I Don’t Need You Guys!

Atheists, Atheists, Atheists. (That was tough to type for some reason) They’re like their own little exclusive club.

“Well, I don’t like the Christian side of things… and I don’t like the other religions, they’re just a bit weird. It’s too bad there’s not a third choice.”

“Wait a minute. Let’s make our own association and not believe anything.”

“Hey, that’s not bad. We could call it Anti-Godists.”

“No no. That’s a bit wordy. Let’s call it Ha-ha-we’ve-got-our-own-thing-now-leave-us-alone-ists.”

“No, that’s wordy too. What about itheists, you know, with a small ‘i’. Kind of like ipod. It’s catchy ya? …itheists…”


And so it went on till the eventual conversion to Atheists (big “A”). Sounds a bit more legitimate.

But there’s a backfire in this plan. By rejecting God, they put him in the spotlight. They firmly pronounce that they don’t believe in God and give all these reasons. It’s like they have to justify breaking off from the norm. The good thing about it is that it sparks a thought in the hearer. The hearer entertains the eventual thought, “What do I believe?” This question is altogether approved by religion. It’s good to figure out what you believe. And if you don’t know… go find out.

From a different perspective, the curse word “GD” might just get phased out by Atheists and Christians alike. For instance:

Construction workers are building a structure and one of them hits his thumb with a hammer.

Worker A: “Owww! God!#$*@!”

Worker B: “Oh, I’m Atheist. I don’t believe in God.”

Worker A: “Oh… so it’s just *!$%@!?”

Worker B: “Right… we’re trying to get rid of God and you’re not helping.”

Worker A: “Well, that just doesn’t properly communicate what I’m feeling.”

Worker C: “Yes… and while we’re at it, I’m a Christian and don’t like the use of that word either.”

Worker A: Uh, I thought the founding fathers came here to get away from oppression.”

Worker D: (mockingly) “ Ooooh. Help! Help! I’m being repressed.”

Worker A: “That’s Oppressed you idiot”

Worker D: “Ah… same difference.”

19 thoughts on “I Don’t Need You Guys!

    1.  15Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

       16The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:

       17But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

       18What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. (Philippians 1:15-18, King James Version)

  1. My favorite atheist argument is that saying atheism is a religion is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    To which I reply that if one were to write books about not collecting stamps, and groups with titles like “the Humanists Non Philatelists Society” which had meetings where they discussed how much they dislike stamps in general and stamp collectors in specific, and if they routinely sued the government on behalf of non-stamp-collectors interests to stop stamp collecting on public property then…I’d say that pretty much qualifies. 🙂

  2. Funny Darrell, but of course, if those who collected stamps tried to force others to observe their stamp collecting habits (stamp collecting sayings on public buildings, forced public school reading from the stamp collecting manual, compulsory chanting to the invisible leader of the stamp club, trying to pass legislation that limits the rights of non stamp collectors, etc, etc) then would it not be reasonable for non stamp collectors to speak out, either in print or voice? Does their decent automatically make them a club (religion)?

    Try again please.

    1. Atheism certainly has most of the trappings of religion. Most atheists even believe in things you cannot see (observe); like species-jumping and life popping ito existence without a predecessor. Those things aren’t observed in nature. They are stories extrapolated from an incomplete and sharply discontinuous fossil record.

      1. Wow. Someone actually wrote this?

        Trappings of religion? Come off it. No central authority, no holy book, no dogma, no leader, no special class of interpreters, no liturgy, no traditions, no services. Other than a lack of religious trappings, you’re exactly right in your comparison.

        Your use of the word ‘believe’ is also transparently disingenuous and your reference to the ‘sharply discontinuous’ fossil record laughable.

        But let’s take a moment and consider: if atheists were to ‘believe’ in reasonable conclusions drawn from reasonable evidence from reasonable processes, so what? How does this in any way, shape, or form suggest it’s okay for others to then just make stuff up and introduce supernatural unknowable elements into unreasonable ‘answers’ in place of what is reasonable?

  3. Bob,

    First of all, the word is “dissent.”

    Second of all, yes, a group of people committed to a common shared view of God (or the lack thereof), mankind, the nature of morality, and various other philosophical “big questions” could be classified as a religion.

    Or if it makes you feel better you can call them a “club.” But only if by “club” you mean “religion”

  4. Thanks for correcting my horrible grammar Darrell. If you dialogue with me you will have to do it often…so you probably won’t have to tolerate it for long. Firstly, I am in no “group of people committed to a common shared view of God”. I, like most atheists, just happen to agree with each other about the non existance your God. Most of us have absolutely nothing to do with each other. So, “if it makes you feel better” to call us a religion, have at it. But, my guess is you wouldn’t agree with my definition of a Christian, (which is any and all people who believe they are a Christian) I will likewise consider you labeling atheism as a religion to be incorrect, which it is.

  5. Timothy, as an atheist, I don’t “believe”. I conclude.

    So, what other “trappings” do atheists share with religions? You said there are many?

    Are you religious? If so, what “trappings” do you suffer from?

    1. Honestly, I do not wish to compare and contrast the trappings of both Atheism and Theism. It would take longer than my patience would allow. I will answer your other questions, though I’m not sure of your sincerity in asking them.

      Well fine you conclude. But you conclude only in the same way that I do. You look at the given evidence and choose one or the other explanation. How you decide is your business. But when it comes to materialism, conclusions are drawn from assumptions made about physical processes. These assumptions cannot be verified due to lack of evidence and we do not see them in action; so they are believed, not known. But I don’t want to be confusing with the term belief. You believe a chair you’ve never sat in before will hold you up because you’ve seen it happen time and again. You’ve experienced it and observed it. But Darwinist materialism does not have the precedent of the chair. It has not been observed happening, and in the one place it would be really convincing, the fossil record, it is not recorded happening. Your belief in it is less sure than your belief in the chair. You may conclude, but it is a conclusion based on belief and not pure fact.

      I am religious. I do suffer from the trappings of faith in the ways that it is my duty to do so. But I do not suffer because there are trappings. After all “trappings” only means ornamental or characteristic signs of a particular pursuit or maybe organization. It is not meant to indicate that one is trapped. Although the idea probably shows up somewhere in the term’s etymology.

      1. These assumptions cannot be verified due to lack of evidence and we do not see them in action; so they are believed, not known.

        Absolutely wrong.

        What you call assumptions are no such thing. What you call ‘verification’ is incorrect. What you call evidence is too narrow. What you call ‘do not see them in action’ is flat out wrong. Your conclusion ‘therefore belief’ is built on all these errors you have made and is empty of intellectual merit.

        There is a slight wrinkle in your thinking you have failed to address that is staring you in the face: evolution is a theory that is a fundamental pillar in our knowledge we call ‘biology’. There is no scientific controversy about this and we use practical products that consistently work based on this understanding you suggest is just a belief in woo. That reveals a disconnect between what is real and true versus what you think. And the fault does not lie with evolution as a physical mechanism we understand but in your mind that quite clearly does not grasp what it explains and why we can trust/have great confidence in/believe in the explanation.

  6. Darrell, I laughed and laughed at your spelling correction. So you.
    I think that Danny’s point in this post (and I would know better than most, since he’s my hubby and we discuss these things) was that when people talk about how God “isn’t” or mock Him, they cause people to ask questions. Which then leads to discussion on God. And based on the portion of scripture that he posted in his comment, you can see that God can rejoice in both the mockery and the sincerity, because “Christ is preached.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s