Most of the culture war fights we see in modern society pit Christian Theism against Naturalism. This is where such topics as abortion, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, critical race theory, and sexual immorality are prominent in the news.
But a new fight has broken out that is pitting different denominations of Naturalism against each other, and some of it is not very pretty. One place we see it is where some on the left fight for women’s rights vs. others who fight for transgenders to be allowed to participate in women’s sports.
A new one has raised its head recently – this one between Naturalists who believe only in promoting what can be demonstrated by science, and those who believe in putting relativistic morality above everything.
Perhaps you are familiar with the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF). According to their website: “The Freedom From Religion Foundation is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for atheists, agnostics, and nontheists.” They are very active in the public square, often taking various government entities and schools to court to force them to disavow any connection to what they consider “religion” (usually Christianity). They sue for such things as having the 10 Commandments taken off of courthouse walls, keeping local governments from placing Nativity scenes on public property, forcing schools to keep students from praying, and the like.
Maybe you are also familiar with Richard Dawkins. He is a British evolutionary biologist who became famous for advocating for naturalistic evolution, and against belief in God. He is very much an Atheist.
Thus, it is not surprising at all that he was on the board of FFRF for around 15 years. That, however, recently came to an end when he abruptly resigned. You can read the story at (https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/dawkins-transgender-gender/2025/01/02/id/1193688).
It seems that American Atheist Jerry Coyne wrote an article that was published on the FFRF website entitled Biology Is Not Bigotry. It was a rebuttal to another article previously published there by Kat Grant entitled, What is a Woman? That article asserted that “any attempt to define womanhood purely in biological terms is inadequate.” Grant took the position that “a woman is whoever she says she is.” Coyne, being himself an evolutionary scientist, took the position that science requires that biology define womanhood.
Well, the people at FFRF didn’t like that and took down Coyne’s article. This ticked off the scientists who then accused FFRF of “imposing an ideology with the dogma, blasphemy, and heretics of a religion.” And the truth is, they were right. FFRF was not acting as protectors of Atheism, but as guardians of a non-theistic religion.
FFRF has taken the side of those in society who focus on social justice. They are all in on the gay and transgender movement, and believe that people should be able not only to define sexual morality in general based on their personal preference, but also that even biology is subject to the relativistic beliefs of the political left.
The atheistic scientists, on the other hand, are focused on what science can demonstrate. They firmly believe that there is an objectively real distinction between people who have xx and xy chromosomes. Dawkins described Grant’s article as “silly and unscientific.”
So even though both sides are Atheists, they disagree to the point that they don’t believe they are able to even associate with each other any longer. Dawkins said in an e-mail to The Telegraph, “I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex.” He called FFRF’s point of view an “apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.” FFRF for their part said, “We do not feel that support for LGBTQ rights against the religious backlash in the United States is mission creep. This growing difference of opinion probably made such a parting inevitable.”
The truth is, both versions of Atheism are religious points of view. The reason there is conflict between them is that the moral foundation of atheistic Naturalism is relativistic. When it comes to moral beliefs, there is no such thing as an objective moral foundation, so they have to make up their moral beliefs. Everyone is right in their own eyes, and anyone who disagrees with them at any point is wrong.
The scientists do have in their favor the understanding that there is such a thing as reality, and that the physical makeup of human beings is a part of objective reality. That is something they actually have in common with Christian Theism. Where they part company with Christians is that they believe the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists.
Their disagreement with FFRF is at the point of where to draw the line regarding what is moral and immoral. Both sides are moral relativists, so they both still have to make up their own moral beliefs. The conflict exists because one side is not willing to violate biological reality while the other is. Either way, they have no way of demonstrating their moral beliefs to be true. Atheism, of any variety, simply doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
An athiest and Christian in argue.
Strong arguments!! Some you might NOT have heard of/are rare, too.
Have you actually read the Bible? The god of the old testament is the god of the Jews. It’s not the god of humanity, it’s only the god of the Jews. He acts like a military commander for them. He orders the Jews to conquer and enslave or genocide everyone else. Therefore anything that is written in the old testament does not apply to non-Jews.
It was only a guy who never even met Jesus, Paul, who invented the idea that even non-Jews can worship and be saved by Jesus. Note that Paul was not one of the Apostles that Jesus chose. So it is extremely unlikely that the god of the Jews will also save you (unless you’re a Jew, of course). If that was the case, then you’d have to explain why and how your all-powerful and all-knowing god has changed his mind from being a Jewish military commander to becoming the father of all humanity.
“No, no, that was only CERTAIN non Jews. And those enemies were very evil.”
Ohhhh, nice moving the goal post! First you claimed that your god is all about love and kindness, and now you said that he did order mass murder but he was “justified” in doing so.
God also created the people who were “very evil” and he could have made them change their mind without having the Jews exterminate them all. (why didn’t God actively do it instead?)
But even that, it’s not true. In Deut 7:1 god commands the Jews to exterminate 7 different peoples because they occupy the land that the god of the Jews wants to give to the Jews. There is not a single mention of any “evil” that these people are supposedly doing.
Even worse, in Deut 20 the god of the Jews says that after exterminating those 7 peoples the Jews will have to go on and enslave everyone else.
the fact that there are countless genocides in the Bible, not just one.
“Girls as s-x slaves? Verse?”
Numbers 31:17-18
Read that whole chapter and then tell me that you don’t feel ashamed for following the god of the Jews.
“Meanwhile your worldview implies that we are WORTHLESS”
In fact the philosophies of ancient Greece are much more wholesome and intelligent than what came out from a bunch of savages.
What about animals in the world living within walking distance from Noah’s house.
“why have we NEVER had a YEC believing, and Bible -promoting and -defending tyranny dictator? Why is it ATHIEST?? (mao, polpot, st@Lin, etc)”
Mao and PolPot killed millions because of the ideology of communism, Lenin and Stalin killed millions because of hatred. None of these massacres was done explicitly for atheism. It just happens that the perpetrators were (probably) atheists, but that doesn’t mean bodycount for atheism. Otherwise I could say that Truman was a Christian and then blame Christianity for nuking Hiroshima – this would not be fair.
When we talk about killing for religion only, and not as part of broader geopolitical conflict or conquest, then Christians hold the record. Christians mass murdered 1 million Europeans in the Albigensian crusades because of a theological dispute. That’s the biggest case in history, that I know of, of mass murder entirely due to religious reasons and not because of conquest such as the Islamic aggression in which religion was only a way to rally the troops for a geopolitical goal.
LOL You might think that your arguments are strong, but they are nothing more than tired rehashed arguments that have been put forth forever. There are several problems with your arguments.
1. Your interpretation of the Old Testament is based on assumptions about the nature of God that are not based on biblical theology. You are interpreting biblical Theism through the lens of a naturalistic worldview. That simply does not work If you want to legitimately do that, then you must first justify your naturalistic philosophy and explain how you know it is true. Until you do that, nothing you have said has any validity whatsoever. You have painted a picture of God that is simply not true. A good number of your points fail based on this fact.
2. Paul did meet Jesus. You obviously don’t know your Bible, and your understanding of the nature of reality is once again based on naturalistic philosophy which you have not demonstrated to have any validity.
3. The God of the Bible is not just the God of the Jews. You have once again demonstrated that you do not know the teachings of the Bible.
4. You are making your argument about the nature of evil based on naturalistic philosophy which has no means whatsoever of calling anything evil. All you have done in that regard is express your personal opinion, which is meaningless until you can prove that your naturalistic beliefs are true.
5. You argue as if God did not make people with free will. Simply not true. If he was as you have described, he also could have controlled you so that you couldn’t be an Atheist. That is simply not the case, and one more piece of evidence that you have no understanding of biblical theology.
6. I have no idea where you get the idea that biblical worldview beliefs imply that we are worthless. Once again, you have only demonstrated that you have no idea what the Bible really teaches.
7. You also don’t seem to have much of a grasp on history. Are you not aware that Communism is a naturalistic belief system in which Atheism is an integral part? Where do you think the hatred came from that Lenin and Stalin expressed? Atheism doesn’t acknowledge the existence of ANY objective source for morality, so every Atheist has to make it up for himself. And other Atheists have no basis for saying they were wrong to do what they did – including yourself.
8. You have also made a false equivalence between people who say they are Christians and the Christian faith itself. Just because a person self-identifies as a Christian doesn’t mean they really are. Christianity is based on beliefs taught in the Bible (which you obviously don’t really understand), and people who act in contradiction to that are not acting out of Christian beliefs, no matter what identity they claim.
9. You also don’t seem to understand the nature of religion itself. A religious point of view is any set of beliefs that have to be believed by faith. Your Atheism is a belief system, and your entire argument is a religious apologetic based on beliefs that you cannot justify.
I am happy to have this discussion with you once you prove to me that your naturalistic philosophy is objectively true. Until then, nothing you say has any basis in reality. The fact that you don’t believe in the God of the Bible does not mean he does not exist. Of course, until you open up to the possibility and do some honest investigation, you will never really know. But the opportunity for you is there if you ever get tired of advocating for a belief that you can’t even prove by your own worldview requirements.