I discovered an advice column online that’s operated by a non-believer!
Like other advice columns, it contains words and punctuation marks!
It is shockingly bereft of practical, godless advice.
The author, Richard Wade, seems reluctant to tell the heathens about the joy and fulfillment inherent in their non-belief.
So, I’m gonna help him out.
Here’s a letter that Richard tried to answer:
Hi Richard, I have a question as an atheist currently stuck in the middle of the bible belt. I am a 40-year-old atheist male who got divorced last year after finding out that my Southern-Baptist wife had been having an affair for at least the previous two years. Luckily we had no children and I got my dog (that’s all I really wanted). I’m having an extremely hard time dealing with depression and the divorce. I can’t find any support groups outside of the church-sponsored DivorceCare, and their program is far too based in faith for me to take anything meaningful away from it. I also cannot find a therapist who does not identify as a Christian. Every one that I’ve been to suggests prayer or finding my spiritual self or some nonsense like that. Do you have any suggestions as to where I can look for help? The whole situation is doing a number on my self esteem. Terry
Dear Terry,
Richard’s advice is: “Find a therapist.”
Horrible advice.
That’s just going to cost you money that you could be spending on alcohol.
You’re not thinking rationally.
As an atheist man stuck in the Bible Belt, rational thinking is ALL you have.
Your wife had an affair.
Boo-hoo.
I shouldn’t have to remind an atheist man stuck in the Bible Belt that marriage isn’t a sacred thing.
It’s ultimately a meaningless symbol…
Unless…
…oh, wait…
…don’t tell me you cared about this marriage!?
.* snicker *.
…Did you get married in a church!!?
Ha ha ha!
And you took ‘vows’, right?
…vows before ‘God’?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
You’re upset because your ‘Southern Baptist’ wife cheated on you.
…I’m sorry but…
Ha ha ha HA HA HA!
Would it be better if she was an atheist like you?
Mentioning her religion makes you a weakling, Terry.
You can’t reject Christianity and be upset when your wife does the same!
You’re a 40-year-old atheist male who thinks like a 5-year-old.
You are supposed to be enlightened.
You’re supposed to be reasonable.
And a superstitious Baptist girl is ‘doing a number on your self-esteem’.
You’re sad.
This is probably why your wife cheated on you.
She found a better man.
(I bet it was somebody from the church, right?)
Toughen up, Terry.
The universe just does what it does.
Quit crying. You got the dog.
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
Romans 1:17
237 Responses
Read all the comments. Allallt you used a bad reference you could have used either Matthew 5:44 or Luke 10:27 to call out the lack of love in the post very easily, but your Colossians 3:12-14 reference is specifically referring to a relationship between believers.
To the originaI poster I understand that you are trying to point out that there is an inherent lack of continuity and coherency in the atheists worldview, but don’t you think that if that was the goal then there was room at the end of the post to also offer the fact that while this response is exactly what they asked for. You also have a more helpful and beneficial option for them?
Just because you give an answer that exactly fits the request doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t also include a bit about the gospel at the end because without showing the love for your neighbor/enemy that Christ says we as Christians should show which includes telling them both the hard truths of their worldview, and that God has provided an alternative to that worldview that leads to the hope that we have in Christ by our faith that God gave us you are failing to give a reason for our hope and also failing to speak with love to them. I have more that I want to say, but I want to do some research first. God bless.
Joshua,
I appreciate that you read all of the comments under this post before responding. That wasn’t a small feat! 🙂
That said, it’s also important to understand that this thread is just one in an ongoing series of dialogs. The Gospel has been presented, in bits, over the course of many months…
If you’re interested in even more reading (and I wouldn’t blame you if you’re not), here’s a link to a conversation I had with Allallt last summer:
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/atheists-should-be-monks/comment-page-1/#comment-1778
Although you’re making a valid point, that people who discredit the Judeo-Christian God have no legs to stand upon when calling others to be godly, or accusing others of not being godly; I have to side with Allalt here.
Your tack is unseemly. If “we are the only book the unbeliever reads”, what do you think those unbelievers will make of your ethic here? It’s my opinion that you are misrepresenting the spirit of the Scriptures.
We represent Somebody! And what motivation is there to seek truth in that Christian source if we behave the way they do? Aren’t you invalidating the Scriptures too?
I often ruminate on something I have come to call “religious nihilism”. That may not be a good name, as it makes people think I mean ‘nothing I do matters, because I will repent at the end of my life and it will be as if I lived a good life’. That is not what I mean by religious nihilism.
I use religious nihilism to refer to the idea that without God, nothing matters and nothing has value. It describes the religious position that refuses to see value anywhere, unless it is imbued by a God. It is a position people articulate all the time; a position that makes the only difference between a contributing member of a society and a thieving, lying, murdering sociopath — devoid of empathy and compassion — is belief in the God.
And the guffawing commenters in this thread make my point for me so well. They see an atheist in a marriage as a contradiction, because the promises are meaningless. They see an atheist hurt by divorce as a hysterical paradox, because sadness isn’t strictly rational. They see humanity as their entertainment and fodder, sociopathically observing the actions of others without empathy or compassion.
And when that is pointed out, at least two of the commenters here take pride in their smug, condescending guffawing. They defend themselves by demanding there is no validity to such a description, in a godless world.
I struggle to believe the people who articulate this religious nihilism — that value only comes from God — really believe the position they are articulating. Because, when the position is articulated slightly differently to expose the consequences of that thinking, the person who claimed a religiously nihilistic position often backtracks. I don’t think the people who talk like this are really the sociopaths they make themselves out to be.
I’m not saying compassion is a virtue, and I’m not saying you should feel bad. I’m pointing it out in the hope you’ll honestly evaluate, for yourselves, whether you’re really behaving like the people you want to be.
That isn’t “religious nihilism” buddy. That’s just the regular kind.
And, yes, it IS the logical result of removing the Ultimate Goodness from reality.
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/nietzsche-madman.asp
No. It isn’t.
Nietzsche believed Christianity was the Ultimate Nihilism. It’s laughable that people using Nietzsche’s Madman not only because it’s not Nietzsche’s position, but because it’s only one person’s view — anyway.
And no, religious nihilism and standard nihilism are not the same thing. Because, one can question — and fail to get a sufficient answer — why one should care about what God thinks is moral.
If God’s nature is just ‘to be good’, then It is bound by another standard. Else it’s arbitrary and falls to all the same criticism you imagine human-ethics fall to.
See, there’s a difference between learning some philosophical tidbits for debates and knowing how to actually think like a philosopher. You may know the difference, but as I do too, this would be a good time to actually employ the difference.
If you value consistency so much, the hyper-scepticism you show for the meaning of words should also apply to why God gets the right to define what is Good and Bad. It may have no more moral significance than simply punishing what It doesn’t like and rewarding what It does. That’s not some ultimate morality, that’s surrenders to a specific subjective morality.
Yes, learning tidbits is different from thinking for yourself. As you demonstrate every time you comment.
If your brother is a Nihilist, he is more consistent than you. Although, LIVING Nihilism consistently is impossible because purpose was built into the Universe.
Go find some a Mother Teresa Christian to lecture. You’re out of your depth here.
What do you mean I’m out of my depth? I’ve barely got my feet wet, here.
I know you think your arrogance and aggression is some sort of virtue. And in your head — where you’re always at war — maybe you can spin that. But you can’t spin that to an observer. Your religion doesn’t recognise that; Humanism doesn’t recognise that; secular value creation doesn’t recognise that; healthy societies don’t recognise that. And it’s certainly not compassion, which is what the conversation initially was about.
Whether I am a nihilist is irrelevant to that, though. You express a lack of introspection that is almost pathological. You express a pride in your lack of saintly behaviour which would alienate most people.
And you get Nietzsche wrong.
Anyone reading the thread knows what I mean by out of your depth.
And, if you can’t recognize that what you’re doing is drowning, then there’s no hope for you. (See what I did there? Repeating your comment from earlier back to you? That’s my way of laughing at you again.)
Oh, are we leaving the audience as the jury at this point? Okay… here’s what I think they’ll conclude: regardless of whether they agree with you on theology, they’ll think you’ve done an awful job of being humble or defending your position; that you’ll have spent more effort on changing the subject that trying to answer. And I think I’ll have come across as doggedly focused on the question I actually raised; I may not have been particularly compassionate, but I wasn’t rude.
As for intellectual rigor, I think you’ll come across as needing to go back to secondary school for both Bible study and critical thinking (I think honest Christians can see you don’t know what you’re talking about) and I’ll come across as having passed secondary school critical thinking and English.
Oops. More of your opinions…
Are you going to offer anything else? Just a Bible verse and your opinions?
It must suck to be you. I say with compassion and empathy: it must be truly difficult to feel so strongly about an issue but have precisely no idea how to engage it with some who doesn’t give your every utterance a free pass.
LOL!!!
That’s almost EXACTLY what I’ve been saying to you the whole time!
HAHAHAHA!
So, I guess: ditto.
Oh my. Is that what you’ve been trying to say? It must really suck to be you. At least with heavily disabled people, others understand why they don’t understand what is being said. But with you — just wow.
Is there a charity I can donate to, to help?
It must suck to be you. I say with compassion and empathy: it must be truly difficult to feel so strongly about an issue but have precisely no idea how to engage it with some who doesn’t give your every utterance a free pass.
See, it was so perfect, I copied and pasted.
LOL!
I appreciate the homage.
“I use religious nihilism to refer to the idea that without God, nothing matters and nothing has value. It describes the religious position that refuses to see value anywhere, unless it is imbued by a God.”
This is just ‘religion’. It isn’t ‘nihilism’.
Nihilism is where you will arrive when you actually start thinking about your atheistic worldview. Of course, it’s much easier to throw scripture at Christians than to ponder the implications of your own philosophy.
You believe that the universe is the product of an unintended, unintelligent event. The world is meaningless. You are meaningless.
Stomp your foot and shake your fist all you want. Smarter atheists than you have already conceded this is true.
I told him the same thing a couple of weeks ago. Only, instead of “smarter atheists” I said “more consistent” ones.
He replied, “You think they’re ‘more consistent’ just because they agree with you!”
I quoted four Atheists. FOUR.
Allallt never explained why those Atheists were wrong. Nor did he share his own, consistent, non-nihilistic point of view.
I wonder how many Atheists have to tell him that life is meaningless before he’ll believe them. (More than four, I guess.)
He seemed to believe that the term ‘religious nihilism’ was profound. It’s probably going to hurt having to let it go.
Hmmm… it appears you’re not giving that particular utterance a free pass.
Clearly, you don’t understand philosophy.
LOL!
This is the same guy that was telling us last week about subjective morality, right?
Do you remember? He and Violet kept insisting that right and wrong are decided by individual circumstances. Did I dream all that?
He’s also a Determinist.
Which means: I can’t choose to be anything except snooty and petulant.
Yeah! That’s what I thought!
So what is he bitching about?!?!!!
Atheism only gains traction when Christians are too gentle and compassionate to say, “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard… LOL! LOL! LOL!”
When Christians are free to mock the mockable, then Atheism is exposed.
And atheists smarter than me have also not concede that.
Are you implying that I don’t ponder my own philosophy? What do you think is happening over at my blog?
Atheism leads to nihilism whether you concede it or not.
Religion is how people avoid nihilism.
Whatever you’re doing on your blog is irrelevant, remember?
No, I don’t remember what I’m doing on my blog is irrelevant.
And this isn’t an honest mistake on your part this time: you made the mistake once already and your misunderstanding was explained to you. One more time, though, just in case you’ve suffered a brain aneurysm or an Alzheimer’s-like episode: my position on morality is irrelevant as to whether your behaviour is consistent with your own standard. Don’t try and make that an issue of my position being irrelevant to all things, because that’s a stupid remark. Don’t be stupid, JB. Don’t be stupid.
And atheism does not entail nihilism. Not empirically. Not philosophically. Only in your own head.
(You’re stealing my ‘stroke’ reference with your ‘brain aneurysm’ line. I’m not gonna press charges.)
I can’t quit being stupid on command. But my sophomoric reasoning skills have been enough to respond to your comments.
And since you haven’t even gotten your philosophical feet wet talking to us, I’ll allow YOU the courtesy of explaining the problem with your statement “my position on morality is irrelevant as to whether your behaviour is consistent with your own standard”.
Responding and engaging are not the same thing. Responding only entails that you click the reply button and mash the keyboard in any-which way. Engaging, however, is something you aren’t really doing.
That makes no assumptions about whether you are capable of engaging. But you aren’t. Maybe you just don’t want to. Maybe your goal is atheist-baiting, and the obfuscation and changing of topic and ignoring of points and strawmen are all part of that game. I don’t know.
As for the my comment that you want me to point out the problem with, there isn’t one. The only possible reason to want to hear about my moral standard when the question I raised was your moral standard is for ad hominem arguing.
As for the brain-damage reference, must be cryptomnesia.
No. We’re not going to sidetrack about the definition of engaging and responding.
Yes. There is a huge problem with your statement. Last chance to explain it or I will assume that you really don’t see it.
I included the word “as”, and I shouldn’t have. Other than that, I really don’t see a problem.
Your moral position is why you are having this conversation.
From your own moral position, you claimed that I acted inconsistently with my own moral standards.
If your moral views are irrelevant (as you claim) then what compelled you to quote scripture to me in the first place?
My motives aren’t relevant to the question.
This is either deflection or an attempt to get ammunition for ad hominem.
It is in no way a problem with the statement I made.
Only Allallt is allowed to decide whether a person is worth engaging based on their perceived motives.
I’ve speculated about motives, but not ignored anyone based on them. At what point is your dishonest approach to a conversation simply lying?
My lying is irrelevant.
Because I’m filled with compassion, I will tell you that tomorrow’s blog post is about this conversation.
I’m calling you out for needing/using the Bible to accuse me of wrongdoing. Atheism can’t speak about morality. To use your term, it’s ‘irrelevant’.
It has been suggested (kindly and compassionately) that you are ‘out of your depth’ here.
Obviously, that is true. But you don’t need to drown. You can learn to tread water.
Start with a little humility. Admit when you are wrong.
“My motives aren’t relevant to the question.
This is either deflection or an attempt to get ammunition for ad hominem.”
You insist that your ‘motives’ don’t matter. Then assign motives to me rather than addressing the question put to you.
Refusing to concede your mistakes doesn’t transform those mistakes into sound philosophy.
There it is. Because I’m the person who pointed it out, I’m wrong. It’s not the merit if the idea, but the person who espoused it. And that’s the ad hominem.
Apparently, you have your own definition of ad hominem.
And it is TOTALLY the ‘merit of the idea’ that I’ve called into question.
You refuse to explain what you mean by ‘compassion’, ‘kindness’ or ‘hypocrisy’ assuring me that your perspective is ‘irrelevant’.
Then, you accuse me being unkind, uncompassionate and hypocritical.
Are you trying to crush me under the weight of your infinite stubbornness?
I’ve defined hypocrisy. The other two I haven’t been asked to define.
More importantly, Allallt also explained the difference between satire and “outright mockery,” which is “quite clear.”
This post isn’t satirical. And it’s totally lacking in compassion. Period. Because Allallt said so.
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/ask-me-instead/comment-page-1/#comment-18329
There are definitions to words.
And, I am mistaken — I have defined compassion to.
Satire is not just anything that is intended to be funny. It is comedy for the sake of highlighting and/or constructively criticising something (normally political).
I could do the same thing you do, which is ignore the reasoning a person uses and demand they are simply asserting their conclusion. But that would be stupid.
This post–and the comments–have perfectly criticized the Atheist dilemma. (All of YOUR comments included.)
And…we’re still laughing.
I’m sure you are. Like a happy moron. Unfortunately for you, there’s no atheist dilemma on offer, because I haven’t offered you anything except criticism of your position. Yet, you know I have my own position, because we’ve discussed it before (and it’s not relativism, either. JB did dream that.) I haven’t offered an atheist position to be exposed.
So, enjoy whatever projection you are offering. I’m going to leave you to whatever game it is you’re playing.
You’ve TRIED not to offer anything… but, you’ve failed. Because it’s impossible to live out “a void.” Your actual beliefs betray you eventually.
You’ve been treated to taste of your own medicine.
Refuse to offer anything.
Don’t claim a source.
Demand answers of others while insisting your own position doesn’t require any…
Are you choking yet?
Is ‘happy moron’ ad hominem? I get confused.
I’m not sure… I don’t know about “arrogant” or “petulant” or “half-wit” either. He levied all of those charges at different points…
Ask him! I’m sure he won’t refuse to answer your question just because he thinks you’re a moron!
Lol!
It turns out my very first comment to you has proven accurate. It sucks when Christians refuse to be manipulated by your double-standard.
At least you’ll think twice before jumping in to a thread and “pointing out” what the Bible says again. Burn it. We’re talking about the godless worldview. If you want to complain about Christians who (in your worthless opinion) don’t act like Christians, there are plenty of places to do that. Here, we’re laughing about the contradictions inherent in rejecting God. And, the more you scramble for a way to stop it, the more we laugh.
So that’s a yes?
You’re argument is relentless obstinacy? Do I need to request a term paper on your view of compassion?
You told me I was uncompassionate. I told you I was not. That’s the end of the story unless you care to explain how I lacked compassion. And you won’t do that because your views on morality are ‘irrelevant’.
This is your knot of contradiction to untie. It’s not mine.
It’s a shame that you’re so determined to win the argument or ‘atheist bait’ that you lack the introspection to honestly just read your post and notice ‘yeah, I do come across as a dickhead here’. No, instead you want a textual analysis from me — something history suggests you’ll just reject anyway.
The definition of compassion (which I have offered in this thread, btw) is independent of one’s morality. So, again, my position on morality is not relevant.
But, as you’re more interested in getting me to articulate my position than to just engage with the criticism of yours, you might as well come over to my blog where my positions are being articulated.
Failing that, bye.
Bye!
Is ‘dickhead’ ad hominem?
*snort*
It’s really incredibly simple: you can’t judge someone by a standard that you don’t believe in. If you don’t believe in God, or the Bible, you need to come up with another standard to judge people by. You claim non-belief is the truth, so why then is it incapable of judging people for a lack of compassion? Why must you borrow a Christian standard which you believe is false in order to condemn someone? Is our myth more powerful than your truth?
I am holding a mirror up to other people. To do that, to get a reflection, the mirror must be made of their values, not mine.
Not to mention that you were present at the clusterfuck of a conversation we had last time about morality. What makes you think I have any desire to enter into that again?
If may be simple. And, in fact, it is. But you’re wrong about it.
This post–the advice letter to an Atheist–is holding up a mirror to those with an Atheist worldview…
Sorry you don’t like how it looks.
Really, and I what am I supposed to see in that mirror? Am I supposed to see experience and feelings and values evaporate into the aether? Am I supposed to see that a world without God is one where the human mind isn’t allowed to operate under anything except strict logic and eschew all values?
I can immediately and explicitly reject that view of a secular world. It’s not the reflection I’m rejecting, but the mirror itself. John has not achieved that goal in anyway.
John is at a circus holding up the warped mirrors from the House of Mirrors for the entertainment of the guffawing audience John has.
You have not rejected the mirror I’m holding up to you. You’ve simply said I shouldn’t be the one to do it.
Oh, I’m not telling you what you should see! (Far be it from me.)
You read the post (and you can read–I’ve been assured!)
Feel free to take away whatever you’d like. But if you’re going to complain that your experience wasn’t “compassionate” enough, then back that up.
It’s not a complaint. I don’t know why you’re bringing all these values judgements into it.
And now you’re asking for a textual analysis of the condescension and derision in the comments — when you complain when a comment nears the 500 word mark.
Can I not just cite the thread? It’s right here. You can read it. The comments are figuratively dripping in a lot of things, but none of them are compassion or gentleness.
“none of them are compassion or gentleness…” According to you.
That’s what you see when you’re looking in MY mirror. And I don’t really care, as I’ve already told you.
So, since you don’t like my dad’s portrayal of consistent Atheism, would you like to offer a more accurate example of Atheist advice?
Or no?
You’re doing that thing again, where you feign a scepticism of the meaning of words so that no description ever applies. That doesn’t actually change the nature of what happens.
If you can’t see that the comments here are smugly lacking in compassion, then there’s no hope for you. I think you’re lying to “win” what you perceived to be an argument, I don’t really think you’re the sociopath you’re pretending to be to try and build some high ground here.
If compassion means making you feel good, then you’re right. I haven’t been doing that. But that’s not what compassion means.
I feel for you, Allallt. I’m really sorry that your Atheism makes you stupid. I’m sorry there’s no way to get through to you without a little pain. I’m called to be light and salt to the Earth. Light stings the sleeping person’s eyes. And salt burns open wounds. I’m sorry you don’t like it. But I’m also not sorry, because foolishness deserves to be mocked.
So, suck it up, buttercup.
Ooh, a new tactic. I prefer this one. But it’s still an ad hominem. It’s even better than that, it’s a strawman ad hominem.
See, you’ve imagined I’m offended and then used my offence to ignore me. I’m not offended, and even if I was that wouldn’t be cause to ignore me.
I’ve never said compassion is about making someone feel good.
You seem to think you’ve made a virtue of being a snooty, condescending, unsympathetic, judgemental [REDACTED]. Not just any virtue, but — for the fun of it all — compassion. You think you’ve made compassion out of your uncaring babble. Well, you’re wrong. And in your paradigm, you think you’re going to be held to account at some point…
*yawn*
I’m not lacking compassion. I simply don’t allow the sick person to tell me how I’m supposed to heal them.
Too bad for you.
I understand why you’d prefer to be talking to a Mother Teresa brand of Christian. I doubt she’d ever mock you.
But I will mock your foolishness. That’s a promise. And the more you throw around words like “snooty” and “uncaring” and “judgemental” the more I’ll laugh.
Well, your laughing and mockery isn’t an argument. You don’t actually have an argument. I accept your concession.
My argument is: “Atheism can’t be lived consistently. There must be a God.”
Oh, okay. Well that’s a non sequitur. The initial premise is false. And it’s irrelevant to whether your — and other commenters’ here — behaviour violates Col 3:12.
Which it does.
Your opinion about whether my behavior violates anything in the Bible is also irrelevant.
So, why are you still here?
Seeing you play language games and disregard the (what you think to be) other people’s opinions without a thought, while claiming to be compassionate is entertaining to me.
See, it’s not your violation of Christian virtues that entertains me; everyone makes mistakes. It’s your pride in it; your sophistry in trying to get around what is so plainly the case; your manipulation of what the Bible could mean as to make any moral message obfuscated and meaningless. All in the face of this pompous holier-than-thou demand that atheism is morally vacuous.
See, where your argument lacks content, your actions speak volumes. You don’t just violate Christian virtues, you don’t care about them.
It’s an irony that I smile at, and I know now that any time you claim any moral superiority based on your Christianity, it’s bullshit.
Correct. I don’t care about your opinion.
That’s not a lack of compassion. Doctors don’t care about YOUR opinion either… Especially if you believe that practicing medicine is superstitious nonsense.
I don’t care about your opinion, and I’m still a Christian. Now what, buttercup?
I didn’t say you weren’t a Christian. Where do you get all this red herring nonsense from? Are you really so scared of the conversation we are having that you can’t bring yourself to stick to it?
My position isn’t an opinion, either. I am either right or wrong about the meaning of Col 3:12-14. (Incidentally, I am right.) I am either right or wrong about your actions. (And, I’m right here, too.) And I’m either right or wrong about whether your actions violate the meaning of the passage. (And, again, I’m right.)
You’re wrong that a non-hypocrtical Christian has to read the Bible the way you do… and you’re wrong that whatever is written in Colossians was at all relevant to the original post.
Really? Do you have some super-duper new language where being an arrogant, obnoxious petulant person is the same as gentleness and compassion?
And do you have some secret code of ethics where the ethics described in col 3:12 only applies among Christians, but you can be as rude and uncaring as you wish to nonChristians, without violating it?
I suppose what I’m asking is, is there an entirely separate reality with a bunch of rules? Because that’s what you need to make sense of your attempt at a defence here.
I say with compassion and empathy: it must be truly difficult to feel so strongly about an issue but have precisely no WAY to argue it–without coaxing me to treat you like a good Christian…
I’m saying this with compassion and empathy: I care very deeply that your godlessness leads to THIS place, where you simultaneously love Christianity and hate it.
I’m saying this with compassion and empathy: I care that you’re flailing here–wanting to diagnose my arrogance and petulance, but being unqualified to do that objectively.
I’m saying this with gentleness and compassion: your job isn’t to hold a mirror for Christians, because you won’t look in it yourself.
THIS is the form my compassion takes. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians, I have become all things to all people. I’m now an Atheist. Burn the Bible. Screw Colossians. I’m demonstrating what godlessness looks like, and–quite tellingly–your only recourse is to wiggle and whine and request that I go back to (Mother Teresa’s) Christianity.
That. Must. Suck. 🙂
You’re not demonstrating what atheism looks like, you’re failing to take account of how the Bible compels you to behave.
If you didn’t claim to be a Christian, and you didn’t claim to care what the Bible says, then I’d have taken a different tact. But, as you struggle to follow an ethical system you don’t even have to think about — because it’s literally written down, and you don’t have to think about why or whether you’re going to value that — I thought I’d point out your failure.
And you want to make it about my moral system, not yours. That’s even though you’ve already demonstrated you don’t want to put in the hard intellectual work in seeing how value can exist without God.
Claiming that this post (and the comments) don’t accurately depict Atheism is a different point altogether. If you don’t agree with the mirror being held up FOR YOU, then feel free to give some solid, Atheist advice for Terry. Everyone here has agreed that this post (and the other one JB wrote in this same series) is more consistent with godlessness than anything you dare to express… and if you disagree, demonstrate it.
Also, feel free to keep insisting Christians aren’t allowed to say/do what I’ve said/done. I’m going to keep laughing about that part.
LOL!
I’m not insisting anything, and certainly not what you are allowed and not allowed to do. I am explaining that your behaviour violates Col 3:12. Your constant strawman should be apparent to everyone, regardless of whether they agree with your conclusions or theology.
And, given that all atheism is is an absence of a belief in God, all things are consistent with atheism — including both nihilism and value (which, incidentally, are not even inconsistent with each other) — except for belief in a God.
So, JB’s heartless guffawing is consistent with atheism, but it’s not more consistent than compassion or giving a damn in general.
Atheism doesn’t attempt to answer questions of value (or epistemology or anything else), so “consistency” is irrelevant.
You have to be a religious nihilist to think the mirror you’re holding up maps to anything important.
You’ve been fond of looking up words in the dictionary. I suggest you look up Nihilism.
Adding the word “religious” is a contradiction. Nihilism is inherently non-religious. But my dad is already trying to get that through your head.
Just in case you’ve had a recent head injury, I’m going to remind you that I’ve already explained what I mean by religious nihilism and conceded it may need a better name. Right here, in this very thread.
There’s no “may” about it.
You’re still using a contradictory term.
So, this is your new deflection is it? Arguing over exact word choice, even though I also offered a definition of what I mean.
I don’t know why I make the mistake of thinking something productive can happen on this blog.
I’ve just been reading your self-congratulatory conversation with your dad near the bottom of this thread. I can see this is more a sport than actual inquiry to you.
I knew that already. I don’t know why I came back. It’s all deflection and strawmen with you.
Here, I did it for you.
I know, I know… “But rejection of all religious principles doesn’t have to lead to meaninglessness!”
But, yes it does.
“No! I have a very consistent opinion about this which I’m prepared to share, except you’re not worth my time…”
Yep… Anything else?
“No! I just said you’re not worth my time!…But I’ll be back when I have a Bible verse which all Christians must respect! That’s what the Bible is: a list of rules so Atheists know exactly what a Christian should be doing at any moment.”
Okay, buddy. Good talk.
“DEFLECTION! This is just a sport!”
Well, I AM laughing, and I’ve been honest about that. So… LOL!
…and he stole the ‘head injury’ line from me! I say that’s immoral.
Find a phrase in the Bible somewhere… It’s great!
You can turn it into a prompt word, like a hypnotist.
Just say “stealing” (or “dishonesty” or something along those lines) and the person you dislike immediately comes under your control! 🙂
Ha! He’s not going to give up religious nihilism term. He likes it to much to abandon it simply because it is incoherent.
He should have stuck to the script…
“I don’t believe anything, but this is what all Christians must believe. (It’s written down! You’re failing to do it!)”
When they start inserting their own claims about definitions and such, they hit immediate problems.
Sleeping person’s*
Well, you entered into it when you commented on this blog with a Scripture you don’t believe in. Just how are you supposed to enlighten people to the truth if you’re just walking around like a chameleon, reflecting everyone else’s values? And who’s to say that you even get the reflection right? Your interpretation isn’t the only right one.
The passage is completely clear. It’s not some ambiguous narrative where you could draw any number of meanings. It explicitly commands Christians to be compassionate and gentle.
If you want to play fast and lose with the definition of words — like Amanda does — then there’s no way to have a conversation with you.
And no one has actually challenged the meaning of the scripture so far. They’ve simply told me it’s not valid if I’m the one quoting it. If someone did have an objection to the meaning of the quote, they’d have said. They haven’t.
I don’t see why everyone thinks we need to discuss my position to point out the weakness in the position of others. We don’t need to know my position to evaluate the consistency of others, I don’t even need to have one. It’s a a deflection made by people who have been caught out and lack the humility to accept it.
Colossians 3:12 (NIV) Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience
Also, neither marriage nor forgiveness are exclusively Christian values.
You quoting Colossians to the atheist? He won’t appreciate that. Didn’t you read his letter?
That was to you and all the guffawing commenters.
You’re kidding, right?
You’re just being ironic?
Problem?
LOL!
You’re quoting my Holy book of myths to me because your worthless worldview has no way to condemn the guffawing commenters.
Irony.
I’m merely point out you’re all guffawing hypocrites. Because being compassionate is explicitly mandates in your Book.
But, to be clear on the rules of engagement: am I to be ignored if I use religious reasoning, and if I use secular reasoning?
You dismiss secularism are nihilistic and vacuous on the question of value, and now you refuse words from your own book just because their from me.
Have you no introspective ability?
I am deeply introspective.
That’s precisely the point. Have you forgotten our discussions regarding relative morality?
Is hypocrisy really wrong, or is that just your opinion? Do you have brain scans to confirm your thesis?
You can’t tell me I’m the product of unguided, unintended evolution and then hold me to the morality of the Bible.
Have you any introspective ability?
I didn’t say hypocrisy is wrong. I said you’re a hypocrite. But I can see now that you are okay with that.
It’s nice to know you’re the kind of sociopath who is only good because you have God. If you are the person you claim to be, reasoning with you is simply dangerous because if you ever stop being convinced of a God you’d simply kill people who walk too slowly down the street.
It sucks when Christians won’t be manipulated by your double-standard, doesn’t it?
LOL!
My double standard? I haven’t brought up my standard at all. I’m merely highlighting to you your standard, and your rather proud failure to adhere to it.
If I thought the letter was real, I’d reach out to that guy myself. In the meantime, shame on you lot, you guffawing halfwits.
We’ve talked to you enough to know your standard.
You don’t want God, but you still want to be treated like there’s a good, compassionate, loving Standard overseeing things.
Well, too bad. You want Atheism? Choke on it. (And, yes, that’s the most gentle and compassionate way I am going to say it.)
@John – This is adhominem. It’s not about insults, it’s about finding a reason to ignore an argument because of the person who is making it. And that is what Amanda is doing here.
@Amanda – my view and everything you know about me is entirely irrelevant to the comment I have made here. You’re compelled by your book, explicitly, to be compassionate. It’s not just that you’re failing, it’s that you’re so smug and unrepentant in your failure that really tickles me here.
I told JZ to burn the Bible.
Now what?
LOL! Ad hominem already?
You normally last longer than this.
You not feeling well today?
That’s not an ad hominem. You’re describing your world view as a sort of religious nihilism, and I’m evaluating that as sociopathic.
I’m not suggesting you are wrong because you’re a sociopath. I’m pointing out the position is sociopathic. And I’m not even arguing — yet — that it’s wrong because it’s sociopathic. I’m simply checking you’re okay with the logical conclusion of your position.
At best, you could accuse me of reductio ad absurdum, but I’d request an explanation…
Don’t worry, it’s okay to not be great at logical arguments. There’s a lot of lingo to learn.
If I quit believing in God I’d start killing people.
Yeah, that’s Ad hominem.
If you have a point to make, please make it.
My point is that it’s absurd for you to accuse me of hypocrisy based on the Bible when you have rejected the Bible as a source of morality.
It’s perfectly reasonable for me to accuse you of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not about you doing other than I want you to do; it is about you doing other than you say you will do.
You say you care about what the Bible teaches, and yet you offer no compassion to this person who is clearly suffering.
And no, it’s not ad hom. for me to take the position you articulate to it’s logical conclusion. I am not dismissing your position based on who you are (which is what ad hom. is). I am holding a mirror up to the argument you are making, and you don’t like what you look like in the reflection; that is not ad hom..
And your point?
Just pointing it out.
Cool.
I’m a hypocrite. I’ll own that.
You want to take a stand and tell me hypocrisy is bad or do you have more important things to point out?
No. Just pointing out you’re a hypocrite. And, at this point, you’re weirdly proud of it (not just accepting of it).
It’s on you now to figure out if that’s something you want to change or not.
Indeed. I’m PROUD of my hypocrisy. It is something I flaunt openly. I’m planning to have it written on my tombstone. Yes.
Now, let me ‘point out’ something to you, my young friend.
You shouldn’t wag an accusatory finger at me while simultaneously lecturing me about subjective morality. Your worldview is immediately self-refuting.
Don’t worry, it’s okay to not be great at logical arguments. There’s a lot of lingo to learn.
Congratulation. That’s ad hominem. I’m afraid I don’t have a prize ready for you. See, because you don’t agree with a tangential position I hold, you are using that to discredit me and thus ignoring the position I am presenting.
And subjective morality is not self-refuting.
And my position isn’t one of subjective morality — which you know. So, calling it subjective morality is bearing false witness.
Do you have any criticisms that aren’t based on adherence to scripture?
Give me your Sam Harris accusations of immorality.
Are you telling me how to argue against you? Are you telling me to defend compassion as a virtue? Why?
My only point is that compassion is a virtue mandated in the Bible, and you claim to care what the Bible mandates, and yet you are failing to show any compassion.
Whether you violate my idea of virtue is not what I came here to discuss.
Are you and Amanda trying to squirm out of this by deflecting. Poor you, you must think me an idiot.
Yes. I’m trying to tell you how to argue against me.
The same Bible that mandates compassion says you are “a fool” for believing there is no God.
Do you understand your predicament yet?
So, you’re telling me you would listen to me if I was a Christian?
No.
I’m listening to you right now and you’re not a Christian.
Do you understand your own hypocrisy in suggesting that I adhere to Biblical morality while simultaneously telling me there is no God?
I’m not telling you there is no God. It’s irrelevant to what I am saying now. You’re trying to make the conversation about anything other than your failure to meet the standard you claim to value.
There’s nothing hypocritical about me pointing out that you’re failing to meet the standard you claim to value. I don’t have to value the same standard to notice your failure.
Failing to meet a standard isn’t hypocrisy…
Trying to hold OTHERS to a standard you do not value yourself is.
“Be a better Christian” while not, yourself, being a Christian, is literally the definition of hypocrisy.
JZ calls it “wearing his Theist hat.” He likes to borrow Christian principles, temporarily, so he can judge Christians, while not having to behave the same way himself.
It’s gross. You should stop.
I accept, actually, that ‘failing to meet your own standard’ is an inadequate definition of hypocrisy. But, the definition you just offered is waaaaaaay off.
Under this definition, an improvement on the one I initially offered, you’re still a hypocrite and so are all the other guffawing commenters in the thread.
No–people “guffawing” are weak and imperfect and human. They are only hypocrites if they CLAIM that something is wrong, while not actually believing it.
PRETENDING to believe something is wrong, when you don’t actually think so, is hypocrisy.
How do you distinguish between mistakes and hypocrisy?
Sure, all these guffawing commenters could be tied up in a moment of weakness — not even trying to meet the standard required of them.
But, at this point, they have been made aware and I haven’t yet seen a retraction or an apology or even someone acknowledging it. (Save for John’s sarcastic ‘I’ll have it written on my tombstone’ quip.)
At this point, where you are demonstrating you don’t value the command to compassion, even though you claim to value the commands of the Bible — at the point your error has been pointed out to you and you don’t even make a show of changing your tune — at that point, are you not willing to say the behaviour has traversed any distinction between weakness and hypocrisy?
Hypocrisy is pretending to believe something you don’t really believe.
As far as I know, no one here ever claimed it’s wrong to write satire.
None of us have claimed that laughing at godlessness is a sin.
I have actually said–point blank–that sometimes the most loving and compassionate thing a Christian can do for an Atheist is mock their stupid contradictions.
That’s totally consistent with my “guffawing.” No hypocrisy here. (It would cross into hypocrisy if I tried to hold you to a no-guffawing standard, when I don’t really believe that’s wrong.)
Unfortunately for Atheists who want to monitor and judge Christians–the only being who can judge hypocrisy perfectly is one who looks at the heart.
See, satire, rests on whether you are pointing out an error. Your father is just mocking the author of the letter. He openly snickers at the author for caring about his marriage.
The distinction between satire and just outright mockery is quite clear.
Mockery is not compassionate. You can offer tough love and honest advice — you can even offer satire. But the post here is just mockery. There isn’t even a guise of satire.
The same is true of the commenters. There’s nothing constructive to be taken from their guffawing.
And now you’re defending the mockery and bitter lacking in compassion. You think mocking someone, who is hurting, for being an atheist can pass as compassionate?
I can see from this conversation that words don’t mean anything to you. Brazen mockery can pass as satire and as compassion; refusal to go back on an action that clearly violates what you say you value can be said to not be hypocrisy. You just give the words unreasonable amounts of elasticity so you can win the argument. You can play that game all you like, but it doesn’t change reality. You can wriggle free of labels with your unbounded sophistry, but it doesn’t change the way you behaved.
Unless you’re going to say “Mocking is wrong,” you are a hypocrite.
Good grief. This isn’t difficult.
Burn your Bible and be consistent, for once in your godless, hypocritical life.
That’s deflection.
No. It’s not.
It doesn’t address your action or your values. So, yes, actually, it is.
I value consistency.
I’ve been consistent.
You’ve been a preacher who doesn’t practice his own sermons.
Gross.
I’m not preaching.
You don’t know what I practice.
You are not consistent: you claim to get your values from God, but have clearly violated the value of compassion, remorselessly. That’s not consistent.
No, I haven’t clearly violated anything except your fragile, Atheist sensibilities. And I couldn’t care less. (But, I’ve always said that. So I’m consistent.)
Here’s something else you probably think Christians aren’t allowed to say:
Go screw yourself, Allallt. Your attempt to make Christians act your definition of Christian-y, when you won’t act that way yourself, isn’t going to work here.
Well, it’s another violation of Colossians 3:12.
I’m not trying to make you act any which way. I’m merely bringing something to your attention. You’re incredibly resistant to it. Defensive, almost.
Yeah–I’m tired of Atheists trying to tell me what I’m allowed and not allowed to do, while holding themselves to a different standard.
The ONLY REASON you know anything about Colossians at all is so you can judge Christians with it.
Gross.
When you say “Gross”, I’m not sure if you mean ‘large’, ‘before tax’, ‘blatant’ or ‘unhygienic’.
Anyway, no. The only reason I know about Colossians is because Christians tell me they derive there compassion from the Bible. They use passages like that in an attempt to override the less palatable bits of the Bible.
And I’m not telling you what to do. And I’m not hold you to a standard. I’m contradicting your behaviour against your standard.
You don’t know what my standard is… You only know what you want my standard to be, so that you can feel superior.
Gross.
I know what you say your standard is when you hold up the Bible. And I can read.
Still not understanding the definition of gross here.
I didn’t hold up the Bible.
You did.
That’s why you’re a hypocrite.
What’s my hypocrisy? What virtue am I pretending to have that I don’t?
Look, I see what you’re trying to do, and here’s what you have to do in order to succeed at it: simply say “I don’t value the Bible or moral messaged contained therein”.
It doesn’t make me a hypocrite. But it does make me mistaken in assuming you do value the moral messages in the Bible.
Oh, I certainly value at least some of the moral messages in the Bible (the same as you clearly do). But, here’s what Christianity DOESN’T mean:
It doesn’t mean that you can grab the nearest Bible, pick any verse, run it through your Atheist interpretation, and then call someone a hypocrite if they don’t act according to what you believe that verse is prescribing.
Sorry. I know that takes a lot of wind out of the Atheist sails, since they like to hold others to standards they don’t personally hold. But, I’m on to you.
I value some of the moral messages in the Bible, sure. But, not because it’s in the Bible.
So, are you now trying to say that Col 3:12 doesn’t require believers to show compassion? Hmm… perhaps we need more of the text…
That doesn’t look good for you. That looks like I knew exactly what I was talking about.
So, tell me, Amanda, in what way am I mistaken? Do you not value the Bible’s calls for compassion? Is that where I’m mistaken?
And I don’t know in what way you think you’re on to me. My brother claims to be a nihilist, and I hold him to account every time he proclaims ‘It’s not fair’. You and your little group down here were guffawing like little bullies down here, with your condescension and smug superiority. I get that it is difficult to accept you’ve been called on it. But I’m merely holding you to your standard.
Now, if I’m wrong about your standard, let me know. If you don’t care about the Bible’s calls to compassion, kindness and humility — or if you’ve twisted this passage into meaning something other than what it says — please do let me know. I’ll admit my mistake. But don’t pretend I am wrong in some moral or factual way to point out your violation of your own standard.
LOL! Oh, please. You haven’t “called me” on anything, because you won’t say that bullying and condescension and smugness are wrong.
I don’t think what I’ve done here is wrong. So, now you’ve got a problem, Mr. Hypocrite.
My guffawing had the desired effect. It brought you here, to demonstrate (yet again) that Atheists have nothing to offer unless they’re wagging their fingers at Christians. That’s a net positive!
Furthermore, if Terry wants advice that isn’t “faith-based,” and if he wants a counselor who doesn’t resort to prayer or finding your spiritual self, then that’s what he’ll get. No pat Christian phrases. And NO COLOSSIANS. I literally don’t know why you brought it here–on a post about ATHEIST advice. (But I do understand why you’re too embarrassed to let it go at this point.)
Well, there’s a lot of ammunition there. You’ve just falsified your own proclaimed moral structure by explicitly claiming that violating the imperatives of the Bible isn’t wrong, and implicitly claiming that you don’t feel you’ve been called out until/unless I make a specific moral judgement (instead of just categorising your actions). I’ll be sure to use that next time you tell me morality doesn’t mean anything unless one is religious — because you just made it meaningless there, too.
I have plenty to offer. At least your dad has been over to my blog to see I have things to offer even when I’m not “wagging my finger at Christians”.
There’s nothing compassionate about pretending compassion is solely a Christian virtue reserved only for Christians.
Do you really believe you haven’t done anything wrong?
I REALLY believe I’ve done nothing wrong.
And we were doing fine until you showed up to try and hold others to YOUR idea of what a Christian should be…
What’s your advice for Terry?
LOL!
The atheist REALLY wants you to pay attention to what it says in the Bible!
I told him to burn it, just like I told JZ.
I’m not sure why they won’t?
You know why they won’t…
Because they like the idea of having a rule book they can use to control others, without having to apply the same rules to themselves?…
BINGO!
The world needs Christians who humbly and unhesitatingly apologize for every, tiny thing. It needs Christians who are soft-spoken…who avoid all forms of confrontation…who do their best to make everyone feel comfortable and happy…
And, the world also needs Christians who tell the arrogant Atheists where to stick their borrowed morality.
Well…I thought I did a GREAT job of responding to the letter without bringing any Oogity-Boogity into it.
And Allallt comes along and tells me I lack compassion…Can’t win.
When a spoiled child says you’re a mean teacher/parent, there’s a good chance the OPPOSITE is true.
You’re doing that thing that atheists always do when it dawns on them that they have no basis for their arguments.
I’ve asked you to tell me whether or not hypocrisy is wrong. You refuse.
I’ve asked you to accuse me of immorality without referencing the Bible. You cannot.
From a Biblical standpoint, I have displayed compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.
The atheist in the letter was very clear about not wanting council from a religious point of view. I honored his wishes in my response.
No, the author of the letter was clear about not wanting to be told to pray. That’s very different.
I have told you, outright, that I am not saying hypocrisy is wrong and I’m not making a moral argument. (My position on those questions is irrelevant.)
You are doing what I child does — trying to put attention on anything other than the charge being placed on them.
LOL!
“My position on those questions is irrelevant.”
…Then shut the hell up.
I’m pointing out that you’re a hypocrite. All the points of that discussion are about you: your values, your beliefs, your actions and, given the conversation I just had with Amanda, your actions after it was made clear to you that your beliefs and actions weren’t lining up.
None of that has anything to do with me. But you want to talk about me and my beliefs. That’s a red herring.
Noted, your position is that I am a hypocrite.
Noted, your position is also irrelevant.
Thanks for the laughs, Allallt.
I don’t see how you can pass any class with those note taking skills.
Your first note is fine. You’re a hypocrite.
Your second note is considerably vaguer than the original sentiment. You’ll remember that the original sentiment was this:
My position on those questions is irrelevant
Now, that includes a demonstrate pronoun — “those” — so that needs some clarification. Those questions related to whether hypocrisy is wrong, not my position in general.
See, satire, (which your daughter just did you the courtesy of elevating your efforts to) rests on whether you are pointing out an error. You’re not. You are creating errors in what I’m saying through a strawman fallacy. It may be an attempt at comedy, but it’s certainly not satire. And, to the author of the initial letter, that’s not satire either; that’s just mockery.
The satire on this blog is extremely refined. I even have people contributing to the satire without their knowledge. You are satirizing the atheist position with every comment.
I’ll spell it out since you clearly do not understand.
When you are unwilling to condemn hypocrisy as wrong, I don’t care if you think I’m a hypocrite.
Now, if you want to level some charge of wrong-doing you need to bolster those charges with something other than the Bible.
There’s nothing unclear about your position. Your position doesn’t affect my initial comment.
Whether I pass judgement on hypocrisy or not shouldn’t actually effect your values at all. Whether you’re happy being a hypocrite should be independent of whether I think it’s bad or am willing to make that charge.
How many times are you going to come back and remind us that your opinion is irrelevant? We got it the first time.
If you don’t have a beef, why are you still yammering away? Are you having a stroke? Compassion dictates that I ask.
I was just trying to point it out. You kept trying to apply moralistic motives and detraction to me, and then make me defend those motives. And now you’re blaming me for the repetitive nature of this discussion.
This entire discussion is your fault. You started it when you accused me of lacking compassion.
Seriously. Did you fall downstairs? Do I need to call somebody?
How is it relevant who started the conversation? It was the circular nature of the conversation we both just came to bemoan.
The circular arguments were your fault too.
How so?
Subjective morality doesn’t rationally allow you to accuse me of wrong doing.
And your refusal to declare hypocrisy as wrong demonstrates that you understand the ludicrousness of your arguments.
No it doesn’t. It demonstrates absolutely nothing.
My motive behind not taking a moral stand is about not wanting you to deflect the conversation.
If I had made a moral judgement, we wouldn’t be discussing how a someone makes a moral judgement without accepting your divine claims. That’s a trainwreck of a conversation with you. I’ve had it before. I’ve no intention of having it again.
Because I haven’t made a moral judgement, you’ve still managed to deflect the conversation onto your imagined reasons as to why I wouldn’t pronounce moral judgements in your smug and condescending presence anymore.
I leave the moral judgements you may have about yourself on this particular matter to you. Not because I have nothing to say, but because conversation with you demonstrates you have nothing to say.
The conversation became circular because you wanted to change the topic onto something I didn’t want to engage with you on.
Got it.
So, are you advocating for Biblical morality now?
Not advocating for anything. Clearly you’ve got nothing.
You’re not advocating anything?
LOlololololol!!!
Not to you. And I’ve already explained why not.
Do you feel your lack of compassion violates Col 3:12? Do you think that matters to a Christian? Does it matter to you?
I do not lack compassion.
And you think this post and your subsequent comments are compatible with Colossians 3, and it’s call for humility and compassion and love and unity and gentleness (and some others I can’t recall off the top of my head)?
Yep.
Do you care to explain how?
Where is the compassion and patience in this:
In literally laughing at what they value and have valued. On telling them they at fault for their wife cheating on them:
Where’s the compassion in that?
(Because I think you need reminding — I’m not saying compassion is good or that you owe this person compassion. I am challenging you on your claim that you showed compassion in this passage.)
Well, if you’re not saying compassion is good or that I owe it to anyone… Shove off.
You’re dodging. You claimed your post is compassionate. When asked to defend that claim, you took the very first out I offered.
Is this post compassionate or not?
I answered this question already.
You can’t even admit compassion is good and you’re demanding I justify my behavior to you?
Either put your point of view on the table or shut up. You are acting like a Southern Baptist preacher.
I’m acting like a student of Socrates.
I’m not asking for justification. I’m asking where the compassion is in your post. You said it’s there. And you haven’t answered my question of where it is.
…oh. When you get a minute, send me the empirical data that proves I acted without compassion.
Thanks!
Why would I need empirical data?
Because that’s how you and Sam Harris determine ethics. It’s all on your blog.
What have ethics or empirical data got to do with the conversation we’re having?
Yeah, JB it’s really, really WEIRD because usually when an Atheist suggests that a Christian is not being Christian-y enough, they get a quick apology… Weird!
Just because an Atheist rejects Christianity (and actually says they do NOT want a religious counselor) doesn’t mean they should actually get what they request! Why don’t you get back in line when an Atheist quotes the Bible, like most Christians do?
Why are you so WEIRD?
Since atheists don’t believe in the existence of God, why should he even care that his wife did this to him? Obviously he would not have the same moral standards as a Christian, so this should hardly even be a bother. Just get over it; since there is no God, and no one to hold another accountable, this should just be a forgive-and-forget moment. Wait, do atheists believe in forgiveness? I’m pretty sure that’s a Christian thing…
Yet, since this does bother him, obviously to a high degree, perhaps there is something tugging at his little atheist heart…
What’s the atheist therapist going to tell him, is what I want to know. I bet it was too harsh for Richard Wade to say publicly so he had to suggest someone else. It probably would go something like: Marriage is just a social construct. She didn’t have to stay with you any more than you had to stay with her. Divorce is just a natural result of evolving people, where you come to a place you’re no longer suited to one another. Love is also just a chemical compound, just the same as depression is. Look, this really isn’t a sad situation and you aren’t really sad, you’re just a walking Petri dish and your feelings are the result of a hormonal cocktail. Basically you were never loved, you never loved her, and you were never “married”. But since feelings are kinda annoying to have around, here’s some antidepressants. That’ll be $243.
Don’t atheists try to evolve into a species that survives trouble like this?
Do all atheists wear safari hats?
~CQW
LOL, I share MooseMan’s compassion and empathy for this guy, but I’m afraid the truth can be a harsh thing indeed. He’s a schmuck.
His wife is a schmuck too, but consider her life of being yoked to a non believer, to a man who demands a Christian wife and all the benefits thereforth, but a man completely unwilling to lead her in faith. Worse yet, he’s an atheist, so not only is he unwilling to lead, he is actively tearing down the very foundation that gives his wife her values in the first place. The same values, faith, and strength that would enable her to love him as he wishes to be loved. It’s like constantly eroding the foundation she is standing on and than lamenting the fact that she eventually falls over.
She needs to be lead in faith? She chose the marriage… I don’t understand what your point is getting at.
“She needs to be lead in faith?”
It’s just a suggestion. Or I guess we can just put our faith in the guy’s wildly magnetic sexual charm, but that doesn’t seem to have worked out for him so well.
You said he failed to lead her in faith, like she can’t have her faith without his support or that he has that obligation for some reason. That’s what I’m confused about.
Why have you (and other commenters here) taken it upon yourself to mock this guy?
“You said he failed to lead her in faith, like she can’t have her faith without his support or that he has that obligation for some reason.”
Apparently he has no more obligation to lead her in faith than she has obligation to remain faithful.
They made a promise to each other when they got married. Not just to stay together, but also to respect each other. The wife could have gotten the divorce before the affair and only violated one of those two promises.
I don’t see anything analogous to that for him leading her in faith.
“They made a promise to each other when they got married.”
He failed to respect her faith, she failed to respect his faithfulness. Makes perfect sense to me, cause and effect in action.
That’s not cause and effect. You don’t even know that he didn’t respect her belief; they just disagreed. And even if he didn’t respect her faith, how is that the cause of an affair? How does that make any sense?
“That’s not cause and effect”
He seems to be living with his dog right now. I’d call that irrefutable evidence of marital failure.
“And even if he didn’t respect her faith, how is that the cause of an affair?”
In the absence of having been made in the image of God, hubby is simply a random bit of biological goo, just a clump of cells really.
There is absolutely no moral reason why he cannot be exchanged for a better clump of cells.
I’ll happily call it marital failure. Although, the better evidence is the divorce.
As for the bit about “biological goo”, I’ve left a comment for you at the bottom of the thread, scroll down and have a read. It’s about “religious nihilism”.
So, I gather the main point is “Atheism can’t solve this guys depression and can’t help him through his divorce.” However, I submit that if he were a Christian man living in atheist Iceland, we would not be laughing, nor would the real answer be “Jesus has taken your burdens” or “You should love Jesus anyway, not your cheating atheist wife” and leave it at that. I think we would recognize that it’s a terrible situation and the guy’s pain is real.
Again, you’re not thinking like an atheist. You’re thinking like a theist and that’s why you have relevant, helpful insights to offer.
If I was sitting face to face with the guy, I’d say this differently. He’s a schmuck. The only adjective he uses to describe his wife is ‘Southern Baptist’. This letter is a pity party. If he went to my Bible study, we would call him out. We’d probably laugh at him too.
Sure. Maybe I’m thinking in too broad of terms, too. I guess I was excusing the guy since he’s on an atheist board for talking the way that he was, but come to think of it, I do get queasy when Christians lay on the churchspeak too thickly while at church (or anywhere for that matter).
Also, there would certainly be a plethora of Christians that would spew the crumby advice that Richard was offering as well in a Christian advice forum. ^_^
Indeed.
Bad advice is available from a multitude of sources.
I want to go to your Bible study, John.
Then some smug bastard, like me, would point out that the Bible you claim you’re studying demands compassion of you.
You’re far to smug to show up at a Bible study.
I have actually been to Bible study classes. It focused on Genesis, and I was there to learn as much as I can about the story tropes because I was helping with a thesis on how Philip Pullman’s Dark Materials followed some of those tropes.
“So, I gather the main point is “Atheism can’t solve this guys depression and can’t help him through his divorce.”
Correct.
The atheist always live beyond his own ‘meta-physical’ assumptions (i.e. you’re living beyond the boundaries of atheism).
I like how you said he is living beyond the boundaries of atheism, you’re right.
He knows where answers can be found but his presuppositions are forcing him to reject the answers. Must be frustrating.
Exactly!
Everyone necessarily lives beyond the boundaries of atheism. Atheism, by atheist’s own admission, is a ‘non-belief’. It is useless as a foundation for any worldview.
LOL… absolutely.
You’ve summed it up even better than I could.
LOL! This is mean, mean I tell you, but I laughed. Poor me, my wife has failed to live up to the Christian values I have rejected, attacked, and declared non existent??
I confess to coveting that poor man’s problems! He lives in the bible belt with a divorce care group at church, surrounded by Christian therapists? I live in the second most secularist county in the country. At least we’re not number one.
If being free of the “shackles of religion” is so freeing, why do atheists seem to have so many problems?
Divorce isn’t easy but this guy makes his situation much worse than it needs to be by adding a whole bunch of manufactured self-pity.
“I’m an atheist in the Bible belt, sob, sob, sob…my Baptist wife, sob, sob, sob…” Come on, it’s laughable.
Also, who the hell asks an atheist blogger for life advice?
Yeah, I don’t think that’s really manufactured self-pity. Sure, he may have added some additional church language on the “bad side,” but that’s akin to people on Sunday saying “God bless you” a few extra times than they would at work (He’s on an atheist board).
I mean, granted, I’m not divorced, but I imagine regardless of faith or even the level of commitment, if the dude was hanging out with his wife for upwards of 10 years, then he probably did at least get used to a level of companionship. Losing that would suck, regardless of whose fault it is. Then, he doesn’t have relatable people around him that he can turn to. Also, the therapists in the area sound like they suck too – even if it’s a Christian man going through divorce, there’s plenty more than prayer and finding a level of spirituality that they even a token therapist could suggest. It’s a crappy place to be in.
I get what you are saying but I disagree.
Wife is a Baptist=He is a victim of her religion
No secular counselors = So hard to believe it’s probably not true
Can’t relate to anyone because he lives in the Bible belt = Nope
Sure, divorce sucks but he is making it worse by blaming all kinds of things that are likely not the problem.
Yeah, there’s likely more to it than all that he’s saying, but yeah, the dude’s wrestling with crap and he feels alone. The aloneness is certainly real, even if there are potential ways for him to find support – those ways are probably not easy since most people suck at giving advice for depression.
I don’t get the feeling he even wants help at all. What he really seems to want is sympathy for his situation.
“I live in the Bible belt too dude, it sucks man, I totally get it…”
He needs someone to tell him he is stewing in manufactured hurts and blaming boogie men for HIS problems.
Now, I don’t know that we can make this assumption – it may be true. But I think the Bible Belt part of the narrative adds a little to the real feeling of isolation he’s dealing with.
Granted, he might be looking for sympathy, but I believe he probably has tried a few crappy therapists and the support group that probably wasn’t helpful for him.
True, I can’t make that assumption but it doesn’t pass the common sense test. He’s basically saying he’s tried multiple counselors and they are all religious therefore not helpful, that I doubt.
Even if he could find a secular counselor, how could he guarantee that new age spirituality wouldn’t creep in?
Also, and I think this is an important point, people often look outside themselves and to something bigger than humanity for answers. Maybe we are designed to seek after God.
You have offered exactly the kind of sympathetic understanding that Christianity affords.
If the guy is writing to an atheist for advice, then the advice should be different from what he’d hear from a Christian. That’s where I come in. 🙂
The advice from atheist bloggers will always be that religion is awful and everyone’s problems exist or are made worse because of it.
Unless people are willing to admit THEY are probably responsible to some degree anyway for their situation, they will never get better.
This is just like atheists whining about how bad their lives suck because their parents took them to church when they were kids.
@John – I guess so. I suppose Richard could’ve gone a little further with his reply than “check out this list of therapist and use this screening tool”. I’m still not convinced that the advice from an atheist and the advice from a Christian should be all that super different in this circumstance – I don’t know that the worldviews handle getting over specific instances of pain all that differently in practice.
Really, I think it’s just fair to say this Richard Wade is just not good at advice ^_^
“He’s on an atheist board.”
I forgot to mention that in my last comment and it’s an important point. The atheist board has a narrative that religion is bad and atheists are always victims of it.
“Unless people are willing to admit THEY are probably responsible to some degree anyway for their situation, they will never get better.”
Agreed.
Atheists ask atheists for life advice! It is HILARIOUS!
The enlightened, free-thinkers don’t have all the answers. Doesn’t atheism free them from delusion and ignorance?
The letter itself is delusion that doesn’t pass the smell test.
I would love to hear his wife’s side of the story as I’m certain it would be entirely different.
You could write more of these…
Mrsmcmommy,
I agree.
But for now, I will supply one for him to reply to.
Dear “Answers for Atheists” John,
I need your advice on something horrible that is happening to me, and had been going on for some time now.
I am stuck sitting next to a guy at the next cubicle over at work who keeps praying before he eats. To make it worse, he told me he was praying for me!
Of course, I laughed in his face and told him to take his YHWH and indoctrination and shove it, and I even complained to HR. HR was no help, as the guy only did it outside of work hours as we walked to the car.
The guy just won’t quit!
What should I do? I thought about poisoning him, but I like my job too much lose it. Maybe my congressman can do something.
Help!
Faux Atheist Dave
I bet there are atheists out there who think that way…
Dave
This is a fine letter, Dave.
But I think it’s even better when the letters come from ACTUAL Atheists. Because real life is stranger than fiction.
😉
Mrsmcmommy,
Can’t argue with you on that.
On another note, I was just thumbing through my virtual dictionary, where I came across this word called “compassionate”. The definition I saw said “feeling or showing sympathy and concern for others.”
I sure am concerned about the advice asker in the original post. I am concerned and feel sympathy that he desires to live a life apart from Christ.
So to make light of his desire to seek meaningful answers in a godless place that says life is devoid of true meaning is not uncompassionate.
Dave
Psalm 37:12-13 (ESV)
12 The wicked plots against the righteous
and gnashes his teeth at him,
13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he sees that his day is coming.
We agree, Dave. 🙂
As a parent of three, small children, I’m very used to being accused of not doing my job correctly by someone who simply doesn’t like the process.
“Mean Mommy” and “Uncompassionate Christian” are exactly the same charge.
It must suck to feel so strongly about an issue and have no idea how to engage with someone who doesn’t take those every utterances seriously. 😉
Omg, its late at night here in oz, im trying to find the sandman, and instead you have me cracking up.. Thanks john for your wArped and hilarious blogs
John,
That guy’s letter sounded like a country song in the making. I assume he got the truck, too.
Are you telling me that there are no atheist emotional support groups out there in the Bible Belt he is “trapped” in? The horror!
I think a nice relocation to some heavily atheist place in Europe would cheer him up. I hear that Norway is having an uptick of unbelievers these days. He could find himself a nice atheist girl who is sure to behave better than another Bible Belt Southern Baptist. Unbelievers are all about taking wedding vows seriously, no?
Dave
How Don Rickles-est.
How can I call myself civilized when I laugh heartily at a poor man being ripped apart and hoisted by his own petard?