Thursday, March 02, 2006

Self-Serving Atheistic “Evangelism”

John Loftus let’s us in on his motives behind his agenda to “debunk” Christianity:

This antagonism of his toward me only inspires me to argue more forcefully against Christianity…do you see why? I’m a nice person and I don’t deserve this treatment, so the more he does this the more resolved I am to debunk Christianity, the very faith that motivates him to demonize me. The irony is that he’ll only have himself to thank as my efforts to lead more people into the truth and away from his ignorance become more intense! Because this is exactly the effect that personal attacks by him and other Christians like him have had, and are having on me. The level of my activism and militancy has grown immensely this last year in direct proportion to how I have been treated by Christians. I am certain that if Christians would’ve treated me with respect, even if they disagreed vehemently with my arguments, I would not have written this book that will soon be out, and I would not have this Blog right now. When I am personally attacked, it only intensifies my desire to go for the jugular vein–the very faith that allows someone to feel they can personally attack me with ethical impunity.

Recently I wrote an article titled “The ‘Inspiring Story’ of Induction into the Loser’s Club,” concerning the humanistic posture towards atheistic “deconversion” stories. In it, I state:

Why, then, do these religious zealots of humanism become so excited over the fact that one more poor mass of cells hit the brick wall of what is, to them, reality? This is because humanism, as a worldview, is simply a religion of anti-religion. Atheism is not anti-religious in the sense of not being a religion. No, atheism is certainly a religion of its own, with its sacraments of hyper-tolerance and its sins of calling someone a sinner. But atheism, as Steve has elsewhere noted, is a religion for overgrown children. It is for those who have never left the shadow of their fathers, and are so desperate to spite their religious traditions that they will even call the testimony of doom “inspiring.” Deconversion stories, which rip meaning from the hearts of the apostates, are simply one more way for humanists to “stick it to the man” of the institution of the church. We have even seen that here, just in the name “Debunking Christianity.” Loftus, for instance, may have left the faith, but he has not left its shadows. Its truth still haunts him. That is why he works at the purposeless effort of destroying believers. Christians evangelize in obedience and from a heart of burden for the loss. But what motivates the “evangelism” of John Loftus? Might I suggest that it is the stain the church has left on him? It certainly isn’t to give any hope to those who are at his listening end!

Lofuts proves my point for me. In atheism, reality ain’t pretty. But it also isn’t necessary. In an atheistic worldview, whether I’m a Christian or an atheistic is irrelevant. There is not consequence in any ultimate sense. In contrast, in the Christian worldview, whether or not I’m an atheist or a Christian is of utmost importance. It make sense, therefore, why Christians evangelize. They understand the Biblical realities concerning the gospel, they have a burden for the lost, and they have a desire to walk in obedience to God’s commands. But why do atheists like Loftus “evangelize”? He tells us:

I am certain that if Christians would’ve treated me with respect, even if they disagreed vehemently with my arguments, I would not have written this book that will soon be out, and I would not have this Blog right now.

Thus, Loftus’ “apologetics” are completely self-serving. He doesn’t ultimately care about truth or people knowing the truth (otherwise his actions would be the same regardless of how others interact with him). He simply cares about getting back at those who gave him emotional boo-boos. Whether or not Loftus blogs is ultimately inconsequential; the blog, therefore, can only be a platform for him to publicly defend himself against the religious stain left on his face from the days where he deceived people from the pulpit. In contrast, in the Christian worldview, whether or not Christians evangelize is of utmost importance. They do so to serve others. Atheists do so to serve themselves.

John Loftus will probably not like the statements I’ve made here. He will respond with accusations of ad hominems and the like. But he has made himself the example. He mounts his defense of his atheistic worldview biographically; all of them do with their “deconversion stories.” He wants us to learn from his life. Therefore, it is important that we do learn from his life. In the end, according to John Loftus, my post here will simply further the cause of promoting the “truth”; he’ll respond with “activism and militancy,” and his “evangelistic” task will continue to be completed.

Evan May.

4 comments:

  1. I don't consider this post of yours to be a personal attack on me. Sometimes it's difficult to see what someone considers a personal attack, though. But this isn't it. It's merely your assessment of my atheism and my reason for debunking Christianity, for the most part.

    I said, "for the most part," because you're wrong when you write:

    Thus, Loftus’ “apologetics” are completely self-serving. He doesn’t ultimately care about truth or people knowing the truth (otherwise his actions would be the same regardless of how others interact with him). He simply cares about getting back at those who gave him emotional boo-boos.

    I don't know how you could possibly think this if you read my post. Which again leads me to say that you are so blinded by your faith that you can't even understand what I say. How do you properly exegete the Bible if you can't properly exegete anything else? Most of the same hermeneutical skills are required.

    Where is it do you read that I don't care about the truth, that my “apologetics” are completely self-serving, and that I only care about getting back at those who attack me? Is that what you really think I said?

    Why do you think I quoted with approval Funk's and Price's statements? I merely said that the personal attacks against me have increased my level of intensity.

    And it's a non-sequitor to say my actions would be the same regardless of how others interact with me. Do you act the same toward everyone? My motivation has to do with the faith that allows Christians to demonize me, in part. The more they do this, the more intense I get, because the more I dislike the faith of theirs that allows them the freedom to do this.

    Sheesh. And you think I should have any degree of respect for this blog when you are invited to be on it and you cannot properly understand what I write?

    I'm looking for signs that you can understand what I write taking into consideration that since our world-views are different we may not see things the same. You can disagree with me all you want to, but please try to understand me. When I see even some meager attempts at this you can post on my Blog again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John:

    I don't think I have misunderstood what you have written. I have simply considered the implications of what you have written. Of course, we won't find it in writing that you don't care about the truth or about others knowing the truth. But it is the implication. For, your "apologetics" are motivated by your response to how others interact with you.

    You ask, "Do you act the same toward everyone?"

    But that isn't the point. The point is if I evangelize regardless of how people act towards me. And the answer is "yes."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think the implications follow at all from what I've written.

    My motivation is, has, and always will be because of Christian ignorance, which I think causes harm.

    But the more I see the harm that Christian ignorance causes, especially to me, the more I dedicate myself to stamping out this ignorance.

    I remember when Dr. Jack Cottrell was defending inerrancy as the position of the founders of the Restoration Movement (Churches of Christ) in a debate with Myron Williams. Williams went off the scheduled topic and started debating inerrancy itself by attacking Cottrell's writings on the subject. Jack tried to continue with what he had prepared, and continued to discuss what Alexander Campbell and others said about inerrancy.

    But Williams continued.

    Finally Jack could take it no more, and on his last time up he started with these words: "You can purposely misrepresent Alexander Campbell's words, and even the word's of Jesus, if you want to, but when you start misrepresenting my words, then it's time for me to go on the offensive" (or some words to that effect).

    Jack just got fed up with how he believed Williams was treating him. This treatment provoked him to go on the attack, and it brought up from within him a real passion to argue, and he brought over 3/4ths of the crowd to a standing ovation at the end.

    He did it as a Christian.
    I do it as an atheist.
    But we all do it because we're human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My motivation is, has, and always will be because of Christian ignorance, which I think causes harm.

    Please write a formally valid deductive syllogism showing that you can know with absolute certainty that you 'think'.

    Please write a formally valid deductive syllogism that shows that Christian ignorance causes harm.

    Please define the terms think, Christian, ignorance and harm.

    Please show how you are not committing the fallacy of appealing to future evidence when you write: My motivation...always will be.

    ReplyDelete