The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever


August 22, 2005 | 17 Comments

Is The Raving Atheist a Trojan horse? Dawn Eden is concerned, having permitted him to guest post on her blog:

I’ve read other writings by the Raving Atheist and I see that his blog is a strong rallying point for those seeking affirmation that there is no God. Although I believe his pro-life views are sincere, it’s quite possible that in posting to my blog, he wishes to draw readers away from faith. Moreover, even if that’s not his motive, it’s a risk that’s present anytime I draw attention to him and his blog.

Dawn concludes, ultimately, that my moral message is more important than my [a]theological one. She also concludes, it appears, that her readers will be able to “filter out” my anti-faith message in the same way that atheists manage to ignore the faith shown to them by the religious.

I am deeply grateful to Dawn for lending me her forum. I can assure her that converting her readers to atheism played no part in my motives for posting. Whether such conversions might be the indirect result of exposure to my blog I don’t know. It’s an interesting question, one which was touched upon in of one of my Questions of the Day last year (“Would an anti-abortion atheist blog be more likely to (1) convert anti-abortion Catholics to atheism, or (2) convert pro-choice atheists to anti-abortionism?”).

But in saying that I posted with no intent to convert, I must make one thing clear. I did not make that assurance because I am one of those atheists who “doesn’t want to impose my views on others” or who graciously concedes that “atheism is just a belief like any other.” I made the assurance because as a matter of fact, my only intent in making that particular post was merely express a pro-life view. Otherwise, I make no secret that I am evangelical atheist. I do not believe that conversion, whether in politics or religion, is a dirty word, or that people should simply keep their beliefs to themselves.

In this respect I am no different from Dawn Eden. She believes in her Christianity and proselytizes through her blog as fervently as I do through mine. She does not believe in the “tolerance” that declares Christianity is “one equally valid vegetable in the great salad bowl of accepted religious traditions.” She rejects the idea that “we all worship the same God,” the impossible multiculturalist notion that was the subject of my very first post. She is, in effect, an atheist with respect to every “god” which differs in any material respect from her particular Catholic conception. So her blog, too, “is a strong rallying point for those seeking affirmation that there is no God” — if that God is a pro-abortion Hindu, Muslim, Jewish Wiccan or even Christian deity. Her concern that I might “draw readers away from faith” does not, as far as I can tell, encompass faith in those sort of entities.

But she also believes in listening and thinking and changing her views if convinced. She used to deny the divinity of Christ as much as I do, but eventually converted from Judaism. I’m not sure what she means by “filterng out,” but she does not put her fingers in her ears. She believes in a free exchange in ideas and following the truth wherever it may lead. Indeed, the first post she allowed me to make made that very point


17 Responses to “Neigh!”

  1. Mutt
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 8:44 am

    In my view they are all praying to the voices in their heads, that bit of the human brain that (to paraphrase one of my favourite authors) seems to have hard-encoded upon it “Gods: what a good idea” – so in THAT sense they’re all interchangeable.

    I’m a pro-foetus-killing, pro-dying-adult-killing-in-certain-circumstances atheist. What’s I’m anti is cruelty to the undeserving. This blog hasn’t converted me to or from anything; I just enjoy reading it.

  2. Dada Saves
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 9:14 am

    Have Dawn ever guest-blogged here?

    It’s hard to believe that anyone is ever ‘converted’ by reading these blogs. Such people, if they exist, must be particularly gullible.

  3. hermesten
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 9:54 am

    I also find it hard to believe that anyone is converted by reading even this great blog. It might be a part of everything that affects a conversion; it might be the first step in the process of conversion; but I’m skeptical that the role it plays is significant. The people who come here without the intellectual ammunition to defend what they believe just fall back to safer ground.

    Anyway, if the “truth” will set you free, and Christians have a monopoly on the “truth,” what have they to fear?

  4. Viole
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 10:15 am

    Sigh. I go away for a week, and what do I come back to? A week of RA doing his very best impression of a religious moron. Worse, he isn’t even trying. Stick to atheism, please.

  5. DamnRight
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 10:59 am

    Is there some assumption that as an atheist, one must no toe some Liberal party line?

  6. Vernichten
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 11:00 am

    “I’ve read other writings by the Raving Atheist and I see that his blog is a strong rallying point for those seeking affirmation that there is no God”

    Right, because seeking affirmation from others is the only reason anyone would talk about his or her beliefs. And a person who constantly blogs about his or her beliefs must be really desperate for affirmation, eh Dawn?
    Don’t you feel like you’re just seeking affirmation, RA?

  7. Dada Saves
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 11:06 am

    DamnRight, This forum is evidence that atheism knows no political ideology — it’s possible that lefties outnumber conservatives (and there is also a subtantial number of people who identify with both camps), but not by much. These threads are rife with libertarians and others incapable of intellectual nuance.

  8. hermesten
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 2:17 pm

    Dada Saves: “These threads are rife with libertarians and others incapable of intellectual nuance.”

    Of course, only people who believe as you do are capable of “intellectual nuance.” Ah, for the days when “conservative” meant something more that reflexive support for whatever Republican is in office, cheerleading for the State, and mindless flag-waving –and people calling themselves “conservative” thought debate was something more than chanting “liberal” or “commie.” Anyone today with an ounce of decency or intelligence would be ashamed to call themselves “conservative” without adding some qualifier such as “paleo” or “traditional” –but hey, what does “neocon” mean if not “shameless?” And anyone who would voluntarily associate themsevles with Der Chimpenfurher is downright depraved.

  9. Dada Saves
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 2:31 pm

    ‘Of course, only people who believe as you do are capable of “intellectual nuance.”‘

    That’s true! I define ‘people who believe as I do’ as those who can handle nuance, so it is a bit of a tautology. But you’re quite right.

  10. hermesten
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 2:53 pm

    Given the casual dishonesty of today’s “conservatives,” such an honest admission on your part would seem to disqualify you from being considered a conservative. Ah, for the contradictions. Fortunately, there are other ways of interpreting your admission that may still allow you to retain your membership.

  11. AK
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 3:50 pm

    In other news, Christian terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph was sentenced today for bombing the 1996 Olympics as well as a few abortion and women’s health clinics.

    He apologized for the Olympic bombings, but not the clinic bombings.

    Too bad there isnt a Christian equivalent of the word “jihad.”

  12. Clyde
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 4:11 pm

    Also in other news,”The god who wasn’t there” was shown at the Center For Inquiry West in Los Angeles to an overflowing crowd.This is the kind of film every x-ian should see instead of that Mel Gibson myth” The Passion”.

  13. hermesten
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 6:18 pm

    To imply, as our wretched media has done with it’s bullshit headlines about Rudoph’s “apology,” that this piece of shit is “sorry” for what he’s done is a gross distortion of reality. If you read enough articles, and you read far enough, you’ll find a paragraph like this one buried down deep:

    “Rudolph smirked and rolled his eyes during Monday’s testimony by some of the victims, especially those refuting his anti-abortion, anti-homosexual beliefs. He laughed under his breath when one of the victims said it was appropriate that when authorities finally found Rudolph he was scavenging for food from a trash container.”

  14. glenstonecottage
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 7:07 pm

    God’s own mouthpiece, the Rev. Pat Robertson, calls for the assassination of elected Venezualan president Hugo Chavez.

    View the sound clip:

    Who Would Jesus Assassinate?

  15. gravitybear
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 9:00 am

    There is a Christian equivalent to ‘jihad': crusade.

  16. MBains
    August 27th, 2005 @ 9:59 am

    ask whether faith in [mumble mumble cough cough]

    A Flying Spaghetti Monster perhaps…? You’ve been touched. I believeit RA!

  17. LucyMuff
    August 27th, 2005 @ 1:30 pm

    time for yous all to wake up and smell cofee: RA is just same ting as landover baptist but with message that will makes for burnings at hell, but this is of no matter: point is that RA is ‘religious’ blog same as same as, and only details of mesage changed. all youus who likes post here are as well, but too gutless to admit to this because “atheist always right” and “atheistism is so obvious not need defendiong”. I pity yous and would like help. Seek JESUS while still can please.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links