"Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven"

This is a good example of an atheist dilemma:

https://civitashumana.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/why-i-dont-want-jesus-as-my-savior/

Atheists flatter themselves on their supposed devotion to the truth. Bravely following the evidence whoever it leads. 

Yet many atheists openly despise Christianity. So what if the evidence pointed them to the truth of Christianity? What if they discovered that Jesus really is God Incarnate? That would put them in quite a bind because they've told us in ahead of time that they can't stand Christian theology. They have no fallback strategy if it turns out to be true. 

But in that event, what exactly is the value of their marshaling arguments against the Christian faith if they'd feel no different in case it were true? Why not drop the pretense and just concede that it makes no difference to them if Christianity is true or false? By their own admission, the evidence is irrelevant to their attitude towards Christianity. "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" and all that. 

Anti-Theists are Sure They Will Not Kill You This Time

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2015/04/anti-theists-are-sure-they-will-not-kill-you-this-time/

Secular terrorists

Nine years ago, Jordan Howard Stobel published what is widely deemed to be the most philosophically rigorous attack on the existence of God. His book was a book by a philosopher for fellow philosophers. A highly technical, logically stringent treatment of various theistic proofs.

However, in the very first chapter, he makes a striking admission:

John Mackie says that there are no objective values (Mackie, 1977, Chapter 1). He says that there are no objective goods or values of universal validity that everyone ought to cherish, whether or not they would be so moved in the end, on fully informed reflection. He holds that there are only subjective values, this or that person’s values, where a particular person’s goods are the things he would in the end be moved to value.

For what my opinion on recent difficult matters is worth, I think that the ordinary God-talk of both believers and disbelievers does presuppose the possibility of a being objectively worthy of worship and the rest of an objective god. And I think, for Mackiean reasons, that there cannot be an objective god, a being such that there would be a prescription, valid and authoritative for all, that those who believe in its existence must worship this being. I do not believe in the possibility of such prescriptions. Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against Beliefs in God (Cambridge University Press 2004), 25.

This is what he seems to be saying: He doesn’t believe in God because he doesn’t believe in objective values. He agrees with Mackie’s contention that there are no objective values, and he regards the metaphysical status of God as a special case of that general proposition.

If my interpretation is correct, then his subsequent behavior is irrational. For having made that preliminary admission, he acts as if it doesn’t make any difference. He continues for another 650+ pages of dense text, chock-full of long dry logical syllogisms. He even has a chapter on the problem of evil.

But if he doesn’t believe in objective values, then what’s the value of disproving God’s existence? Why does he pour so much intellectual effort into that project? Why does he dedicate the only life he has to that project? Why continue playing the game after you lose?

The only motivation I can think of is intellectual pride. Atheists like Sobel take pride in their mental acuity. Argumentation for the sake of argumentation. Intellectual pride becomes a snare for clever atheists. They spend all their time attacking the only thing that lends life objective significance.

But sin is paradoxical in that respect. Notice how self-destructive atheism is becoming. Our culture is becoming increasingly hostile to children–not to mention the elderly and the disabled. Take antinatalism. Take radical environmentalism, which regards humans as a parasite.

And this isn’t just ivory-tower theorizing. This is becoming public policy.

Atheism is evolving into a form of mass suicide. Humans turning against humanity. Turning on ourselves.

What would motivate such spiteful behavior? In this case, I think atheists are on a power trip. They love to control their own destiny and the destiny of others, even if that means murdering everyone on board. Power becomes a snare for some atheists. Intoxicated by power, even to their own demise.

A confident believer in an age of cranky atheists

James Anderson reviews A Shot of Faith: Be a Confident Believer in an Age of Cranky Atheists by Mitch Stokes.

Seeing is believing

(Click to enlarge.)


(Click to enlarge.)

Is Yahweh worse than the devil?

Every notice how Arminians who can't stand Calvin's God are bedfellows with misotheists who can't stand Yahweh?

drwayman says:
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 7:59pm

I was thinking of an average visitor to the psalm singing church when the first time s/he visits is during an imprecatory psalm. I’m glad that DH’s story turns out so positive but I think it’s probably an exception.

I can imagine a person coming in and thinking “…will they not say that you are out of your mind?” as Paul states in I Cor 14 regarding a visitation during uninterpreted tongues.

So, as a visitor, I say “God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life” and I am told quite the opposite, “God’s wrath is resting upon me and I will feel the full weight of God’s anger…” Remember this is just after I had heard sung that God’s people dance in the blood of the unrighteous.

So, as a visitor, I am faced with a choice, 1) you guys are looney and going for a Christian jihad, I’m gonna get out of here, or 2) I better pretend to join these guys before they end up dancing in my blood and then I will get away from these as soon as I leave or 3) possibly I really truly want to repent.

But, #3 may be a sham perpetuated by God as Calvin states,

“Sometimes, however, He communicates it [the special call of God] also to those whom He enlightens only for a time, and whom afterward, in just punishment for their ingratitude, He abandons and smites with greater blindness.” Institutes, 3:24.8.

http://randalrauser.com/2011/12/singing-the-praises-of-the-imprecatory-psalms/#comments-wrap

Naturalism and Nihilism

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/12/more-on-naturalism-and-nihilism.html

"Antitheism Presupposes Theism (And So Does Every Other 'Ism')"

Another fine post from Prof. James Anderson.

Type 1 atheism

The Type 1 atheist—undoubtedly in the majority these days—takes his inspiration from science and considers himself to be “wised up.” He “sees through” the traditional idealistic teachings of religion, and believes that modern science has proven that human beings are “nothing but” animals with hard-wired synapses put in place by selfish genes, all of which is at bottom just molecules—or atoms, or quarks, or strings, or what have you—in motion.

 

No soul. No free will. No objective standards of right and wrong. Just a bunch of pitiless particles vibrating pointlessly in the primal quantum field.

 

That’s it. That’s what human being really are, according to the Type 1 atheist. And because traditional religion teaches something like the opposite of this—that human beings have a soul (or spirit) endowed with reason, a conscience, and free will, all responsive to objective standards of right and wrong—the Type 1 atheist feels it is his duty to oppose religion in the name of defending the “truth” about human nature.

http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2011/12/07/kinds-atheists/ 

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins

I suppose misotheists were expecting Christians to dance on the grave of Christopher Hitchens. Gloat over his demise. Pen gleeful obits.

After all, Christians are haters. That’s the stereotype.

Ironically, the truth is nearly opposite of that self-congratulatory cliché. For the Christian obits I read were respectful.

By contrast, if you want to find vindictive obits, just read what some of his fellow infidels have to say:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/16/the-dark-side-of-hitchens/

Atheism is terribly unforgiving. Remarkably intolerant. 

And that makes sense. If this life is all there is, then all that matters is what you did in this life. That’s indelible. Irrevocable.

And there’s no vicarious atonement or penal substitution. No one can expiate or propitiate your offenses in your place.

When Hitchens transgressed liberal pieties, that was unforgivable. And I say that literally, not hyperbolically. Infidels will never forgive him for his trespasses. There’s nothing he could ever do in this life to redeem himself. His record stands forever stained in their judgmental eyes.

Misotheism

Although "atheism" is the usual term, it would be more theologically and psychologically accurate if we started classifying "atheists" as "misotheists." This is a rare word that we need to popularize. When militant "atheists" write about God, they are seething with fear and loathing of God and Christians. So the vanilla gray term "atheism" fails to capture their outlook. "Misotheism" is far more accurate.