero Richard Dawkins himself admitted in the article:
“I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.”
He does not want to live in a world devoid of Christian morality and ethics. It would appear that the problem is he just doesn’t want to be accountable to a Creator. Really, one can’t have it both ways. And there is no question that we see things actually getting worse—a moral decline in society, which is consistent when it departs from the Christian worldview and the moral concepts that emanate from it. Evolution cannot provide a logical basis for morality. Why show mercy or compassion to the weak? Once again, Jesus’ ‘commands (or rules as you call them) actually compel us to show love and compassion to those less fortunate. Even if the motivation was for fear out of the Creator (which it isn’t), keeping such moral precepts as laid down by Creator would actually be good for society and the individuals in it—especially those who are less fortunate. If the likes of Dawkins and many of his evolutionary cohorts had his way, such ‘weaklings’ might be culled from the population due to their burden on society, and also because their continued existence might ‘pollute’ the gene pool. As we demonstrated, where are all the atheist aid organizations?
So, it seems that you have one finger pointing at us, but several actually aiming back at you. You would do well to heed the Words of the Creator revealed in the flesh (the One who actually came down to lowly mankind to help us understand who He was). He talked about removing the logs out of one’s own eyes before removing the speck in someone else’s. I trust you will see the fallacy of your reasoning, because, respectfully, you are not good. And neither am I. And it is from understanding this that I can fully appreciate what God has done for us. As best as I can (albeit I am a fallen creature) I choose love and Scripture tells us that God is love and only those who are born of God can fully appreciate that (1 John 4: 7–12). (Where does love come from in an evolutionary framework?)
I encourage you to dig deeper into what it means to have a relationship with God rather than use ad hominem arguments that don't fairly represent Christian beliefs.
I think it's quite telling that as far as I can see, the only actual atheist charity mentioned on the Atheist Aid website is "Atheists Helping the Homeless". I'm wondering where all the others are? I note that if you go to the "Non-believers giving aid disaster relief fund" at Richard Dawkins' website, any money you give is passed on to either the American Red Cross or Oxfam-in which case, why waste time and money in administration so that the money can be passed on? You might as well just give direct to the Red Cross or Oxfam.
Richard Dawkins' 'highly developed brain' should get its facts straight concerning the avoidance of "a vindictive punishment in the afterlife". The yardstick is no longer obedience to "arbitrary rules", but life in a risen Jesus Christ who took all the punishment.
Another very good article. Such a small number of people (Atheists) given such a disproportionate influence in our crumbling (Western) civilzation. The ridiculous pride of Dawkins is almost breathtaking in its stupidity. To put himself in the imagined position of knowing what kind of person God would really appreciate is mindless beyond belief. When he faces God he will truly find out who God really opposes: the proud an unrepentant. Maybe he will be handed a fireproof copy of 'Free Enquiry' to take with him to his eternal abode.
Wow, PZ Myers calls Ken Ham "wackaloon" on a blog post, and now, we got Dawkins calling us "fuddy-duddies". What is with the childish name-calling from the so-called "new atheists"? Have they lost their ability to give well-reasoned arguments for their position? With that going on, I am surprised that anyone takes the "new atheists" seriously at all.