This is taken right from the website of American Atheists, which was founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and one of the most visible godless organizations in the world. They stand out as a mouthpiece for the typical garden-variety professing atheist here and abroad.
POSITIVE! We are for solutions to human problems here and now, not in some never-never land after death. The concept of a place where all human needs are fulfilled and there is no hunger, poverty, or disease is an attainable goal here and now through human effort and interaction.
If atheists are "positive" by nature, then what is the necessity of the condescending comment about a "never-never land after death"?
And where are the atheist-run Rescue Missions, soup kitchens, Medical ships, after-school programs, Third World assistance organizations, and alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs? There are a number of secular programs (mostly run by tax dollars) and private programs, but where is the privately funded atheist equivalent of the Salvation Army, the world's 2nd largest welfare organization, 2nd only to the United Nations?
Atheists love to pull out the example of Bill Gates and his now full-time dedication to philanthropy, but that appears to be the exception more than the rule.
Atheists are by their own definition Utopians, but statistically, they don't show much effort in helping all of us get there.
ECLECTIC! We draw information from a variety of sources around us, selecting the best to be applied to the solution of human problems. We do not limit ourselves, as does the theist, to a set spectrum of allowable information with dogmatic systems based on subject faith.
Are not all systems for the solution of human problems faith-based until we act upon them? And what if these "other sources" don't work? Atheists, by definition, wouldn't consider a faith-based or religious solution to anything, even if it turns out to best way of fixing a problem. They are no more open-minded than their religious counterparts.
INNER-DIRECTED! This is in distinction to being outer-directed as the theist is. We rely on ourselves for the solutions to our problems. We realize that we have but three areas from which we can draw guidelines to aid us: natural history, human history, and communication with our fellow human beings. We cannot rely on supernatural intervention into our problem-solving processes.
What a silly comment. The decision to believe in God and follow God's will is in fact an INNER decision. God is not a puppetmaster or a ventriloquist. This declaration by atheists denies that believers have the same free will as non-believers.
And what are believers commanded to do once they learn what to do? ACT upon it, the same way Jesus did when He and his followers helped the poor and ailing.
INDEPENDENT! We have no system of dependence on rigid dogmas to govern the events of our daily lives. The theist relies on a set of specific rules of conduct on a daily basis. Such a person is dependent upon those rules to function normally. An Atheist can function normally in society without reference to any arbitrary set of rules for his conduct.
This comment spreads the myth that atheists are morally superior to religious believers. I'd like to see the atheist community pull out a set of statistics that PROVES, not IMPLIES, that real professing atheists are less likely to lie, cheat, or steal than real, hard-core Christians.
However, this line of reasoning by American Atheists explains quite nicely how Joseph Stalin, after dropping out of seminary school and declaring himself an atheist, could justify the enslavement and needless deaths of 25 million Russians in the building of a Communist regime. After all, his conscience was his guide, wasn't it?
HAPPY! Atheists are content with their life-style. They are *not* unhappy that they have not chosen a closed theistic system inside of which they must operate. Atheists are comfortable and content with a life-style free from theism.
When was the last time you heard a "happy" atheist on a radio call-in program? When was the last time you read anything "happy" from an atheist on a blog? Just check out the American Atheists website. It is loaded with articles that bash religion and attempts to ridicule religious believers at every turn. Is this what you expect to see and hear from "happy", "positive" people?
On top of that, have you ever read any accounts of the life and personality of American Atheists' founder, Ms. Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Her own son's testimony revealed Ms. O'Hair to be one of the meanest, most foul-mouthed, and derogatory human beings you'd ever run across. Although American Atheists have tried to sugar-coat the memory of Ms. O'Hair, you'll discover that the emerging Positive Atheism Movement was attempting to distance themselves from her because she was becoming a public embarrassment. Even worse, Ms. O'Hair was funneling money from American Atheists to fund her own lavish lifestyle while the organization's employees went unpaid. So much for atheist moral superiority! I guess Ms. O’Hair’s happiness exceeded the needs of her employees.
CONCERNED WITH PRESERVATION OF FREEDOM! We know that one is born within a circle of freedom. The size of that circle is directly proportional to the number of freedoms one enjoys. It is the duty of each of us to see to it that during our lifetime that circle of freedom is never decreased, that it either remains the same size or is enlarged. We know that if we allow it to decrease that the following generation will have a smaller circle with which to start. Each generation must preserve the freedoms gained by the previous generation and enlarge on them if possible. Each freedom that is preserved is a stepping stone toward the achievement and preservation of the ultimate freedom: freedom of the mind. In keeping with this concern, Atheists have a dual attitude toward religion. From a logical perspective, religion is untenable and even harmful to the human thought process; it is something to be held in contempt of logic and reason. From a legal perspective, however, profession of religion is the civil right of any individual. If a man wishes to believe he is a tree, for example, that is his prerogative as long as he does not interfere with anyone else. When there is interference on the part of the religious community, the Atheist can and does object.
Hmmm… I guess that means criminals enjoy a larger “circle of freedom” than the rest of us law-abiding folks.
I’d also like to know in what way the atheists are working to achieve “freedom of the mind” when that freedom already exists. This aspiration by American Atheists flies in the face of the sad fact that atheistically-based totalitarian governments are guilty of doing whatever they can to limit and control what people think just as much as any hard-core theocracy. History has proven that time and time again.
I’d like to see some proofs of to how religion is “harmful” to the human thought process, and in contempt of logic and reason, when some of the greatest minds that ever existed believed in God. Guess what? Those are just more empty words from the morally superior atheist crowd.
And where does the atheist support a religious believer’s rights under the Constitution? In working vigorously to make sure there’s no mention of God or Christianity in public schools, American Atheists, and their friends in the ACLU, are insuring that all kids in public schools receive a covert indoctrination in atheism. This especially true in the Life Sciences, where godless naturalism is king. The public arena, despite claims to contrary, is not neutral where it comes to religion. It is pro-atheist.
The notion that American Atheists has a “dual attitude” towards religion is just another bald-faced lie. American Atheists has a single attitude towards religion and their website proves it. Their attitude is that religion is useless, destructive, and should disappear forever. It’s just too bad that they’re not intellectually honest enough to admit this in their “creed”.
Trying to excuse the commentary by this organization by disassociating American Atheists from so-called “Positive Atheists” won’t hold water here. American Atheists represents mainline atheism. I don’t see a whole lot of atheists denouncing these people as “fringe dwellers” or “kooks”. If atheists are going to point to extreme examples of Christian hypocrisy like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, or David Koresh as being representative of mainline Christians, I’m well within my intellectual rights to hold out Madalyn Murray O’Hair and American Atheists as poster children of the modern atheist movement.
Here’s an interesting quote by Dr. Carl Sagan, who is admired by atheists everywhere:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists..." (As quoted in the first webpage link to which I refer, above; also found in "Broca's Brain").
And here’s an interesting analysis of the meaning of “atheism”, taken from:
”For my own part, I esteem professed agnostics much more highly than I do professed atheists. In reality, though, I've discovered that professed atheists are, in truth, nothing more nor less than agnostics. Ask any atheist to prove their case for atheism, and they will, invariably, say, with their usual irascible vehemence, "There is no proof; not one shred or sliver or scintilla of proof, that any 'God' or group of 'gods' exists!" Well, of course, this is, plainly and simply, an agnostic statement. At the core, any professed atheist is, therefore, really an agnostic.
In my opinion, any man or woman is at perfect liberty to say, agnostically, that there is no legitimate proof of there being a God (or group of gods). Likewise, any man or woman is at perfect liberty to say, theistically, that there is plenty of legitimate proof of there being a God (or group of gods). But, as I see it, no man or woman can say, with impunity, that there is no God, or group of gods, at all.
But, naturally, you can never convince an atheist that he/she is really an agnostic. I have, far more often than not, found atheists to be incapable of mature conversation, let alone reason.”
Atheists, by and large, don’t really practice any more of what they preach than garden-variety, lukewarm Christians, yet they insist on proclaiming their own mental and moral superiority through straw man arguments against Christianity. Perhaps it’s time for the atheist crowd to take a pooper-scooper to their own backyards before pointing their fingers at Christianity’s so-called “flaws”.