The Explosion of the New Atheists Churches: What It Means To Christians

The Hidden Dangers to the Christian Church

The Denver based and original home of the Free Thought Exchange founded by Jason Testerman wants to get atheists into the churches.  That would seem inconceivable until you know why they want this.  Some atheists have begun “evangelizing” Christians by going into their churches and “planting seeds” but they claim it is not to “steal their flock” but to plant a seed toward what they call “unconversion.”  Today, there may be atheists attending your own church, assuming you attend one in the first place.  They are there perhaps to plant these seeds of doubt and disbelief.  It is very much like the Parable where Jesus said that they enemy came in and sowed tares among the wheat and that they are both growing together but it’s impossible to tell them by sight.  The sad fact is that some pastors are actually inviting these skeptics into their flocks to speak to the church.   Testerman admits that it’s very important to them to work with the local pastors.  You would be surprised at the number of pastors who are welcoming them in to speak to the church membership.

Atheist Worship Services

What do they worship if they don’t worship a god?  Do they worship themselves and their belief of unbelief?  Do they worship the creation instead of the Creator as Paul wrote in Romans 1:25 when he wrote that they “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”  Atheism is actually a faith-based belief because they are taking it in faith that there is no God even though they cannot disprove His existence.  To disprove the existence of God would require them to have all knowledge of all quadrants of the universe and to have more knowledge than humans can possibly have.  Thus, atheism is a faith-based belief system that takes exponentially more faith to believe that there is no God than to believe that there is in fact a God.

The atheist churches actually have their own minsters and the First Church of Atheism says that you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.  Are there church membership requirements?  Do their members have “un-conversion” baptisms?  Do they proclaim when someone is “unsaved?”  Is a former born again believer un-born?  Believe it or not, some do, at least at some atheist churches they have.  Just as there are Christian mega-churches there are now atheist mega-churches and the numbers are increasing.  There are atheist churches now with attendees in the thousands and they are becoming increasingly larger every day and expanding into the outer reaches of the world.  Like Christian churches, they plan to de-evangelize segments of the world to take in the gospel of unbelief into all the world and into every language, nation, and peoples, imitating the Great Commission given by Christ (Matt 28:18-20).  They might call this the “Great De-Commission perhaps although the language of such missions is still being worked out but they are arbitrarily stealing from the Christian and Bible vernacular and distorting or converting the missions-language into their own unique purposes.

The Explosion of the Atheist Churches

Don’t believe that this is just a passing fade.  More and more people are joining the ranks, not only of atheist churches, but atheistic belief.  Some agnostics have begun to attend as well.  The difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheists believe there is no god at all while agnostics are uncertain if there a god at all. While atheistic churches grow, the Christian churches are shrinking, and this trend is growing due to more and more segments of the population believing that church is not necessary anymore.   Even though Jesus died for His church and said that He would build His church and that the gates of hell (or death) would not prevail (or stop) the church, Christians declining attendance have been the cause for many of the world’s churches to close their doors (Matt 16:18). The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released some stunning results in a recent poll and the trend is alarming.  In a 2012 study, they discovered that 20% of all Americans have no religious affiliation at all.  This is an increase of 15% in just the last five years.  If this same trend continues, with a decrease in church attendance at 5% a year it could mean that 40% of the population will have no church affiliation in less than ten years.

Suppressing the Truth

God says that those who disbelieve in God are actually choosing to disbelieve because they know in their hearts that there is a God, yet will not acknowledge Him.  Paul writes in Romans 1:18-23 that those who choose to disbelieve in God means that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

When Paul says that they “suppress the truth” the Greek word describes it like someone pressing down on a coil spring where they hold it down by force and “what can be known about God” means that they are willfully choosing to disbelieve because they don’t want to give up their sin.  This is what Paul says that they are “without excuse” even though the creation proclaims that there must be a Creator (Psalm 19:1). Even though they know there must be a God they have exchanged worshiping God for worshiping the creation (e.g. “images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”).   Anyone who has watch cable’s many nature programs can easily see that this is true and the many programs on the universe and the outer reaches of the universe.  Mankind is spellbound about nature because they refuse to bend the knee to God Who alone deserves worship.   They worship themselves (the “creature”) instead of the Creator.

Conclusion

Has the day come to pass where Paul warned the church that this “day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction” (2 Thess 3:2)?  Maybe so.  All the church can do is to continue to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ so that some may come to repentance and confess their sin and plead for forgiveness from God and then put their trust in the only name by which they might be saved…Jesus Christ and Him alone (Acts 4:12; 16:30-31).  For there is no other way that a man or woman might be saved from the coming day of God’s judgment and wrath (Rev 20:11-15).

Article By Jack Wellman

Jack Wellman is Senior Writer at What Christians Want to Know whose mission is to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible. You can follow Jack on Google Plus or check out his book Blind Chance or Intelligent Design

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

    You haven’t even *tried* to understand what these gatherings are about, have you…? Because if you did, you’d realize all your speculation is completely wrong.

    • derpollisauce

      Correct. If these ‘Christians’ would only calm down for just a sec and actually do some research, they would realize that this isn’t even a church.

  • Mark Moore

    It is not the hidden dangers that threaten the Christian faith. It is all out in the open. Your children are leaving.

    • momtarkle

      As they mature.

      • Nabukuduriuzhur

        A hedonistic lifestyle is not maturity.

        Take GenX women. They were taught feminist doctrines in junior high school. By high school most had abandoned the church and were living “the single lifestyle” of partying, drinking, and sleeping with the guy of the week.

        Most never developed responsibility. A wasted generation.

        Getting drunk, stoned, and f–king a different guy as the old guy gets boring is not maturity.

  • Keith

    You got it all wrong when you say the atheism is faith based – It is ABSOLUTELY NOT faith based. You are trying to religionise atheism. And further atheist do not say there is no god, but that they do not believe that there is a god based on the scientific facts before them. As with science if the facts change so can their opinions – but based ONLY on provable facts. In fact the whole article you wrote is a load of bullshit and you really do not know what you are talking about and only quoting the bible which is a total fairy tale from the beginning to end with no facts and even in fairy tale rules it is a totally unbelievable.

    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

      “Absolutely” overstates it a bit. The Münchhausen trilemma leaves any conclusion ultimately perched on one or another sort of “faith” — though it may be a deep pile.

      Nohow, the sort of faith involved in asserting the Axiom of Pairing is usually considered pretty unremarkable, even by most mathematicians (and probably more than half of the weirdo mathematicians who work on ordinal analysis).

    • Surprise123

      Atheism accompanied by belief that all “religion is bad, all religion is evil” IS faith-based. Most anti-religion atheists don’t even try to understand the HISTORY of art, of civilization, of science, of culture, and their relationship to religion.
      Empiricism, science arose out of practices of the Catholic Church circa 1000 CE: its demand that all clerics remain celibate; that women be empowered to inherit and bequeath property; that the Church be free to determine its own bishops, free from the influence of the Holy Roman Emperor, all made the rise of empiricism possible. THESE practices gave rise to a literate independent bureaucracy free from the cares of raising the next generation, as well as great centers of learning in monasteries and universities

  • Keith

    Jack Wellman is a disgrace to humankind and is a brainwashed delusionist riding on the wave of a plagiarised religion for his own benefit.

  • Keith

    And the reason they are losing so many churches in the USA is because the people of the USA are now waking up to reason and not accepting any old crap dished up to them.

  • Curt Mudgen

    I read as far as the part where you say atheism is a faith based belief system. This is one of the worst, and oldest, arguments against atheism that is so bad I’m surprised anyone would still use it. Have you not heard the counter arguments? Do you not research what the other side has to say before you make such ludicrous statements?

    Atheism is a response to a claim, the claim being god exists. Atheists simply don’t buy it. So it’s not up to us to “disprove” his existence, it’s up to you guys to prove he does exist, something you’ve been unable to do. If we have to believe things are real because they can’t be disproven, does that mean goblins are real? Pixies? You can’t possibly know all information about all quadrants of the universe so to say goblins and pixies aren’t real means you would have to have more knowledge than humans can possibly have.

    See how ridiculous that is?

    So if you expect me to take anything you say seriously you have to ditch these old, worn out and ridiculously bad arguments. When you make these kinds of statements I almost expect you to claim we eat babies too.

    • Surprise123

      Atheism, like all other ideologies, religious or otherwise, comes in all flavors and in varying degrees of passion. Sometimes, it’s simply ” I don’t believe in God or gods, and, meh, who cares about what religious people believe?” and sometimes, it’s “I don’t believe in God or gods, and religion is always bad, always evil (an assumption based on non-empirical evidence, and lack of understanding of history, art, and culture, I might add), and I will do everything in my power to destroy it.”

  • kayla21

    I think the problem of the decline of Christianity is the result of both secularism and the flaw within Christianity, esp. The Trinity (the man-made concept).

    Turkey is a drop-dead secular country, yet the number of atheist there, according to Eurobarometer is as low as 1%, while France’s, another secular country, is 40%.

    Somehow Christians are no longer buying that a God can be a man, and a man can be a God.

    And now i realize why Islam emphasizes greatly on oneness of God and why Shadah in Islam begins with “La ilaha illa Allah..” and why there’s Surah Al-Ikhlas in Quran “The truth is: Allah is One. Allah is Besought of all, needing none. He neither begot anyone, nor he was begotten. And equal to Him has never been any one” which is considered an especially important and honored part of the Quran..

    • ThisIsTheEnd

      Turkey is similar to America as the government and state institutions are secular but the populations are deeply religious. France has been anti-clerical since the french revolution

    • jon

      Turkey is anything *but* a ‘drop-dead secular country’
      Have you been paying attention what is going on in Turkey the last 20 years?

  • Jeff

    Atheism is, by definition, a lack of faith in gods, and therefore is not itself a belief system. Unlike Christians, who legitimately carry the burden of supporting their claims that they have some extra-sensory insight into “all quadrants of the universe” that lends them “more knowledge than humans can possibly have”, Atheists work with precisely the amount of information and knowledge that is available to the human population, of which only about a third of have been convinced, through accidents of birth and geography, and through the mechanisms of trust-based religious indoctrination, of the “truth” of the Christian mythos.

    • Surprise123

      This is a simplistic understanding of ideology, secular or religious.
      Atheists may not have the burden of supporting their claim that God does not exist, but those who are actively anti-religious DO carry the burden of supporting their claim that all religion is bad, all religion is evil (which fuels evangelical atheists’ passion). Most atheists in this category don’t even try. Most in this category have ZERO understanding of the history of art, culture, civilization, science, and their relationship to (and, even dependence upon) religion.

      Note: this post has been edited.

    • Nabukuduriuzhur

      From what I’ve observed over the years, Atheists hate God.

      You cannot hate something you don’t believe exists.

      The visceral reaction that Atheists have to the mere mention of Jesus Christ or seeing a church is very much like the hatred the nazis had for the Jews. It becomes all consuming, to the point where the German army in the waning days of the war was being starved of supplies in order to supply the concentration camps.

      The reason they hate God comes down to two things. The most common one is that an Atheist wants to sleep with everything that moves and it makes them feel guilty. And so they contrive a hate of God and Christians. Considerably rarer is the Atheist who is hurt very badly by a person calling themselves a Christian and the Atheist thus blames God and Christians.

      Either way, it’s not a healthy idea to feed hatred like that.

      Atheist religions like socialism killed more than 250 million last century. It approaches a billion when socialist programs like “one child only” are counted.

  • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

    Atheism is actually a faith-based belief because they are taking it in
    faith that there is no God even though they cannot disprove His
    existence. To disprove the existence of God would require them to have
    all knowledge of all quadrants of the universe and to have more
    knowledge than humans can possibly have.

    While the Münchhausen trilemma necessitates some sort of “faith” as the ultimate underpinnings of any proposition, you seem to be equivocating Inductive probabilistic inference (cf Hume) with the more unary sort of “faith” associated to those horns.

    • Al Skeptic

      Ok. How about in plain English? Your use of big words only decreases your credibility as you obviously place yourself high above all of your common bretheren.

      But to your point: I do not believe in Thor. It takes no effort or rationalizing. I do not believe in unicorns. Again, no effort. Just a single thought to a clear conclusion. And, I do not believe in god. There is nothing to prove or spend my time defending. I simply do not believe.

      • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

        A single thought to a clear conclusion, but from what premises, and inferred under what rules (which may themselves be considered a sub-type of premise)? That the effort is not noticed does not mean it may not be implicitly required to insure the conclusion is sound, as the conclusion 1+1=2 implicitly rests on several hundred pages of underpinning mathematics.

        Jargon is not only used to obscure or to mark out an elite; it’s also used for increasing efficiency of communications about specialized topics. The big words are a substitute for big paragraphs; there’s decent pieces on Wikipedia summarizing the PHIL101 material of Münchhausen trilemma and Hume’s problem of induction.

        The Münchhausen trilemma refers to a general problem of inference in philosophy: where and how to start. A conclusion is given, but how? In so far as you reach a conclusion to assert — howsoever provisional– then the conclusion must have a foundation, either in itself or in other propositions. It may be held axiomatically, where it is taken without reference to any priors; it may be held circularly, with a chain of inferences going back to itself (“Jack says Kirby can be trusted, and Kirby says Leo can be trusted, and Leo says Jack can be trusted”); or it may be he held based from an infinite regress. All of them resemble one or another form of “faith”.

        The issue of “require them to have all knowledge of all quadrants” is a reference to the subject of Hume’s problem of induction — how can one infer from finite sample about the infinitely general? (Classically, inferring that all swans are white.) Mathematics allows (mainly dependent on having enough axiomatic assumptions to phrase the question) an answer to this. Oversimplified a bit (since you prefer “plain English”), while it’s not possible with absolute 100% certainty, it’s still possible to make inferences with some lesser probability of correctness. Religion asserts 100% axiomatic certainty; as most atheists ascribe a lesser certainty to their degree of disbelief, equating the two as both being “faith” is sloppiness on the part of the religious.

        You may also be alluding to the atheist-vs-agnostic “lack of belief is not a belief in the negative” position; but that’s in effect just a
        switch from a Boolean logic to a Heyting logic, which in turn means that at the semantic level there has been a change in deeply implicit…. premises. Thus, back to Münchhausen.

  • Fallulah

    Oh NO The big bad Atheists are gathering, and supporting each other in a common environment! NOoooo…that is for CHRISTIANS only!

  • Christopher R Weiss

    This sort of reaction is exactly what the founders of the atheist church movement were hoping for when it started. The two British comedians did this as a joke with a purpose. First, it they knew it would raise the ire of the religious. Second, they wanted to give atheists an excuse to have fun.

    You didn’t get the joke. Instead, you were drawn in completely.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Mr Wellman has said that atheists secretly believe in God, and he says that he knows this because scripture says so. Apparently, Mr. Wellman thinks that he does not have to actually go out into the real world and get to know atheists closely in order to know what their innermost thoughts are, because scripture tells him what their innermost thoughts are. I suspect that to Mr. Wellman, actually trying to verify what scripture says by going out and observing the real world is not only unnecessary, it is suggestive of doubt in scripture’s perfection. So he won’t do it.

    It suggests to me that if scripture were to say that the world is a cube, no amount of experiential reality, even giving him a flight into space would dissuade him of his belief in this. He would look down on our spheroid planet and say, “Ah! Behold God’s beautiful cube, the Earth!”

    No matter how earnestly and sincerely atheists appeal to Mr. Wellman to please consider that he doesn’t actually know their innermost thoughts, or their feelings, or their motives, I seriously doubt that he will listen with an open mind, because that would challenge his reading of his beloved single source of his reality, scripture.

  • kayla21

    According Atheists, toilet tissue is more meaningful than human being, since a a toilet tissue is well designed and made by purpose, but human (yes YOU) are nothing but accident, undesigned,, and exist without purpose.

    • Christopher R Weiss

      Life has the meaning we give it. If you believe your life without god is worth less than toilet paper, that is your issue and not something you can impose on others.

      For me, the meaning in my life comes from the work I do, the people I know, and the members of my family. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than the laughs of my children, the sense of shared history I have with my wife, and the sense of accomplishment after a good day at work with people I trust and respect.

      The problem with many believers is that they are solipsistic. They cannot see the world beyond their particular point of view. This article demonstrates this type of solipsism very well by saying that atheists still believe in god. You have imposed your own view by saying atheists cannot have a life with meaning and purpose. As an atheist who has a very happy and fulfilling life, I can say with 100% certainty that you are both wrong.

    • Dorfl

      If you believe that a thing cannot have an value apart from whatever utilitarian purpose it was created for, then accepting the fact that humanity wasn’t created by anybody in particular will lead you to conclude that humans have no value. I’m glad I don’t believe that, because it sounds very depressing.

      • Christopher R Weiss

        She has a very flawed argument. I think everyone would agree that things like art and music serve no utilitarian purpose, but very few people would say they have no value.

        • kayla21

          Well, you all can claim that you’re more meaningful than toilet tissue.

          But as an atheist, you believe that:

          Toilet tissue, trash bags, toilet slippers are well-designed and made by purpose ; but you, your wife, your children, and your parents, unlike toilet tissue, trash bag, toilet slipper, are nothing but accidents, undesigned, and created with no purpose.

          Same goes with the sun, the moon, edible fruits, solar system, protective atmosphere, etc. They are nothing but accidents, undesigned, as if there are things immune of entropy law. And some dead, soulless materials -after billion of years-had unintentionally evolved into Shakespeare, Avicenna, Newton, fruits, salmon, etc.

          Atheists believe there are no the grand designer because you can’t see it. Yet, you blindly believe the phone, the clothes, the desk you use are created by someone, although you might never ever see in your lifespan the people who created those stuff. you also believe you are someone’s children, although you can’t see your great-great-great-great-grand parents.

          And i don’t think everyone would not agree that things like art and music serve no utilitarian purpose. You might like or dislike certain art or music, but no utilitarian purpose? I don’t think so, unless you can life in total silence and black & white, rectangular world.

          • Christopher R Weiss

            Look at my next post below… I have explained how I find value in my life and in the life of others.

            Our body is a testament to evolutionary adaption – not design. Here are a few examples:

            1. Our cardiovascular system is asymmetrical and very messy. This is universally true of all animals with four chambered hearts and lungs. From a “design” perspective, this is not needed, but it happens anyway because existing structures were repurposed through evolution.

            2. Our cranial nerves follow some strange pathways. Our recurrent laryngeal nerve goes down and up the neck as it does for all animals with necks. In fact, this “flaw” is why giraffes are incapable of making complex sounds. In animals without necks, these nerves follow straight efficient paths.

            3. In males with descended testicles, the vas deferens loops down over the urethra while in animals with internal testes the pathway is straight.

            I could go on for dozens more examples, but I think you can see where this is headed.

            I find life and living organisms amazing. However, I don’t require magic to believe they are so. You claim this makes everything an accident. This tells me you don’t understand how evolution works. I suspect your science education is actually very poor. There is a cure for this… it’s called a library card. I suggest you use it.

          • kayla21

            I really like your argument, it really pinpoints how the atheists think. They really hard to find ‘the flaw’ within human morphology such as the appendix, the human inability to produce vitamin c (hey why not go even further by criticizing why human can’t fly, produce x-ray, or have awesome super-power).

            Atheists use ‘the appendix-argument’, they think it’s a sign that human morphology is disaster, thus it verifies that humans are nothing but the result of accidents. They somehow purposely ignore how complex their brain is, their muscle and joints, their eye, etc. It’s like saying a computer has pointy edge that could hurt people, thus no one made nor design it.

            And please tell me why evolution works in a very strange ways. Of all 8,700,000 species on earth, there’s one creature equipped with dangerous weapon called human intelligence, which enables them to not only survive but also destroy. They could even destroy the planet though nuclear weapons. But sure it’s all nothing but accidents, just like CPU in computer which came by itself.

            And btw, there are tons of explanation as to why human heart have four chambers (there’s a thing called google). But if you think fish heart suits you best, then by all means please try it for your self. And that appendix argument is no longer valid (err keyword: function of appendix)

          • Christopher R Weiss

            I never said human morphology was a disaster. I said it shows evidence of evolutionary re-purposing and not design. You completely missed the point I was making, which is common among creationists. Structures emerge as part of the evolutionary process – they were not designed as we see them.

            The human body is a biological machine. However, using the word machine is misleading, and it is the false analogy that people like you use to claim the human body must be designed.

            In case you missed it, humans have been around for no less 100k years. Most of the technology we have today is based on discoveries from the last 150 years. We did not arrive with our body of technical knowledge, or math, or anything that could be called a product of human knowledge. These things are learned. Moreover, isolated human populations have none of this information or knowledge and they seem basically impaired compared to the rest of us. Isaac Newton said “I stand on the shoulders of giants,” which is exactly how human “intelligence” has developed. It is the accumulation of inventions and information with rapid bursts of development thanks to computers and improved communications.

            Two hundred years ago the average human lifespan was around 40. Today it is around 80. This is because of things we learned, which is not information we are born with.

            The perspective you have on human intelligence is skewed based on when you were born. You wouldn’t think human intelligence was so amazing 50,000 years ago.

            Human beings are no “accident” in the sense you are using the word. Again, this shows your fundamental ignorance about evolution. Please go read a book on evolution written by a scientist.

          • kayla21

            Err, homosapiens have been around for 200.000 years. But, so what? Other 8,700,000 species on the earth today have the same time-span of 3,5 billion years to evolutionize themselves. Yet, they all end up as dumb creatures with nothing but basic instincts to survive, while humans are equipped with brain so big, they can launch space rockets.

            And strangely, WE DON’T NEED brain this big to survive. Other carnivores, herbivores, preys, hunters, and things in between, are all equipped with something to survive in nature, but not big brain that enables them to create poet, making music, watching theater, calculating algebra, nor something dangerous such as creating nuclear missiles or biological weapon.

            Don’t get me wrong, i believe in some part of evolution, let alone isolated evolution (such as the beak of the finch). And the holy book i belive numerously tell that “We made from water every living thing”.

            I just don’t believe dead material can be 7,200,000,000 living humans with feeling and emotion, by itself, even after 3,5 billion of years. Do you believe that a pile of stone can be a Statue of David by itself even it takes 100 billion of years?

            I mean, ever heard second law of thermodynamics and entropy, which basically tell everything comes to crumble. God, even the atheists don’t know the origin of bigbang. yet they blindly come in final decision that there’s no designer what so ever.

            I know your mistrust in religion perhaps the only religion you know teaches that earth is flat, the earth is 6000 years old, and has dark history of jailing scientist. It has also strange concept of God (God become a man and killed by men).

            I think i have a privilege to observe another religion which goes hand in hand with science despite being its holy book written 1.400 years ago.

          • Christopher R Weiss

            If you are making the dated argument that Islam is somehow aligned positively with science, I think you need to look at the number of Muslin winners of the Nobel Prize in the Sciences. There have been exactly two. Zewail who won for chemistry did his work in the US. Look at this as a percentage of the world’s population and compare it to other religions and regions. Islam in the modern world has not done much to advance the sciences as it might have done in times past. The creationist movement seen in places like Turkey and Egypt is just as bad as the stories told by radical christian groups such as Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute.

            In case you forget, most of what we call modern science is a recent invention. All of the tech you are using was invented in the last 120 years. A usable personal PC is only about 35 years old. DNA, molecular biology, etc., was all discovered in the 20th century. Quantum physics is less than 120 years old. Homo Sapiens might have been around somewhere between 500k and 200k years, but written language is less than 10k years old. For having big brains, we sure didn’t use them for a long time. This knowledge was discovered and cascaded

            You are making the Victorian age argument that man is somehow outside of nature. Man’s big brain is our survival strategy. We are too weak to fight tooth and claw with other animals that could prey on us. We are too fragile to survive in cold weather environments without clothing and shelter. Our intelligence and social structures are the key to our survival. As we have leveraged these better as a species, so has our life expectancy improved.

            Everything found in the human brain exists in other creatures, including tool use, social units, language, self-awareness, memory, reasoning, planning, etc. Ever own a dog? You will see every human emotion expressed very intensely and unambiguously in your pet. You will see planning, memory, social relationships, and rudimentary language. Move up to an African Gray Parrot, and you will have a long lived creature easily as smart as an 8 year old child, capable of complex speech and original sentences. Look at chimps and gorillas who learn sign language, and can appreciate plots in movies. Look at dolphins, whales, etc. This idea that man is somehow outside of nature is itself unnatural. Our entire bodily structure and morphology is seen in other creatures. If we didn’t share this, we could eat the plants and animal proteins available too us.

            You cannot accept any part of evolution without including humans. Spend some time in a zoo observing primates and see if you still believe we are not related.

            With respect to design and the universe, we have overwhelming evidence for lack of design. Given the overall hostility toward life and the extreme infrequency of planets that could host life, arguing that the universe was designed for us is incredible hubris. We are a grain sand on a nearly infinite beach, and this is our significance in terms of impact on the universe as whole. Only religious people try and make the absurd claim that the universe was created for us.

          • kayla21

            Ah, the Nobel arguments.The childish and laughable argument. So hilarious. Here’s why

            Switzerland; Population 7.5 million, nobel 30
            Sweden; population 9.5 million, nobel 26
            Austria; population 8.5 million, nobel 19

            ***
            China; Pop 1,3 billion nobel 9
            India; Pop 1,2 billion nobel 7

            Wow, according to Nobel, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria must be the center of modern civilization. And those “non-English-speaking” or “non-blonde countries” must be somehow backward, useless, and uncivilized; because a) they hardly speak English and b) they hardly win Noble.

            “You are making the Victorian age argument that man is somehow outside of nature”

            Yeah, go discover why human suddenly got big brain. Some says it was due to sudden climate change. Well, all living creatures faced it too.

            “Man’s big brain is our survival strategy. We are too weak to fight tooth and claw with other animals that could prey on us. We are too fragile to survive in cold weather environments without clothing and shelter”

            Now that’s hot, Why not develop bigger tooth? Why not develop bigger claw? Why not develop thicker fur? Why not just migrate? Why brain?

            Some animals are even stuck as stupid preys for millions of years. Some plants are stuck as stupid cabbages for millions of years. Not to mention those plankton or amoeba who remains the same as their ancestors billions years ago. Gee, they must be tired evolving.

            We are the biggest mistake of evolution. The mother nature must regret having us, the young yet obnoxious creatures. The warmongering, polluting, global-warming making cretures.

            But whatever you say. But the next morning you wipe yourself with toilet tissue, just remember:

            you are an accident, toilet tissue is not.

          • Christopher R Weiss

            You are demonstrating such a profound ignorance of biology and science in general, that you are doing your side of the argument an incredible disservice.

            To understand the role of niches in evolutionary development would take too long in an internet post. I suggest you read “Climbing Mount Improbable” by Dawkins. He does not insult creationists in this book and he describes the “hill climbing” perspective of niche development in one of the best books on the subject I have read.

            With respect to contributions to science, please cite recent Muslim discoveries, patents, etc., and then compare this to other countries. I am a data driven individual. Provide data to show I am wrong about the decline in useful contributions by muslim countries, and I will withdraw my statement. Your comparisons to India and China don’t help your case. Yes, they are not doing much to drive innovation either when it comes to scientific discoveries.

          • Christine Pamplin

            So of those countries which would you most like to live in?

          • Nemo

            If you were not made to fulfill a purpose, then you as an intelligent being have the capacity to make your own purpose. Don’t cry out to the cosmos and demand that it give you a role. Find it yourself.

          • jon

            I was going to reply with lengthy arguments, but I think I’ll just quote-mine you. You said “I don’t think” and I think you’re correct.

          • Christine Pamplin

            Penicillin was first made by mistake it had no grand designer and just look at how useful it is.

            While glass blowing a piece of molten glass broke away hit the floor and cooled. It is now a lump a beautiful glass that is lovely to look at and brings out a pleasant feeling in the person looking at it. This piece of glass has no design, designer, or purpose.

            Children can be unplanned and turn out the way they do, due to a random mix of the parents genetic information. The child can grow up and do almost anything. In that case the child didn’t come as a purposefully planned pregnancy but as an accidental birth. No one picked out the child’s eye or hair colour, not designed, yet it can have the potential to cure cancer.

            Things don’t need to happen by design made for a purpose by a designer to have value.

            “And some dead, soulless materials -after billion of years-had
            unintentionally evolved into Shakespeare, Avicenna, Newton, fruits,
            salmon, etc”

            What about oil?.

    • jon

      erm, yah.
      *Excellent* reasoning……

      • kayla21

        Erm, yah. How do you explain big bang?

        You can’t? Yah, just what i thought

        • jon

          Well, indeed, that explains everything: you ask a question, imagine my answer, and of course that’s what you thought.

          Too bad that in reality not everything goes like you think it does, and your viewpoints are, one by one, becoming invalidated.
          But please, continue showing your mind-boggling delusion.
          It’s hilarious.

    • Christine Pamplin

      “According Atheists, toilet tissue is more meaningful than human being,” oh really which atheists have you heard say this? As to the word “Atheists” how many are we talking about, three, ten, one million? I am an atheists and I don’t back your statement.

  • Dorfl

    Even though they know there must be a God they have exchanged worshiping God for worshiping the creation (e.g. “images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”). Anyone who has watch cable’s many nature programs can easily see that this is true and the many programs on the universe and the outer reaches of the universe. Mankind is spellbound about nature because they refuse to bend the knee to God Who alone deserves worship.

    I’m not really sure what to make of this. Are you using the existence of science programs as an example of what you believe is wrong with society?

  • Hinano

    “atheism … takes exponentially more faith to believe that there is no God than to believe that there is in fact a God”

    Mr. Wellmen, when you understand the absurdity of this statement, you will understand atheism.

  • Nemo

    “God says that those who disbelieve in God are actually choosing to disbelieve because they know in their hearts that there is a God, yet will not acknowledge Him.”

    Oh, darn, you caught me. Seriously, do you actually, in all honesty, believe that everyone secretly agrees that your version of Yahweh is the one true God, but they pretend not to? Seeing as how this claim flies in the face of every bit of testimony from non Christians of all stripes, I can usually tell right away that anyone making this claim has nothing of value to say. This, along with Psalm 14:1 (People who don’t worship this deity are stooopid) is a case where the Bible’s eloquence far exceeds its wisdom.

    “The difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheists believe there is no god at all while agnostics are uncertain if there a god at all.”

    Not quite. Agnosticism means you deny having any knowledge. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I am both atheist, since I do not positively affirm the existence of any supernatural being, including deities, and I am an agnostic since I do not claim to have special knowledge on the matter. You can be both. There are also some agnostic theists.

    “They worship themselves”

    WHAT!!? You think I bow down to myself and sing songs about how great I am? And the fact that Jack feels threatened by nature shows which educate people on how the natural world works is quite revealing.

  • Al Skeptic

    Yes. Hang on to the “hope” that the misguided sinners and heathens will, some day, find their way to your churches to repent.

    In the meantime, I’ll be heavily advocating for the repeal of tax-exempt status of churches and all other faith-based organizations.

    Oh yeah. You might want to get the help of a statistician or math expert to help you out with your flawed projections from the Pew study.

  • Surprise123

    “The Denver based and original home of the Free Thought Exchange founded by Jason Testerman wants to get atheists into the churches.”
    Mr. Wellman, I think skepticism about the prevalence of evangelical atheists in Christian churches should be the order of the day. Do you have any data on how many churches have accepted acknowledged EVANGELICAL atheists in their midst?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X