Christians Point Fingers at Atheists to Cover Growing Corruption in Church

Aug 31, 2015

By Valerie Tarico

When Bill O’Reilly recently tried to pin America’s spree of mass shootings on atheism rather than guns or mental illness, he hoped to tap a specific set of beliefs that are common among Bible believers— that morality derives from religion; that Born Again Christians are a light unto the world while atheists (who lack any basis for ethics or morality) spend their empty lives in pursuit of money and sex; that when Christians get raptured or otherwise lose the upper hand, America will descend into the orgy of sex, violence, and anarchy depicted in the Left Behind books and movie.

This view feeds both righteous superiority and genuine anxiety among conservative Christians. One Facebook commenter named Georgia spelled it out:

Atheists shake with contempt at the thought of love and decency. Their whole lives are dedicated to nothingness, to the gaping void of pain that nihilism defines. Indeed, atheists love pain. They love pain in their sexual rituals, in their drug addictions and in their secret globalist power schemes. Why do we have war? It’s the atheists who spread contempt of God and invite such reckless notions of communism and Islam.

Ordinary believers don’t make this stuff up.  Calvinists and other fundamentalist theologians teach that humanity is “utterly depraved,” and that the only hope for our fallen world and for fallen individuals is the saving blood of Jesus. In the words of mega-minister Mark Driscoll, “If the resurrection didn’t literally happen, there are guns to shoot, there are people to shoot, there are parties to be had, there are women to be had.”

In this worldview, the architects of America’s much lamented moral decay are godless atheists, and the growth of secularism means the growth of moral bankruptcy. Modernity is a grim slide into an end-times world where everybody lies, cheats, and takes whatever they can get. And here in America, this dark tide can be held back only by Christians in high places.

But this common wisdom is being challenged by the public behavior of both the godly and the godless—by atheists who publically embrace humanity’s moral core and spiritual quest; and by Christian leaders who keep getting caught, literally or metaphorically, with their pants down. The combination paints a picture that more than anything reveals our shared humanity—that the godless have their share of moral leaders and inspiring spiritual values, and the godly have their share of scoundrels.


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source below.

28 comments on “Christians Point Fingers at Atheists to Cover Growing Corruption in Church

  • The bare faced lying for Jebus that goes on in the USA really boggles my mind. I’m sure we have it in the UK too but on a miniscule scale by comparison. Bill O’Reilly doesn’t even bother to pay lip service to the truth. I watched him go head to head with Jon Stewart a few years ago when he trotted out once again his hoary old lie that Hitler was an atheist despite Hitler identifying as a Catholic and a creationist in his own writings. Now again with the Virginia news reporter killings. I think something happens inside these people’s heads that whenever something bad happens the perpetrator can’t really be religious even if he says he is because only atheists do bad things.

    Part of it may also be akin to what is called in respect of the police “noble cause corruption” whereby lying to a suspect to try and entrap him is apparently fine but if a suspect lies to them in even the slightest respect that’s evidence of guilt. I think the religious crusade these people think they’re on makes it ok for them to lie because the ends justify the means. All very Machiavellian.

    This same ethos applies to evolution, global warming and anything else where the facts conflict with their dogma. Just deny, prevaricate, obfuscate and when all else fails then a lie isn’t really a lie when it’s the “good” guys doing it to the bad ones.



    Report abuse

  • From the article:

    when Christians get raptured or otherwise lose the upper hand, America will descend into the orgy of sex, violence, and anarchy depicted in the Left Behind books and movie.

    Violence – anarchy – orgies. One of these things is not like the others…
    The violence and anarchy aren’t my cup of tea but orgies of consenting adults are not a problem at all.



    Report abuse

  • @OP -This view feeds both righteous superiority and genuine anxiety among conservative Christians. One Facebook commenter named Georgia spelled it out:

    Atheists shake with contempt at the thought of love and decency. Their whole lives are dedicated to nothingness, to the gaping void of pain that nihilism defines. Indeed, atheists love pain. They love pain in their sexual rituals, in their drug addictions and in their secret globalist power schemes.

    Of course – “come and join my no-true-scotsman nicey-nicey self delusion”, and with psychological projection, attribute all that nastiness and imagined nastiness, to the straw-atheists who only exist in the delusions of faith-thinking!
    “If I slag-off other people, maybe the gullible may conclude I am a nice chap/lady in comparison” – But maybe the more observant and rational, will simply recognise the delusional babblings of a slanderous liar!

    Why do we have war? It’s the atheists who spread contempt of God and invite such reckless notions of communism and Islam.

    That must be the delusionist revised version of history.
    All those Islamic fighters who fought Christians in the crusades, were really only there, after atheists had cleared the land for them!? and were all converts from atheism! .. .. . and all those atheist gods of war and the military belt buckles with “atheism with us” inscribed on them”!

    It’s just as well they are preaching to faith-thinkers, because anyone with a working rational brain and any research capabilities would laugh at them!

    The expressions of the dichotomous brain!
    A whole world of servile, faithful, dogmatist sheeples, and of evil god-hating, heathen, religious and atheist heretics!
    With such a fumble-brained and jaundiced, blinkered, view of life, it is really no surprise that such people have no concept of considerate, ethical, clear thinking, atheist citizens, who are good neighbours! – But then they have no dictionary-based concept of truth or bearing false witness either!



    Report abuse

  • Laurie I agree about the violence, but all the other stuff sounds great. Having been brought up centuries ago in the Provisional wing of the RCC, I find that my enjoyment of anything is increased if I feel guilty about it: drink, sex, ice-cream, raw cream, getting up late…Being a believer has its advantages, you can blame it all on the Devil ( Hansie Cronje, match fixing), say God told you to (George Bush, Iraq) go to confession and do penance ( Father Marcial Maciel), so no responsibility, and no guilt. Athiests have no such get out, you do it, you take responsibility and take the pain, with no one to blame but yourself. Now who has no basis for morality?



    Report abuse

  • If you want to see lying for Jebus at its most gloriously insane then if you have the fortitude watch this clip of Dawkins “debating” evolution with someone called Wendy Wright.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWB6Yhxqy5k

    Now I hadn’t heard of her before but it seems she’s well known. I warn you, this is very hard to watch all the way through without wanting to claw your own eyes out or run screaming to the nearest off license.

    Apparently there is no evidence for evolution, when Richard directs her to where the evidence is he gets a patronising mocking laugh every time and an accusation of making ad hominen attacks on her by even suggesting she could look at the subject in more detail. The constant simpering smile, the wheedling “I’m really such a nice person” voice, the avoidance of any direct question put to her and the conflation of believing in evolution with wanting to treat people badly or even eugenics. I forced myself to watch all the way through a couple of days ago and am still recovering.

    She claims to have been jailed for six months just for praying which turns out she was really jailed for breaching a court injunction not to protest outside an abortion clinic.



    Report abuse

  • I have two suggestions as to why committed christians lie with such alacrity.

    1) The are so certain of the essential truth of their belief and that it is so obvious that they regard as irrelevant anything that they say which does not exactly represent this massive central truth. Its as though they say it with fingers crossed or a knowing wink; effectively they are playing or teasing the deluded non-believer and probably giving the ever present deity an little chuckle because of course he/she/it will be in on joke.

    2) They are so uncertain of the veracity of their espoused belief that they over-compensate for any challenge by resorting to ever more absurd justifications in a desperate attempt to convince themselves what they at their core know is utter balderdash. A case of “Methinks the lady doth protest to much”

    Now I’m not a psychiatrist, psychologist or any sort of trick cyclist., so I wonder if any of you more familiar with that field think I’m just burbling their atheistic equivalent, or whether I should be gathering the footnotes and aiming for the Nobel Prize in Human Dickheadedness



    Report abuse

  • I see in the news, that the pig-ignorant of that other brand of Abrahamic delusion, have been pointing fingers, hammers, chisels, and explosives, at archaeological monuments which “insulted their prophet” even before he was born!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34107395

    Palmyra’s ancient Temple of Bel is still standing despite an attempt by Islamic State (IS) militants to blow it up, Syria’s antiquities chief has said.

    Maamoun Abdulkarim confirmed there was a large explosion within its perimeter but said the basic structure of the 2,000-year-old site was intact.

    But the extent of the damage is unclear with witnesses unable to get close to the temple.

    Initial reports said the site had been partially destroyed.

    Last week, IS blew up the much smaller Baalshamin temple at the site. However, Mr Abdulkarim says that the explosion at the Temple of Bel was “different” to the “huge quantity of explosives” used to destroy the Baalshamin.



    Report abuse

  • The most amusing moment was when she referred to “Critical Factories”

    The most contortionist moment was when Richard bent double and referred to her as an “Intelligent person”

    The most “saintly” moment was that somehow he managed to avoid shaking and slapping the slimy, simpering, deaf to argument, ignoramus.

    It is with people like Wendy Wright that you realise that no amount of argument will ever penetrate the force field of the mental carapace that surrounds what in other people passes for a brain.
    Oh dear, I guess that passes for an ad hominem attack. I must try harder to behave like the magnificently non-strident Richard Dawkins



    Report abuse

  • Just FYI re Ad Hominem:

    Ad Hominem is not inherently a logical fallacy.

    It is only a fallacy when employed as the sole justification for an argument, in the absence of valid logic and relevant evidence. The reason it is labelled as a fallacy is because this form of pseudo-argument is often employed by people who lack real arguments or real evidence and so are compelled to resort to illusion. E.g. the form over substance approach where a statement is justified by a reason. It is used because it is effective, because the human mind’s convenient heuristic error checking process validates verbal propositions by verifying the presence of a reason – but the heuristics don’t extend to verifying the validity of the proffered reason. They just check for the existence of a reason in a grammatical sense. The ‘reason’ may be meaningless or a lie and have nothing to do with the concept of ‘reasoning’. And most people are too busy to bother with real logic or evidence. They instead rely on experts when they’re uncertain and anxious.

    And those same heuristics work to identify ‘experts’ based entirely on body language, tone of voice, posture, and accoutrements like clothing, hair, jewellery and other insignia. (Most scientists can never be ‘experts’ in this sense – even if they possess multiple Nobel prizes they will always lack the essential dress sense.)

    As long as the Ad Hominem is employed along with a reasonable justification then the Ad Homimen is not a logical fallacy, although it may still be a mistaken assumption. i.e. specifically wrong, but not inherently wrong as a class.

    It is considered good manners to avoid Ad Hominem attacks because it is unwise to risk being regarded as one of those twits who lacks any valid arguments. But when in the company of people who are not uncertain and anxious (and therefore don’t rely only on heuristics) and who can recognise both the relevant arguments as well as the validity of the Ad Hominem (as on this blog) then Ad Hominem becomes compulsory when discussing some topics. It is possibly the only relevant scientific and logical explanation.

    Your argument may potentially be logical invalid or incomplete if you fail to include the Ad Hominem component.



    Report abuse

  • Pete H
    Sep 2, 2015 at 4:36 am

    Just FYI re Ad Hominem:

    Ad Hominem is not inherently a logical fallacy.

    It is only a fallacy when employed as the sole justification for an argument, in the absence of valid logic and relevant evidence. The reason it is labelled as a fallacy is because this form of pseudo-argument is often employed by people who lack real arguments or real evidence and so are compelled to resort to illusion. E.g. the form over substance approach where a statement is justified by a reason.

    Your comment is a clear and accurate statement, -this far.

    As long as the Ad Hominem is employed along with a reasonable justification then the Ad Homimen is not a logical fallacy, although it may still be a mistaken assumption. i.e. specifically wrong, but not inherently wrong as a class.

    . . . . .. except that an objective evidence-based reasoned criticism is NOT an Ad Hominem. An ad-hominen is purely an unjustified attack on the person rather than the argument. The co-incidental implications of personal incompetence in a person presenting a grossly flawed argument, do not make the criticism of the argument an ad-hominem.
    An attack on Wendy Wright’s arguments on the basis of pointing out her history of imperviousness to reasoned argument, her “deaf-ears” in denial of evidence, and irrational responses, is not an ad-hominem – it is an objective observation of material which is on record, and relevant to the failures of logic in her responses to the argument in question.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
    An argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin for “to the person”) is a logical fallacy that occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. The fallacy is a genetic fallacy — the source of the argument is almost always irrelevant to its truth. Even if the ad hominem attack is true, that fact has no bearing on whether the disputant’s argument is logically sound.



    Report abuse

  • did i read that right? atheists are to blame for corruption in churches now?

    if i was a christian i’d read that as “stay away from churches, even our wizards and magic walls are powerless agasint the mighty satan”

    probably why i didn’t last very long as a christian



    Report abuse

  • In my limited experience of the fundamentalist young earth creationist mind which was one friend, Brian, for about 2 years over the course of many pub discussions the main thing that struck me was a sort of switch in his brain which filtered everything according to whether it agreed with the Bible or not. The Bible was inerrant so anything that disagreed with it was incorrect by definition. Regardless of evidence. He slid past any evidence by claiming there must be a flaw in it but god hadn’t yet seen fit to explain this to his sheeples but maybe would one day. This convenient switch can deal with evidence of any strength whatsoever. If no obvious flaws exist in the evidence then just resort to denying it. This included any contradictions or obvious errors in the bible itself. Even for example where one gospel says one thing and another gospel says another they must both still be correct but for reasons as yet unknown or perhaps even incomprehensible to flawed humans. It is not a position possible to argue with or debate in any rational way. God must have a reason for writing both contradictory things but we simply can’t appreciate it yet.

    It is based so entirely on irrationality that it precludes any logic or even common sense sinking in. Now Brian was I have to say was perfect fundamentalist fodder. A basic education which was completed without the obtaining of any qualifications whatsoever due to an IQ which was not exactly stellar. He was not subnormal by any definition and perfectly able to manage in the real world, just not academically gifted in any way. With almost zero science knowledge or even the basic ability to understand the rules of logic and evidence he swallowed what his religious parents taught him without question and then reached a position where questioning anything too deeply put him in danger of his soul and ever going to heaven.

    He was thus in the perfect catch 22 situation which religion aims at. Unable to question the nature of god or the bible and all its errors too deeply in case he lost his faith. The carrot of heaven and the stick of hell combine to close the mind so completely that an armour piercing anti tank shell could make no impression on it.

    When asked what his evidence for the existence of god was he said the bible. When asked why the bible should be taken as any authority he said because god wrote it. No way at all for anyone to break into that circular argument once the circle was fully closed.



    Report abuse

  • My thoughts exactly. The word “strident” also popped into my mind as I forced myself to watch the horror unfold for almost a full hour. I don’t think I could have remained in that woman’s company for 30 seconds without being overpowered by a need to commit acts of great violence. Richard managed it without even losing his temper mildly never mind becoming strident. Now it was him wanting to interview her rather than the reverse but even so it must have tested his fortitude. Whatever he’s getting paid it isn’t enough. I wonder how much he had to drink that evening. I’d have dived into a bottle and just stayed there until it blotted the memories out.



    Report abuse

  • 17
    Opened Mind says:

    Yes indeed, LaurieB. The pursuit and enjoyment of physical pleasure should be no problem at all, for anyone, but alas, our fundamentalist brothers and sisters deny themselves this because of a book, but more often, because a man – and usually a white man – stands before them and fervently exhorts how evil and sinful is the flesh. Yet this same man will use his influence and communication skills to take his pleasures from both sexes of his frightened flock, the ones who can best be easily taken advantage of – and the least likely to report or speak up of their abuse.



    Report abuse

  • Arkrid Sandwich
    Sep 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    In my limited experience of the fundamentalist young earth creationist mind which was one friend, Brian, for about 2 years over the course of many pub discussions the main thing that struck me was a sort of switch in his brain which filtered everything according to whether it agreed with the Bible or not.

    The problem with letting such people near children, is that feel obligated by their delusions to disable the child’s reasoning capabilities and development, in order to pretend their “faith-thinking” is coherent.
    Hence the addled anti-logic thinking, passes the disability from parents, or proselytisers to people like your friend.



    Report abuse

  • It doesn’t matter what labels you decide put on the various groups, religions, flags etc – there will always be fighting and killing. It’s in the nature of the beast – genes, I believe.



    Report abuse

  • Clive
    Sep 2, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    I didn’t understand why Richard disapproved of a “Darwin World”. What have I missed?.

    The brutal competitive ruthless world of the “selfish gene” is contra to the altruism of civilised behaviour in co-operative societies.

    The brutal disregard of the sufferings of individuals, is more in keeping with the actions of religious dogmatists, and ideological dogmatists, who put the survival of their memes, before the interests of individuals or communities.



    Report abuse

  • 22
    TwoReplies says:

    while atheists (who lack any basis for ethics or morality) spend their empty lives in pursuit of money and sex

    Um…. NO. FUCK Bill O’Reilly

    Christians have just a little (if not LESS) basis for their ethics and morality as atheists.

    This is because the bible (which is what they they use/reference to justify their chosen ethical / moral stance on issues) can be and is interpreted in ANY WAY IMAGINABLE.

    So the fact that they have religion and atheists don’t is irrelevant.

    It’s that we atheists are PERSONALLY accountable for their morality/ethics, while religious people will hide behind their cherry-picked verses. They’ll say “I’m not wrong, because that’s what god/bible/jesus/preacher/<insert_religious_scapegoat_here> told me!” instead of taking personal responsibility for their own moral decisions.

    When you give up thinking and personal moral accountability, in favor it being dictated by someone/something else, you have NOTHING to be proud of. You’re merely a moral/ethical coward, without a moral/ethical backbone.

    So between an atheist, (who can discern right from wrong without a religious CRUTCH)…

    …and a religious person (who needs to turn to an imaginary friend or a book of questionable moral worth (it advocates murder and rape and other immoral acts for fucks sake!) )….
    … one would be better off presuming the ATHEIST to be the person with the stronger morals.

    Because it’s the atheist that is accountable.



    Report abuse

  • 25
    Stephen says:

    That “atheists shake with contempt… ” thing: by “atheists”, does she mean “non-Chistians”? “those who reject Christianity” (this excludes the ancient Greeks, who had never heard of Christianity) or “those who believe in no god” (so Hindu’s, ancient Egyptians and followers of various native African religions are not athiests). Perhaps she doesn’t mean anything and just says whatever words she think will have impact, apparently changing her message every 5 minutes.

    It is interesting, all the ills that she mentions – drug addiction, sex addiction, power addiction – all addictions an attempt to escape pain. That’s what therapy for a drug addiction or sex addiction often is – facing the pain that the behaviour was masking.

    Pain isn’t caused by being an atheist. It is caused by being human. Or dog, or cat, or monkey, or bird…

    I am not at all anti-christian, but I can only lament that there are people who think that some sort of ceremony or pledge (“let Jesus into your heart”) divides us into those who have love and those who don’t. I’ve known a few such people. They usually have some deep struggle with their own self worth. The problem is, they’ve solved it by denying that others have worth… Chilling.



    Report abuse

  • About 15 minutes was all I could endure. Richard must surely possess the “saint” gene.

    Perhaps it came later in the interview, but I hear all this talk about a “loving god” and I think about childhood cancer, various nasty infectious diseases, and starvation (for starters). Perhaps this was explained off as the usual “mysterious ways” bat shit. I couldn’t waste any more time.

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • Malster
    Sep 2, 2015 at 4:23 pm

    It doesn’t matter what labels you decide put on the various groups, religions, flags etc – there will always be fighting and killing. It’s in the nature of the beast – genes, I believe.

    It may be in the genes to some extent, but history shows, the “them and us”, “in-group” and “out-group” divisions which generate wars, bigotry, and disputes, are much more strongly represented in the memes of religions and ideologies.
    It is the underlying substance of cultures which make the differences.
    The labels are not indicative of any equivalence of the groups, as labels are just words.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – Atheists shake with contempt at the thought of love and decency. Their whole lives are dedicated to nothingness, to the gaping void of pain that nihilism defines. Indeed, atheists love pain. They love pain in their sexual rituals, in their drug addictions and in their secret globalist power schemes.

    Meanwhile – leaving projections of delusional fantasy behind: – back in the real world:-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34184967
    A former bishop has admitted sexually assaulting two young men in the 1980s and 1990s.

    Peter Ball, 83, former Bishop of Lewes and Bishop of Gloucester, pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault at the Old Bailey.

    He also admitted misconduct in public office between 1977 and 1992.

    Ball faced allegations of abusing boys and young men in Litlington, East Sussex, after a review by the Church of England in 2012 prompted police action.

    He had failed in a bid to get his case thrown out after he claimed he accepted a caution in 1993 and was told it included other offences of the same nature.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.