Why I raise my Children without God - A response

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282 - Here's the article in question

The problem with this article lies firstly is that its critique is largely of a superficial religious version of God and not the Christian God as many understand and that the bible reveals. Its not a version of God I would teach my kids. 

It also doesn't really address the moral problem - what is the objective grounding for the moral system she teaches her kids. It doesn't give you any more than subjective moral relativism.
 

Here's a point by point response: 

If God is our father, then he is not a good parent. Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others.

God is not simply just a parent he is God. We are not simply children, we are created in his image. I don't think God simply allows people to do wrong either.

God is not logicalHow many times have you heard, “Why did God allow this to happen?” And this: “It’s not for us to understand.” Translate: We don’t understand, so we will not think about it or deal with the issue. Take for example the senseless tragedy in Newtown. Rather than address the problem of guns in America, we defer responsibility to God.

Who's deferring responsibility to God? Is why did God allow this to happen really the pressing question. That's more of a philosophical question. Ultimately as believers we don't understand why each event happens but our worldview does give us a frame work for why bad things happen.

I think the author misunderstands what is going on here. Who's deferring responsibility to God? I think its telling that the humanist answer to the problem of evil is to ban guns. Guns aren't the problem, people are. The humanist response to all these tragedies is to imagine we are on a trajectory to some sort of Utopia if only we try harder. I don't see any evidence that things are getting better.

A vague pointing to God is not the answer, but addressing Godlessness is. Do you think someone believes in human dignity and worth and accountability of their actions before God commits these acts? Certainly not someone truly convicted of these things. That we have told God to get out of our schools is not just a cute little anecdote. We have literally rejected God and evil is the result.

God is not fair.

What the author is saying is life is not fair therefore God is not fair. It does not follow that God is not fair if bad things happen to good people in this life. I believe God does offer redemption, hope and strength.

Mark 10:29-30 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel" will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.

God does not protect the innocent.

     He does not keep our children safe. As a society, we stand up and speak for those who cannot. We protect our little ones as much as possible. When a child is kidnapped, we work together to find the child. We do not tolerate abuse and neglect. Why can’t God, with all his powers of omnipotence, protect the innocent?

Do we really speak up for those who can not? 50,000,000 aborted babies in the US suggests otherwise. Why do you think God sent judgment against Canaan (they sacrificed children to baal). 
And where do you think this desire to protect innocence comes from? 


Again it is humans that perpetrate harm to innocent children and Again I say that the atheist has on answer other than to shake their fist at the idea of God and moralise about trying harder next time.

God is not present.

Oh yes he is.

God Does Not Teach Children to Be GoodTelling him that he must behave because God is watching means that his morality will be externally focused rather than internally structured. It’s like telling a child to behave or Santa won’t bring presents. 

Who teaches their kids that God is like santa. Even a junior sunday school class will teach better theology than that. 

When we take God out of the picture, we place responsibility of doing the right thing onto the shoulders of our children. No, they won’t go to heaven or rule their own planets when they die, but they can sleep better at night. They will make their family proud. They will feel better about who they are. They will be decent people. 

Umm in what way does belief in God remove personal responsibility from someone? Teaching about God instills accountability not diminished personal responsibility.

God Teaches Narcissism     “God has a plan for you.” Telling kids there is a big guy in the sky who has a special path for them makes children narcissistic; it makes them think the world is at their disposal and that, no matter what happens, it doesn’t really matter because God is in control. That gives kids a sense of false security and creates selfishness.

Well according to a study I read recently, narcissistic personality traits have been on the rise in modern times, you know as we become more secular. We live in a completely individualistic society, accept we like a nanny state to look after us so we don't have to take responsibility for our choices.

There is nothing in the bible that suggests that because God has a plan the world is at your feet. Its about having faith no matter what happens that God can use all things for good (Romans 8:28).

When we raise kids without God, we tell them the truth—we are no more special than the next creature. We are just a very, very small part of a big, big machine–whether that machine is nature or society–the influence we have is minuscule. The realization of our insignificance gives us a true sense of humbleness.

A true sense of humbleness or pitiless indifference? If we are no more special than the next creature does that not result in the behavior we are increasingly witnessing. Also the "truth" that there is no God is an assertion.

There in lies the problem with this whole article. It doesn't really come close to addressing the moral problem and it furnishes its argument with a bad conception of God.

Internet Atheism

This blog is based on some general observations of the new atheist movement on the internet, which I've followed for a few years. 

The first thing about this movement is that a significant proportion of its presence is online and as such brings aboard many of the negatives of an online based community. 

Internet atheism brings aboard aspects of internet culture - the anonymity, the trolling, the adhominem, liberal use of the strawman, and a general lack of substance. The whole meme culture of sites like reddit fuel this brand of atheism. A brand of atheism characterised by abrasiveness and general social ineptitude and a tendency to think that Richard Dawkins is a good philosopher.

Far from being intellectual it relies on catch phrasing and ideas developed in a vacuum. There is a pretense of skepticism and rational thought that is not even there in many cases. People rally around celebrity atheists on sites like freethoughtblogs and youtube, particularly those who like to give religion a good bashing, whilst often avoiding dealing with the issues in a honest and meaningful manner.

Besides the fact that cutting and pasting insults against a being you insist does not exist is not indicative of mental and social health, for all its bluster the new atheism has failed to demonstrate their charge and failed to adequately rebut the arguments of those such as William Lane Craig, who make a strong case that faith is reasonable.

That which has fostered an atheist community has created something by its nature sure to dwindle. Making lots of noise on the internet has limited possibilities. Its not something that can be sustained, especially in the face of the resurgence of apologetics and Christian philosophy and the fact that the internet brand of atheism doesn't translate well to the real world.

Anita Sarkeesian Is Wrong - Feminism

Anita Sarkeesian is a "media critic" who created an internet shitstorm when she launched a kickstarter to tackle sexism in video games titled 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'. She received quite a backlash - the video was spammed on troll haven 4-chan and abusive comments followed on the pitch video.

Whilst the abuse is regrettable, Anita had no problem selecting out the abusive comments and using them to promote herself as a victim to anyone who would listen, meanwhile ignoring legitimate criticism which she received.  She went on to raise 150,000 dollars.

A number of factors play into how this project has been received. First and foremost being that Anita is not much of a critic. Certainly not one deserving much attention. Her channel feminist frequency on youtube presents what is largely nit-picking and lacking in substance, her presentations are extremely one-sided with a feminist agenda driving the content, for example her bayonetta video. She took the video down, but a number of users have mirrored her video, which can only be described as a hatchet job. There's little doubt that Anita intends to whine about female characters designed to appeal to men. Of course we know that the reverse is never the case for predominantly female centric media.

Gamers are generally sick of their hobby being stigmatised by outsiders like Sarkeesian. Of course she claims to be a gamer, but that seems doubtful. She had to buy a whole heap of games with the kickstarter money to do "research". Ie. She hasn't played many games. Though the notion that she might actually do some research for this video series is refreshing. But having said that she's already made comments on Bastion complaining about the female character, which suggest shes rushing through the games since Zia is actually a really interesting character. She also tweeted about how ICO is the most sexist game she has ever played, which is an indication of what to expect.

One thing I don't expect her to notice is that game characters do tend to be a little one dimensional regardless of gender. Many games in her pile there are primarily action orientated and the character is not much more than an avatar.  Nor do I expect her to recognise that games are escapism and tend to present a hyper or idealised reality.

It could well be there is something to be said on the issue but Anita Sarkeesian is not the person to do it. She has already concluded that everything is sexist so I don't have high hopes here.

Atheists are Wrong - The Problem of Evil

You may have seen this quote floating around the web:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


One of the things New Atheists love to do is moralise about different topics including the suffering in the world. They themselves don't have any real answers, but they attack that provided by a Christian world view of a good God. This quote seems to be a favourite of theirs.

This quote is typically seen as a knock down argument, for which there is no objections. But that is really only true if God must conform to the atheist expectation, which tends to lean towards humanism. If God is good then he would act according to humanist principals. But there is a short-sightedness to this view.

Their objections seem to ignore that Christianity answers the problem of evil in the first few chapters of the bible.They also ignore the fact that Christians believe in eternity of the soul, which puts things in a different perspective. To atheists death is the ultimate offence, especially that of one seen to be innocent or undeserving, nevermind the fact that the atheists worldview doesn't really have an objective basis for their moral outrage.

Take the biblical account of the flood for example. The atheists would deny God has any right to take life, especially not if he is to be considered 'good'. But this is merely an assertion appealing to an objective morality in which the taking of life is always wrong. The atheist also denies the right of God to judge sin, which if you ask me is mighty presumptuous.

Here is a question I would like to pose:

-Do you believe in the dealth penalty as a punishment?
-Would you say that there is 'evil' in the world?
-Would you shoot someone dead if they broke into your house and threatened your family?
-Should God intervene to stop evil?

See there seems to be a double standard at play here: The atheist objects to Gods intervention in the bible for example sending the flood, but then they ask where was God when insert bad event here happened.

Do you want God to judge evil or not? The world was full of evil so God sent the flood. He saved - as an act of Grace Noah and his family.

He has also saved the nation of Israel and sent his son to die on the cross to overcome evil. But Gods direct intervention has been limited since he gives us free will. In order to prevent the evil that man does to one another then he would have to take away our free will. He did however show us the way through his word. The principles Jesus gave us to live by are truly beautiful and transforming.

Free will has a big upside: we are free to live and love, and express. We aren't just God worshipping automatons.

Is it good that people experience suffering at the hands of others they do not deserve. Absolutely not, but suffering in this world will fade in the grand scheme of eternity; an eternity free from suffering.