Anglican Samizdat

March 16, 2010

A new form of Christian evangelism: atheist conferences

Filed under: Atheism — David Jenkins @ 9:17 am

The blustering rudeness of contemporary atheists appears to have driven at least one person closer to God:

THE Global Atheists Convention in Melbourne last weekend worked a miracle on me.

I’ve never felt more like believing in God. Especially the Christian one.

My near conversion occurred because the convention’s speakers managed to confirm my worst fear.

No, it’s not that God may actually exist, and be cross that I doubted.

It’s that if the Christian God really is dead, then there’s not much to stop people here from being barbarians.

I’d have hoped that the Atheists Convention’s speakers would have reassured me not just by fine words but finer example that a godless society will nevertheless be a good one.

But what did they show me instead? First there was the world’s most famous atheist, former Oxford don and Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins, who smeared Joseph Ratzinger as the “Pope Nazi” and mocked Family First Senator Steve Fielding as dumber than an “earthworm”. The insult to the Pope (right) is truly vile. As a 14-year-old, Ratzinger was conscripted by the Nazi regime into the Hitler Youth, then compulsory for all German boys.

Yet Dawkins was far from the only speaker to unleash the hatred he claimed Christianity inspired. ABC Science Show presenter Robyn Williams boasted he could mount “a devastating argument against religion in two words: ‘Senator Fielding”‘, an insult which the hooting crowd clapped.

Added Williams: “Richard Dawkins said his IQ is lower than an earthworm, but I think earthworms are useful.”

Rationalist Society president Ian Robinson joined in, asking if there were any believers in the audience, adding: “OK, I’ll speak really slowly.”

The fourth speaker, Age columnist Catherine Deveny, saved her worst for the ABC’s Q&A show on Monday, tweeting from the set that fellow panellist Peter Dutton, the Opposition health spokesman, had “a face of a rapist”.



  1. It is truly amazing how in the lack of sound rational arguments, those who appose Christianity are so quick to resort to name calling, baseless accusations, and outright lies about a persons past. What is even more amazing is that these people expect to be taken seriously, while at the same time expect Christians, including those who invest a considerable effort into fully understanding the Christian Faith, to be viewed as stupid and dangerous to society.

    Comment by AMPisAnglican — March 16, 2010 @ 9:46 am

  2. It always amazes me, the lack of internal logic within the atheistic system of thinking. Dawkins uses the term, “nazi” as if there is something wrong with being one, but atheists never seem to think through exactly why it is wrong, or on what authority they can claim it to be wrong, to be one. The only authority they can possible have is their own opinin.

    Comment by John K — March 16, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

  3. The old school atheists, in the 19th century, were serious, solid, ethically-minded people, who valued individual’s lives; they would be horrified with the shower that use the term today. The kind of materialism of today’s atheists inevitably brings disregard for actual people and human life – “In-Humanist” is more accurate – and, no surprise, the Culture of Death follows.

    Comment by John Thomas — March 16, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

  4. Woops, spelling mistake in #2. Left out the second ‘o’ in opinioon. (;)

    Comment by John K — March 16, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

  5. The term NAZI is actually an abreviation of Nationalist Socialist. Which on the surface being a Nationalist is not a bad thing. Neither (supposedly) is being a Socialist a bad thing. In fact I would expect these athiests to use their “reason” to conclude that being both Nationlist and Socialist to be a good thing, for both of these traits should result in a country that is a better place for people to live. So if they want to callus “Nazi’s” we should perhaps take it as a compliment.

    Now to the issue of IQ. An average person wil have an IQ of 100. This is a complicated system that takes into consideration a person’s age. If (and it is a big if) we were to somehow calculate an IQ for earthworms, than it only stands to reason that the average earthworm would also have an IQ of 100. So to accuse a person of having an IQ that is lower than an eartworm’s would leave us wondering which earthworm is being used for the comparison. Perhaps the earthworm in question is an Einstien among earthworms, in which case it would still be a compliment for the individual would presumably have an IQ significantly greater than 100, making this person above average. That Williams or Dawkins “thinks” earthworms are useful leaves me to wonder if either of these people know much about earthworms. Why would they only “think” that earthworms are useful? Are they not sure about this? If they are not sure about it, than why would they bring up the subject? Someone once said “better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool rather than to open it and remove all doubt”. Looks like Williams and Dawkins have opened their mouths.

    Finally, I would be interested to learn of the science used by Catherine Deveny in which she has been able to determine a person to be guilty of a rather violent and horrendous crime simply by the look of their face. If she is in pocession of such a science, than why has she not shared it with the police. Surely it would save countless hours of investigation and potentially save many women from becoming victims of this crime. Either she has such a science and is keeping it secret, in which case she is immoral, or she does not have such a science, in which case her accusation is both baseless and slanderous. Doesn’t sound good either way.

    Comment by AMPisAnglican — March 16, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

  6. The only authority they can possible have is their own opinin.

    Yes, thank you! It’s his opinion, nothing more.


    That’s a stunningly weird bit of reasoning up there. ‘National Socialist’ is not the same thing as ‘both a Nationalist and a Socialist’. The fact that the former is made up of the same terms used to describe the latter is irrelevant. (And that’s without getting into the fact that there is no single definition for either ‘Nationalist’ or ‘Socialist’ in the first place.)

    Comment by seanwillsalt — March 16, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

  7. Hello seanwillsalt (6)

    Is that the best rebuttal that you can offer. Surely the “reasoning” and “logic” of the atheists can do better than that. Your reply is incredibly week and remarkably innadequate. That you fall back to arguing about terminology and definitions is a poor debating tactic. Seeing as I have already provided the “definitions”, you as my debating opponent, do not have the luxury of changing these definitions. (Perhaps you never participated in proper debates in high school and so I will forgive you for this ignorance on your part). Additionally, you make no effort at all to address my second and third points, indicating your inability to counter them and thereby conceeding my position on these points to be correct.

    So if this is the best that atheists can reply with than I take that to be very indicative of the weekness of the entire atheist position.


    Comment by AMPisAnglican — March 17, 2010 @ 8:35 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: