Buzzfeed is at it again. After their first video about “Christians” denouncing stereotypes went viral, they decided to spread the love and make one for the Atheists too.
Most of the claims the professed Atheists made can be boiled into following statements:
I’m fine with and respect religion even though I’m not religious.
This is an interesting claim. First of all, it is almost immediately contradicted by the fact that later on one of them condescendingly tries to win support by stating he is interested in studying “Christian mythology”. Condescendingly referring to the faith that Christians hold dear and proclaim to be true and saving as a “mythology” which catches your “interest” is hardly respectful at all. A respectful way to put it is with the word “theology” or “Christianity.” Using the term mythology is disrespectful. It’s also rich that one of the people who made the claim is a woman named Jacelyn Glenn. With a Youtube channel by the same name, she constantly and consistently mocks and ridicules religion, specifically Christianity. I refuse to link to a video because they are so often filled with rampant vulgar and profane language. Plus, there are too many to choose from. However, to list one example, the current video posted to the front of her channel (meaning it automatically plays when visiting her page) is titled “First World Prayers.” The video mocks American Christians for praying for silly things, and God is portrayed in the video (intentional breaking of the 2nd commandment). Not only that, but God is portrayed in a very bizarre and offensive animal outfit with a big beard, and throughout the video uses horrible language, crude talk, and is cruel to people. How’s that for respecting religion? The bottom line is any Christian who knows anyone who is loud and proud about their professed Atheism knows that person is rarely respectful to and about religion. Saying something doesn’t justify it.
This fact is subtly and incidentally admitted when one of the slightly more honest professing Atheists phrases it this way:
I’m fine with whatever you want to be just be chill about it.
Typically secularists don’t mind religion if you keep it in one of two places: your head or your home. Anytime at all a person feels their religion extends to themselves or to others in the public arena, they are no longer being chill and no longer deserve respect or tolerance. Thus, it’s “totally chill bruh” to think in your head that homosexuality is wrong or to say that in a small, private bible study. But the second you think you have the right to not participate in a homosexual “marriage” you will be sued out on to the streets with your children and federal tyranny will control your bank account. The secularists will mock, ridicule and insult you privately and publicly. They will call you names and disparage your living.
Christians are allowed to think murder is wrong in their tiny little bigot-brains, but the second they allow that belief to cross the partition that is their skull and be enforced upon a woman about to kill her baby, they are no longer being “chill.” To the secularist “being chill” means keeping your religion to yourself and permitting non-religious people do whatever they want and impose all their values in the civil arena without any interference. Only then will they “respect religion.” We must publicly celebrate them while privately celebrating us. That’s like toats chill rn.
“I’m not a Satanist.”
But you are an idolater, and that isn’t any better.
“I still have morals. I’m a good person because I want to be not have to be.”
This argument is key. This is regurgitated so often by professing Atheists, and that further demonstrates they are either unwilling or incapable of hearing the actual argument before them. No one is claiming they are immoral. The question is can their worldview account for morality? That’s the challenge. When they claim to be moral people, the questions are “says who?” “By what standard?” The Atheist is yet again borrowing ethical absolutes from the Christian worldview they’re denying. What’s morality according to Darwin? And where did our obligation to it evolve from? Why can’t it evolve again like everything else? They can’t answer those questions consistently; that’s the point. Their morality is borrowed capitol; it doesn’t belong to the worldview they claim to live by. For example, one of them said, because of their Atheism, they don’t know why people would “fight over religion“. Here is what that same worldview which manifactured that question can’t simultaneously supply in order to ask produce consistently:
An objective, immaterial, transcendent, immutable moral law by which to objectively determining it is morally wrong to violently fight over religion.
In other words, why not fight over religion? Isn’t that exactly how the universe operates according to Darwinian naturalism? Animals eat each other when hungry. Animals kills each other when threatened. Animals do whatever they can to advance their desires. If I like my religion and someone else has one that threatens it, why not kill them? That’s not Darwinian vice that’s Darwinian virtue! The strong survive and the universe doesn’t care. That applies to religious wars too. Besides, we would all be happy to do a body count between religious wars of the last three centuries compared to deaths caused by non-religious fanatics.
The same man who said this happens to be the same one who ended the video by trying to comfort fellow professing Atheists by proclaiming the good gospel news that they are not alone. He then, in a very cavalier way qualified it by reminding them they are alone in a metaphysical way. He laughed, but I held back tears. That’s true hopelessness. And it is also the perfect reason to not care about religious wars. We are all alone after all. Why should anyone care? The universe doesn’t. We are all pond-scum that managed to crawl its way from primordial goo, and accidentally developed meat machines which force us without any personal will or freedom to behave and think in certain ways. As Doug Wilson put it, we are simply what atoms do at this temperature and under these circumstances. He said we are ugly bags of bones and mostly water. Why then, should accidental-star dust-pond-scum-meat robots, who are utterly alone, care at all about not fighting? We are simply dancing to our DNA until the universe shuts down and kills us all.
Since they are so determined to not hear the argument, allow me to stoop down to their level and challenge their claim. Hey Buzzfeed professing Atheists, are you really moral? That claim in and of itself is arrogant and untruthful; two immoral things. The true issue with the claim is that it’s circular in nature. It presupposes that the Christian worldview isn’t true in order to be stated. That which needs to be proved is presupposed, and the presupposition given can never return to validate the claim, making it viciously circular. The biblical worldview states that no one is good, no not one. All have fallen short of the glory of God, all are dead in sin and in need of saving. On one level, I am happy to grant their morality and ask them to provide the grounding for it (spoiler: they can’t). But on the other hand, the claim itself is not true. They are not moral people; that’s why they need Christ.
One of the most interesting things admitted was that some of them apparently
Feel ashamed to admit they are Atheists
are envious of religious people
This is most likely an appeal to emotions. The current generation is all about emotions. Thus, this is most likely an attempt to victimize oneself and win the hearts of people. We don’t need to waste our time testing the truthfulness or consistency of their worldviews, they feel ashamed, so we should coddle that instead.
However, I hope there is more to it than that. I hope the Spirit of God is continuing to convict and soften the hearts of these people the same way He had to soften mine.
Given all that which is mentioned already, here is the most important point of all:
These people are not atheists.
Let me say it again, they are not Atheists. Atheists don’t exist.
The title of this video would be more appropriately titled without the ellipsis. It currently reads:
I’m an Atheist but I’m not…
Take out the “…” and we have stumbled upon an appropriate title. That applies to the Christian version they made as well.
Romans 1: 18-22
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Paul makes it abundantly clear that people who don’t believe there is a God or even think they don’t know do not exist. All have been revealed to by God in a sufficient way leaving all before the throne without an excuse. And this is evidenced by the way professing Atheists live. They borrow from the Christian worldview, without fail, every single day. Their worldview assumes things only the Christian worldview can provide. That’s why this title doesn’t work.
Another title that could work would be:
I’m a professing Atheist, but I don’t live like one.
I’m an Atheist, but I constantly borrow from the Christian worldview.
That would be much more consistent. However, the Secular worldview can’t provide the moral basis for being consistent, therefore, being consistent is, ironically, inconsistent.
Maybe their title works after all then.