LETTER: The tragedy of atheism

Posted by

in Opinions

Sunday, September 12. 2010

Comments (35)

Dear Editor:

“Beulah! Peel me a grape!” Who could forget Mae West’s famous quip in her film, “I’m No Angel”? Her ribald lines were delivered in a lazy, mocking elocution that had audiences either loving her bawdiness or up in arms over propriety. The line was hilarious because of the visual of Mae telling her maid to peel the tiny fruit, an effort that was ridiculous but perfect in highlighting her character’s gross self-centeredness.

“God! Peel me a grape!” is the same attitude non-believers exhibit today. Their laziness, mocking tone, and orders to bring them some evidence of God and then they’ll think about it, only serve to highlight their gross self-centeredness in which they proudly luxuriate.

Imagine if your loving husband, your groom, daily gave you beautiful gifts. He served you, ministered to you when you were sick, told you that could trust him completely. You know he never would leave you. One day, he says into your ear, “I love you!” and you answer, “Prove it! Bring me evidence!”

Jesus healed, ministered, told us in a thousand ways that He loves us and wants to be with us forever. He even dispensed with His own glory, and poured Himself into the form of a man, and washed feet, served food, and died for us. And when you relate this eternal fact to unbelievers, they scream, “Prove it! Produce some evidence!”

This selfish attitude should not surprise us. We are told by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 that people will act this way in the last days. This is an age of unrestrained revelry and self-indulgence. America has become a populace of orgiastic Romans lying on dining couches demanding to be fed, served, and indulged. Humility, diligent searching and submission are anathema to our culture.

The tragedy is that a whole class of people deliberately shrink their world to the provable and seen. Their world is littered with decaying peeled grapes, while the believer’s world will be eternal and perfect. Even in Paul’s day this attitude of “serve me” was prevalent: “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” (1 Corinthians 22-23)

The tragedy is in the non-believer passively lying on a reclining Roman couch, demanding evidence when the bible says “Look to the Lord and his strength; seek his face always.” (Psalm 105:4). This is an active command, not a passively receptive one.

How do we accept Jesus? Admit your sin. Yes, we all do wrong things, and we should be sorry for those. Apologize to Jesus and ask Him to be your Savior (saving you from eternal separation from Him) and your Lord, (humbling yourself and admitting you need Him to lead you in life). Immediately you begin to understand how low you really are in your sin, and how permanently you deserve to be low forever compared to His holiness and glory.

However, far from your worst fears realized, that this is a permanent abasement, (as it should be) instead in His mercy He will lift you up! He will give you good work! A plan for your life that is better than the one you created for yourself! Talents and abilities to accomplish this work! A guarantee of your place in heaven and an inheritance of eternal life! It is within your reach, non-believer. But first, you have to get off the couch.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Prata

Comer

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 Bill on 09/12/10 at 06:33 PM [Reply]

Elizabeth,

I could tell you how terrible the Christian culture has been for many people over the years. The wars, burnings, toture, etc,..all in the name of Jesus. I could make fun of your religion, but that wouldn't be very christian of me.

#2 Ben Had on 09/12/10 at 09:31 PM [Reply]

Believe whatever you need to believe to get on in this life, but don't expect everybody to accept faith over facts. It's just not logical.

The factual evidence of evolution is overwhelming. It is a fact that we observe to be true every time a bacterium becomes resistant to antibiotics, or a flu virus gets resistant to last year's flu shot (which is why we need a new flu shot every year), or when we breed dairy cows to get better milkers, or racehorses to get new champions, or cocker spaniels with floppier ears. All of those are absolutely cases of observed EVOLUTION.

"The tragedy of Atheism" is a new one on me. But the tragedy of Religion is well documented historical fact.

Pure nonsense.

#2.1 Sardonic Veracity on 09/13/10 at 09:42 AM [Reply]

There may be ample evidence for evolution, however, there is no evidence for evolution as a means of creation.

Good try, though, to attempt to paint a theory (such as evolution) as a law (such as gravity.)

#2.1.1 Ben Had on 09/13/10 at 01:04 PM [Reply]

Just stating the facts.
I guess you believe that a guy named Adam was the first living being on this planet,and that Eve was made from one of his ribs?
I presume the Bible is your source of evidence concerning creation?

Not, a good try.

#2.1.1.1 Sardonic Veracity on 09/14/10 at 06:32 AM [Reply]

Your presumption is partially correct. Evidently that this is the case with many of your presumptions. There are many theories of creation, even within Christianity. The first twelve chapters of Genesis are an interpretation of Hebrew poetry. Beliefs of individuals vary even within fundamental denominations as to how those may be interpreted further.

As one of the oldest source documents available, how can you, as a "scientist," completely disregard it out of hand? For clarification, Eve was not made from the rib of Adam alone. There was also dirt involved.

You say you prefer facts? There are none to explain evolution as a creatino scenario. The only "fact" that is evident is your refusal to consider but one theory.

I wasn't trying. The truth comes with little effort.

#2.1.1.1.1 Ben Had on 09/14/10 at 09:05 AM [Reply]

Umm.. I was raised in the Christian church. Knew of no other creation theories until I was a teenager, therefore your statement,"The only "fact" that is evident is your refusal to consider but one theory." is a mute point.
I was able to shed the brainwashing of my youth,although it took many years. Information and other view points were not as readily available back then as they are nowadays.

I could say here that the Big Bang theory has been proven to be the beginning of OUR creation,but you would have some silly faith-based rebuttal that puts God on top irregardless of what the facts are.
That's fine. Whatever gets you thru the night.

Religion hates science, that's a fact too. But,when forced to,religion adapts changes to absorb the facts brought on by scientific discovery; see a flat world. Also, you might consider the Earth being the center of the universe theory, as another example.

We like to think of ourselves as being advanced intellectually, but we're not even smart enough to let go of these childish explanations of life,and death.
I think 1000 years from now that these times will be considered part of the Dark Ages, and we will be viewed in the same light as people who lived 1000 years ago.
Thanks for your contribution to that future scenario.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 Sardonic Veracity on 09/14/10 at 01:54 PM [Reply]

Don't put words into my mouth, you sad little man.

#2.1.1.1.1.2 Aly on 09/17/10 at 08:41 AM [Reply]

Hey - why didn't anyone point out that Ben Had used the word "irregardless"? Now it's a FACT that's not a word. Just sayin'.

#2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Ben Had on 09/17/10 at 09:41 AM [Reply]

I have been known to say "ain't, as well.
I should have said "regardless".
That you, Einstein, for pointing that out.

#2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Ben Had on 09/17/10 at 10:48 AM [Reply]

Guess I should proof read this stuff a little better.

#2.1.2 Joe on 09/17/10 at 12:48 AM [Reply]

A scientific law explains something while a theory describes how it works.

They are two completely different things. Your comment of trying to paint a theory as a law shows your level of intelligence. Go read a book and LEARN something.

#2.1.2.1 Sardonic Veracity on 09/20/10 at 01:47 PM [Reply]

So, you're saying it should instead be the "hypothesis of evolution as a mode of creation?"

#2.2 Anonymous on 09/13/10 at 09:55 AM [Reply]

In all fairness, evolution by its very definition does not explain the creation of anything. Something had to be there to evolve in the first place. Creation and evolution can peacefully coexist if you will just use your brain.

#2.2.1 Ben Had on 09/13/10 at 01:14 PM [Reply]

At least there seems to be some acceptance of evolution in the process by the faithful believers, which is a huge leap forward in my lifetime.

Creation and evolution can peacefully coexist in YOUR brain,if that's what you need.

I prefer facts.

#2.2.1.1 Anonymous on 09/14/10 at 08:11 AM [Reply]

How do you explain away the facts supporting Christianity? My guess is that you haven't fully considered all of the evidence but rather have based your opinion on many Christians who aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed (and believe me there are quite a few).

#2.2.1.1.1 Ben Had on 09/14/10 at 10:59 AM [Reply]

What facts are you referring to?
I'm not aware of any that exist,and that has nothing to do with the Christians that I know.

#2.2.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 09/14/10 at 02:14 PM [Reply]

Evidence supporting that the Bible is indeed true is a good place to start. Take a look at the manuscript evidence, archaeological records, prophesies that have been fulfilled, as well as statistical records. Next, a historical approach to not only the physical existence of Jesus but also the divine claims of Jesus and the resurrection. I realize you say you aren't aware of any facts, but have you ever honesty looked for facts or just merely assusmed they do not exist? If you approach this with an open mind, you may be surprised what you will find.

In a similar manner, do you believe that George Washington existed and was the first president of the United States? How would you go about making your case? Try applying these same principles to Jesus. On the basis of fact, it is difficult, if not impossible, to dismiss Christianity; however, you can't just completely ignore the facts and pretent they don't exist.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Ben Had on 09/15/10 at 08:50 AM [Reply]

You just said a mouthful of nothing.

I never said Jesus didn't exist,to the contrary,I definitely believe he lived. I also believe that he was a very good man,a mortal man,not the son of some God. I believe his death proves his mortality.
But, although I believe he existed, there is no proof of it. Sorry.
Can you give me some idea where to find this evidence that you speak of?
Even if someone found his birth certificate,what would that prove?

There is plenty of proof that George Washington existed. What a terrible example to defend your position with.

The Bible is full of answers to the questions of life and death, for those that lived several thousand years ago.
That was before we knew what was beyond the visable sky, or very much about anything else.

The Bible was written 100 years after the death of Jesus, by people that didn't know him. All based on heresay evidence.
How credible is that?

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 09/15/10 at 09:47 AM [Reply]

Secular Roman historians (Josephus, Lucian, Seutonius, and Tacitus among others) had plenty to say concerning the existence of Jesus, just as historians of our time would concerning George Washington. By your claim, I suppose you can produce Washington's birth certificate? This is not a terrible example to defend the position with if you consider historical sources and not just rely upon your perceptions of common knowledge.

Conerning the timeframe of the Bible, your information is simply uninformed and incorrect. Most historians place the earliest surviving manuscripts of the gospel accounts of the New Testament around 65 A.D., or approximately thirty years after the death of Jesus. These were written by people who knew Jesus, but with a timeframe such as this the vast majority of the population would be able to discern whether the events recorded actually happened or not. It would be roughly the modern equivalent of recalling the events of the 1980s. An important distinction is that these accounts were not hearsay however. Transmission of history through what is commonly known as oral tradition was common in antiquity, and memory was an important skill in ancient contexts. This is well documented by sources such as Plato and Pliny the Elder. This was often the means of recording and preserving historical data in the day. With this being the standard means of recording history, I would ask at what point does history become valid for you? You may be willing to commit intellectual suicide, but I cannot simply dismiss supported historical accounts.

You also asked what the existence of Jesus would prove. Based on the historical accounts, Jesus made explicit claims to be the son of God. I would refer you to the argument first posed by C.S. Lewis known as the trilemma as a source to consider in evaluating the significance of this.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ben Had on 09/15/10 at 12:07 PM [Reply]

David Koresh also claimed to be the son of God, as well as many others have throughout time. The FBI crucified him. He's still dead, as far as I know.

I'm not sure that I would describe Josephus as a "Secular Roman historian". He was a Jewish historian,look it up.

Lucian was a Greek satrical writer, not a historian. He does make reference to Christians,but not in a good way.He puts Jesus on the same level as Socrates.

Tacitus was a Roman historian. He does speak of Christianity, and describes it as a," most mischievous superstition".

I'm not debating whether Jesus lived or not, I've already said that I believe he did. These facts that you have presented only prove that Christians were around at that time, not that Jesus is the son of God.

Hey, you believe whatever you need to believe,I've said that from the start.
But,faith is what you have,not facts.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 09/16/10 at 09:15 AM [Reply]

The claims of David Koresh are easily refuted, the trilemma argument concerning the divine claims of Jesus is a little more difficult. It may be a little presumptuous, I will be bold enough to say you can't even come close to refuting the argument.

As far as the historians (not that it is that big of a deal), you are correct in that Josephus was a Jewish historian, but he was also a Roman citizen living in Rome. Maybe I should have clarified Jewish-Roman. As far as Lucian, I should have listed as a secular reference instead of grouping, but based on his own writings Lucian placed a high value upon historical accuracy and would have been in a position to know whether or not Jesus had genuine historial roots. Although he is negative concerning Christians, given his satirical nature, he would have raised any relevant doubts to enhance the value of his satire if he could have.

And since you feel that all I have is faith and not facts, I would like to ask what facts you have proving God doesn't exist. I'm talking real facts, not the "facts" you have listed on here such as "religion hates science". There are far more facts supporting Christianity than a position of atheism. It seems to me that it requires more faith to be an atheist, but I'm interested in what facts you claim to have.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ben Had on 09/17/10 at 10:23 AM [Reply]

I will try to be brief;
Your "trilemma' is the invention of writer C.S. Lewis. I give him about the same amount of credibility as I do L. Ron Hubbard,who was the fiction writer that created Scientolgy.
Whoopee!
The trilemma gives 3 options;
Lord, Lunatic, or Liar. Well respected theologians have suggested the need for a fourth option, that being Myth or Legend.

Many theologians disagree with the trilemma based on the claims of Divinity, or Jesus being the Lord. They say that Jesus never claimed to be the Lord, but rather his followers tagged him as such after his death.
You need to look some of this stuff up before you present it as facts.
C.S. Lewis was a Writer that died in the 1960's. How does that make him an authority on the subject,or give him the authority to present a definitive test of proof that Jesus is the Lord,such as the Trilemma?
Total nonsense.

How can I prove God doesn't exist? Well, I can't. Of course,I can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist either. Or Leprechauns, or trolls, or Bigfoot.

But, if he does exist, maybe he could step in the next time an Earthquake drops a freeway onto 9000 people in LA, or a Tsunami kills several million people at once,or some idiots try to fly planes into buildings in his name, or some plague wipes out half the population, or some...well you get the idea.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 09/17/10 at 11:22 AM [Reply]

Well, if nothing else you've proven you know how to do a quick search on Wikipedia and then pretend you know what you're talking about. Lewis's credibility is not the issue (even though I disagree with your assessment of his authority). What we're looking at is the merit and logic of his argument. Don't confuse the two. Which specific theologians are you referring to that you claim have refuted this argument (and if you're pulling the ones listed on Wikipedia I will be happy to provide you with links offering rebuttals. These are too easy to refute)? Also, concerning the divine claims and specific angle you are working claiming his followers tagged him as such, from a logic standpoint try applying the same principles of the trilemma arguemt. In other words, they were either telling the truth and they knew it, they were telling a lie and they knew it, or they were telling a lie and didn't know it because they misunderstood. I suspect you're already leaning toward the thrid option but keep in mind it is highly unlikely that Jesus' claims were misunderstood especially when these claims are clearly straightfoward when viewed in the context of the time and place they were made. Also, as far as the natural disaster and existence of evil reference, I don't claim to understand why these things happen, but I do know that God does not always conform to the mold that we as humans feel that he should. That doesn't make God any less real.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ben Had on 09/17/10 at 06:02 PM [Reply]

Look, you're brainwashed,and there is no reasoning with a brainwashed person. Reminds me of those misguided idiots(Heavens Gate) that drank the poison in order to catch a ride on the Mother Ship that trailed the Hale Bop comet. They didn't think they were brainwashed.
Jim Jones' followers also come to mind.

CS Lewis was a writer that died in 1968. He has no credibility at all to non believers, but he did make a good living off of naive people like you.

Don't you like L. Ron Hubbard? He's a good writer with some pretty big ideas about religion too. I noticed you didn't have anything to say about him.

You know which theologians I was referring. Several Arch Bishops and such. I guess you think Lewis was more learned than these men who dedicated their lives to the Church.

"God does not always conform to the mold that we as humans feel that he should. That doesn't make God any less real."
Lame. Are you a Preacher? That only makes sense to the Choir,sir.

I'm going to let you have the last word though, because at some point you just have to realize that you are dealing with a brainwashed person, and that logic,reason and facts mean nothing.

You haven't presented any facts, and have dodged mine with very predictable comeback rhetoric.
If you are a Preacher, you are certainly not a very good one.

For me, the answer to the trilemma question is obvious, Jesus was a Lunatic that believed he was God. His followers were liars,to answer your question.
I'm finished.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 09/18/10 at 01:09 PM [Reply]

Remind me again what facts you have presented and how they have been avoided. The only fact it looks like you have presented is that C.S. Lewis died in the 1960's. And just so I can't be accused of avoiding it, the content I was discussing was not an argument posed by L. Ron Hubbard. I fail to see how any of his work (or the work of any other writers who write on religious themes) is relevant to the present discussion. If you feel that trying to interject stuff such as this and Heavens Gates, etc. makes a difference, then so be it. Anyone looking at this from a logic standpoint merely sees it to be what is known as a correlative fallacy.

#3 Anonymous on 09/12/10 at 10:38 PM [Reply]

You sound judgmental. And mean. That's a real turn-off.

#3.1 bob on 09/13/10 at 12:54 PM [Reply]

People who are afraid need religion it gives them a warm fuzz inside. It is easy to justify war and murder by saying its gods will or god will take care of them now. When it comes to the unknown they always say it was gods plan. It like a parent telling a child when he asks a question they dont know the answer to they say because thats how god made it, and to avoid the question how did I get here god made you. The idea of being forgiving for sins and wrongs that people make and being able to be forgiven for it makes live easier and most people need that. Look at all the harm people have done in gods name Indians could not have ceremonies because christians felt it was against god. Muslims stoneing women, killing in the name of god, the saleem witch trials, and the list goes on and on all in the name of a GOD. MOST Christians walk around with there nose in the air like they are better than everyone, and seem so brain washed to the real world. (Note I said Most not all)

#4 Anonymous on 09/13/10 at 04:44 PM [Reply]

Bill,

My guess is you're speaking of the crusades. Those events were in the name of religion and the church, not Jesus himself. You speak as if you know Him and what his followers stand for. If, in fact, you did have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ you would know without a doubt that those terrible events were not carried out in His name because He didn't teach hatred or violence. But for all non believers I offer this response: When we die (and we all will), what have I lost if I'm wrong versus what you've lost if you're wrong. Truth is not relative, it's absolute. If the posted speed limit is 55, that limit is the same for everyone. Try telling the police officer "That speed limit doesn't apply to me" and see how he responds. Even the demons know that there is a God.

#4.1 Ben Had on 09/14/10 at 06:42 AM [Reply]

I think the Crusades are just one of the examples that Bill is talking about,there are hundreds more.
Your explanantion and warning to non-believers is more suitable for children than adults.

#4.1.1 Anonymous on 09/14/10 at 09:02 AM [Reply]

You can take a horse and make it better, you can take cows and make them better, but you cannot take a horse and evole it into anything other than a horse. Neither can you take a cow and make it into anything other than a cow. If evolution is possible, why can no one evole anything today? Why? Because only God is the author of life

#4.1.1.1 Ben Had on 09/14/10 at 10:47 AM [Reply]

What? No one said anything about evolving one species into another.
Man is a member of the Primate family,that's a fact. Monkeys belong to that family as well,another fact. The oldest fossil remains that link us together are about 4 million years old,they were discovered last year. Not monkey,but the same family. The missing link.
(here is where someone questions carbon 14 dating. It's the same guy that thinks Obama is a Muslim,and isn't a U.S. citizen.)

We are evolving today. The size of our brain is larger and more developed than our recent ancestors, as well as hand dexterity. We are also taller in just the last 100 years.
We are currently evolving intellectually to meet the needs and task that confront us.
We don't need another arm.
All facts.

#4.2 Bill on 09/15/10 at 08:54 AM [Reply]

Actually, I was talking about the past and present. People are using the name of Jesus and the church(s) to still destroy people and their lives. Maybe not so much by the sword in this day and age but by the pen and puplit. You want examples? Just take some time, look around, travel around rural Georgia, where I happen to live, and talk to people about such things as homosexuality, Muslims, liberals, etc.. See the 'Christian' answers you get. Drive around and read some of the church billboards they all seem to have. Once, a few years ago, I lost my job. After a few months I ran out of money while looking for more work. I went to a Baptist church who was offering free foodstuffs. They asked me if I was a Baptist. I said no, but I was raised a Catholic. I got a fearful look and was told to go into this office where, during a hour long interview, I was told if I didn't become reborn, I wouldn't get a box of food. I and my wife went hungry for the next few day. Really Christian, huh?

#5 Anonymous on 09/14/10 at 10:52 AM [Reply]

I feel sorry for poor Ms. Prata. Why does she feel the need to act out so? Sad? Lonely? Depressed? Afraid? Unfortunately writing judgmental, angry letters to the paper doesn't help. She just seems to get more angry, more frustrated, then writes even more letters. A vicious cycle; a downward spiral.

#6 E.J. on 09/14/10 at 11:49 AM [Reply]

This letter writer is pretty good at writing; might make a good preacher if she is not already.

I’ve been around for over half a century, and I have been hearing that “the last days” are upon us for that whole time. I’ve found this said in history books from way, way before my time as well. I wonder how many days are included in Paul’s prediction. I do think our USA may very well be following the example of the Roman Empire what with the current level of greed and “self-indulgent” trends. Historically, great ‘empires’ typically last 200 to 300 years and America is there. Can we not learn from history in time to at least decline gracefully?

The writer makes an assumption that negates her point. She assumes that atheists/agnostics feel a need for a heaven and/or eternal life. They do not, so why should they “get off the couch”? Perhaps they genuinely have no personal need whatsoever for any kind of supernatural anything. It’s others who have that need, for whatever reason, and it’s a complete mystery to them as to why. I say, leave them alone. Atheists/agnostics don’t seem to be any better or worse people than the average person. They will “get off the couch” only when they personally feel something spiritual missing in themselves. If that be the case, then they have a world of options to choose from, Christianity being just one, and it wouldn’t be like they wouldn’t know about it since Christians (as well as others) have been deriding them for centuries. What choice do you think they would make to fulfill their spiritual needs?

#7 Anonymous on 09/15/10 at 08:50 PM [Reply]

She is a mean old lady.

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment: E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
Phone*

What is seven minus four?
: Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
: Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

LETTER: The tragedy of atheism

MadisonJournalTODAY

LETTER: The tragedy of atheism

Recent Stories

Recent Comments

Sister Sites

Archives

Community

Keyword Tags