9. The Universe is Atheio-centric: This is the myth that Christians obsess over atheists, think about them all the time, are afraid of them, hate them, irrationally . The truth of course is that we rarely think of them, are not afraid of them, don’t hate them, and wish only that if they criticize us they do it intelligently or at least with humor. Dear Dawkins, the look we give you when you say “if god invented everything, then who invented god?” or “religion ruins everything” is not one of fear or hate or anger or puzzlement, it is a look of boredom. And no, we don’t obsess over you. When I hear atheists mentioned in church it is usually along the lines of Christians need to behave better; our behavior should distinguish us from the atheist, but it doesn't.As a direct result of the acceptance of this myth, many internet atheists have delusions of grandeur. They actually believe, strange as it may seem, that they can harm Christianity1. This is most humorously made manifest when one makes the claim that he/she is not merely an atheist and proceeds to puff himself/herself up by self-awarding the honorific anti-theist. The implication is clear. If you are anti something, you plan (or should plan) to take some action. The problem for the atheist is that, while they won't admit it, they are impotent. Only Christians can harm Christianity. All of which leads us to an obscure anti-theist by the name Stephanie Zvan. She has a post in which she states:
However, I have to disagree with the idea that anti-theist activism isn't social justice activism.She did not write that anti-theist activism (so scary!) isn't sometimes social justice activism--no she implies by her disagreement that anti-theist activism (whatever that is) is a subset of social justice activism. If you think I have read too much into that quote, or didn't grant her license to be sloppy, she is much clearer in her closing sentence:
While it’s possible for anti-thiest activism to be poorly done, or done for motives other than social justice, anti-theist activism is one form, a necessary form, of social justice activism. (Boldface added.)I have friends in Uganda. The wife is a medical doctor. She operates a clinic for orphans. The husband does things like construction, well-digging, teaching etc. They have adopted two at risk Ugandan children--one severely disabled and who surely would have died without their intervention. They are Christian missionaries. To be a social justice warrior, according to Zvan, would necessitate being anti this couple, and by extension justice would be served by preventing them from continuing their work. I'm sure the orphans would be relieved that social justice was victorious and that anti-theism prevailed.
Svan also writes about child abuse. We all can agree that its eradication is a honorable goal of those interested in social justice. But a reasonable person, I think, would understand that it is an honorable goal regardless of the religion or atheism of the advocate. But not Svan. She wants to show that the war against child abuse is housed in a tent that is not big enough for the theist. She writes (getting in a dig at Dawkins, who is an old white male atheist whose privilege is showing, but that's another story):
Plenty of folks will flinch if I mention child abuse, thinking of Dawkins' facile pronouncements. But "Spare the rod, spoil the child" isn't just still quoted. It's a best-seller, even after leading to multiple child deaths.Oops. She intended the aphorism "Spare the rod, spoil the child" as an example of a biblical authorization of child abuse. But if it comes from a gospel, it is the Gospel According to Ben Franklin, and Franklin is claimed by the atheists.
Those damn atheists and their codified support for child abuse.
By the way, the closest biblical quote is:
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him. (Prov 13:24)Here discipline is likened to a shepherd and his rod--which was not used to beat the sheep but to nudge or push them in the right direction, toward safety. It was that rotten atheist Franklin who advocated the type of child abuse that is based on the theory the character can be beaten into a child. That ain't on us!
1 Whether or not they can harm other religions is not for me to say nor to speculate upon.