Ralph Barker’s argument is stupid. It assumes atheism is a categorical statement against the known truth rather than a statement that there is “probably no god since there is no evidence and that following a religious faith is a pointless waste of time, resources and intelligence”.
Ralph Barker’s argument is based on a massive series of assumptions. That a god exists and it is the christian flavour of the judeo-christian god. And it is based on this assumption he thinks we don’t exist and that we live in sin. My life is no more or less sinful than the average “good christian”. Infact considering the christian fascination with all things sexual and the effective fetishisation of virginity and abstinence, I am probably more holy by their standards than most of their followers and many of their priests.
Any person who quotes a verse from their religious text as a solid argument is an idiot and should be treated as such. This entire culture where we don’t call things what they are is pretty daft considering people like Ralph Barker have audiences.
If one looks down a microscope or a telescope and sees the “wonders of creation” and happily thinks to himself “It’s so beautiful the work of our mighty Tlaloc! I must remember to sacrifice a baby to him!” then that person clearly hasn’t grasped the significance of what he saw. A scientist (and there is a reason a lot of atheists are scientists) would want to find out precisely how these phenomena occur. And it is there something even more wonderful than a magic being is seen. That these processes are entirely natural and a rational understanding of these processes will allow us to utilise them to our benefit. The problem religious people have with science is that science explains things and it is hard to create a reasonable doubt for the existence of something as ludicrous as a god around people who keep explaining the function and mechanism of existence.
If you believe that the world was created 7000 or so years ago in 7 days by Jehovah, then you deny human existence. Humanity is not defined by our genome but by what we are. Yes, if we create a sufficiently advanced AI or come into contact with another sapient and sentient life form, then you can apply the concept of humanity to them. So we regard our ancestors as “human” too. Human tools have existed for nearly 3 to 4 million years indicating our development from sharpened rock to Internet. We wouldn’t have come this far if we assumed “god did things” and we certainly insult our origins as the most intelligent life form on the planet if we attribute our success to “kowtowing to magic beings” rather than “hardwork and toil”.
Atheists wouldn’t give any fucks about Ralph’s religion if Ralph’s religion did not go out of it’s way to enforce it’s will on other people. The so called war on religion was not started by atheists, it was started by those who believe in gods who try to undermine the ideals of a secular society where all men are equal irrespective of what they believe in. Also it’s a bit hypocritcal coming from a christian whose entire faith is based on conversion of people of other faiths to christianity by actively denying the existence of false gods.
I don’t believe in ghosts and goblins, so I actively campaign against ghost hunter series and the like too. However those shows just con stupid people out of time. Ghost shows aren’t running around trying to make Ghosts a viable alternative to decomposition in biology. Ghost shows aren’t trying to rewrite history. Finding Bigfoot isn’t trying to get sasquatch put up as a genuine species. These are muppets running around while other muppets watch shaky camera work. Hell many atheists routinely mock psychics.
God Said There are No Atheists? In which case, clearly I am a figment of your imagination. And you should totally send me your bank details.