All Non-Christians are Atheists?

6 March, 2009

Did you know that atheists are not a minority in the world?   I didn’t, either.  How could I have missed this?  Who are all these atheists?

Well, according to this page on jesus-is-savior.com, large atheist groups include:


Judaism is of the Devil (really?), and worships a false god (odd, I thought that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were the same God) .  We plainly read in Isaiah 45:5, “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me…” (Isaiah 45:5) (Ah, a Bible quote.  Well, now I’m convinced).  So in reality, according to the Bible (which is always right (bats are birds, pi=3, etc)), a false god is equivalent to no god (huh?  I believe that is called a non sequitor).  Judaizers (did they just in vent a word?) are atheists (no, an atheist does not believe in god(s).  Jews believe in a god and are therefore theists (unless ya’ll are using a definition of atheist that is new to the world)) , without a God to worship–because they have rejected Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible (I thought Jesus was the Son of God).  Jesus Christ is called the King of kings, and Lord of Lords in the Bible; but never the God of gods, because there are NO OTHER GODS! (Yeah, that is called monotheism.  Of course the whole Father, Son and Holy Ghost thing sounds more like a trinity.  Which is a unity.  Except that the twice-born don’t like Unitarians.)

Don’t believe me? (no, I don’t.  For thereasons stated above)  The Jews are saturated with sin today (Sounds kinky (would that be a Kinkyjew?).  Jews today still practice idolatry (Which is worshipping a god which you say is the wrong one but, since they are worshipping a god, they are not atheists.  Atheist means without god) .  In fact, it’s epidemic! (Yeah, lot of that going around.  I hear tell that among some twice-borns, stupidity is epidemic) are   Here’s an article written by Jewish Rabbi Shraqa Simmons titled, WHY WE DON’T BELIEVE IN JESUS… (Because if they did believe in Jesus, they would be Christians, not Jews)


(Ya’ll need to learn how to put links in your html code (hint:  click on Page, then View Source, and look at my links at the top of the page)) This is the heart of Judaism… CHRIST REJECTION! (No, Judaism is based upon worshipping God through properly following religous law and and traditions)  Oh! Listen my friend, if you reject Jesus Christ, then you have serious problems with God the Father, because they are one and the same.  We read in John 14:9, “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”  Jesus exclaimed in John 10:30, “I and my Father are one.”  (So if you don’t worship all three gods you are an atheist?  I’m confused)

And, of course, Islam is also atheism:

Islam is of the Devil (which is odd, because Muslims worship the same God as the Old Testament, and recognize Jesus as a Prophet), and all Islamic Muslims (from the department of redundancy department) are atheists (I dare you to go to Mecca and say that).  Oh sure, Muslims profess to believe in Allah, but Allah is a myth (Pot, kettle.  Kettle, Pot), a false god (but still a god, so they are theists (that is the definition of theist))\, a non-existent figment (can you say projection?  Thought you could) of their darkened imagination.  Islam denies Jesus Christ, i.e., that Christ died for our sins, or that God ever had a Son.  Thus, they have denied God Almighty according to Isaiah 45:5 (and we all know that the Bible, taken out of context, can explain everything and is always right).  The Bible and the Qur’an are diametrically opposed to each other (both purport to tell believers how to live their lives).  There can be no harmony between the two (Okay, that I can agree with).  Over one billion Muslims are Hellbound, worshipping the falsemoon god, Allah (which means they worship a god so they are, wait for it — not atheists).  Since they do not recognize the God of the Bible, they have no God, and are therefore, practicing atheists (then they are doing it wrong!).  Society is filled with atheists today, from New Agers to Muslims.

I see ‘articles’ like this one as a major problem.  Our enemies (and I think I am quite safe in calling groups like jesus-is-savior.com enemies of rationalists, atheists, scientists, and everyone who does not agree 100% with the whole twice born theocratic authoritarianist power-trip) do not understand (or refuse to understand) the meaning of one simple word:  atheist.  The idea that anyone can live without god(s), without the specific god of the fundogelical twice-born Christianist,  is, to their limited mind, impossible.  So, rather than admit the possibility of other faiths, or no faith, they lump all non-Christians together as worshippers of the devil.  Which, of course, means that we are not part of the community of god and are not deserving of respect or even life.

Linking all non-Christians is part of the us-versus-them mentality of a black-and-white worldview.  It feeds their persecution complex.  After all, by this argument, Christians are a persecuted minority;  persecuted by the evil atheist devil-worshipping majority.



  1. If heaven is full of narrow minded bigots, I can’t wait for hell.

  2. “Linking all non-Christians is part of the us-versus-them mentality of a black-and-white worldview.”

    (((Billy))) , Be careful not to follow them in their paranoid stupidity and link all Christians together. Just because there are unthinking idiots on my side of the fence does not mean that they set the standard for kind and rational intellectual discourse, to which all Christians aspire.
    I am probably more offended by these fools than you, in that they purport to affirm that which I affirm, and whose values I am presumed to accept.

    Fortunately, our view of right standing with God is not based on number of brain cells actually switched on. There is no minimum score, its all grace.
    But I wish some people wouldn’t try to help!

  3. Futile: Thanks for visiting. Then again, if I don’t buy into the whole ‘god(s) and heaven’ thing, why would I buy into the ‘devil and hell’ bit?

    Eric: Thank you for stopping by. Please note that, earlier in the same post, I specifically referred to the “fundogelical twice-born Christianist”. I assumed (which is, of course, not a good idea when blogging) that those reading my post would carry the definition over into the next paragraph. How stupid of me.

  4. It constantly surprises me that other humans can be this stupid. And even though I was raised in a crazy fundamentalist religion (Mormonism), still it makes no sense to me.

  5. @eric,

    While I find liberal Christians to be people I can actually stand to be friends with, in some sense, all Christians are exactly the same. They (you?) think that belief in some magical zombie being will cause you to be rewarded in some imaginary after-life. Whether you’re a fundamentalist or a liberal, it’s still just as ridiculous and crazy.

  6. Sorry, I missed the definition.
    Looking back, I still miss it. I assumed it to be a mockingly derisive term for all of us who espouse a traditionally orthodox view of Christianity, particularly from an evangelical viewpoint. As such, I included myself and a great many other folks.
    I’m not bothered by derision, I’ve been called worse and with some accuracy, but would hate to have my name added to that screed you quoted in your post.
    Sorry if I widened the net further than you intended!

  7. Well Craig, I don’t know about “fundamentalist.” In-house that is a label for a particular group who hold to a self-selected group of “fundamental” beliefs. But I am right in there with Calvin and Luther, St. Augustine and St. Paul; the whole chorus of nut-jobs.

    Stated your way, it is pretty ridiculous. I would say more that assuming an afterlife at all (or forgetting that, just assuming existence here and now) then things go better the more I get over myself and align with the way things really are. Of course, the rub is that Christians believe certain things about the “way things really are” which you may reject, and I am not going to debate here. Plenty of other places. But the key is to embrace the actual truth, to pursue it, Hold the truth tightly, and hold my opinion about the truth loosely; and endeavor to mold myself to it. Things go better that way, both here, and whatever comes after.
    Sort of “Southern Baptist Church goes Taoist” approach. (How’s that for a knee-jerk fundamentalist formula?)

  8. Atheists are a minority; the website jesus-is-savior.com is in great error in regards to the Jewish people and their faith. I absolutely agree with the comments of Eric.

  9. I had a buddy who was a big coke user, but was pretty sharp, held down a good job, relationships, and so would certainly have been offended by being grouped into the ‘suck a dick for some rock’ coke users, too. In fact, he was more put off by those types than probably you or I (assuming, of course, neither of us purport to affirm coke use).

  10. Craig: I guess with enough exposure, I have ceased to be surprised.

    Eric: According to the Bible, those who worship a different god, or worship god in the wrong way, are not worshipping god and would therefore be considered, by Biblical definition, atheists. Do you dissociate yourself from those particular Biblical verses? Are you a liberal Christian who views the Bible as being about God, or do you view the Bible as being by God? (This is not an attack, just me trying to understand)

    And “Southern Baptist goes Taoist”? I love it. Of course, I’ve had dealings with the daughter of a pastor (back in high school) who left the Southern Baptist Coalition because they were too liberal.

    Jasmine: That was my point. However, do you, and Eric, speak up publicly when, say, the Phelps gang or Donahue start spouting?

    Philly: Good analogy.

  11. (((Billy)))
    Just to start bass ackward, I definitely speak up. In fact, that is what brought me to your site. As I look through the tag-surfer, this kind of issue lights up my interest, and I have hit sites supposing to speak as Christian. In my town, a couple of years ago, the KKK idiots decided to do a parade. I went. I went so that, as they came by my position, I could turn my back on them. Doesn’t mean a thing, although my delight would have been to see the entire town turn out for the parade, then as the first Knight of the Kowardly Koverlette hit the street, all sound would stop, and everyone in complete silence turn their backs to the perversion. When an east-texas associate went to a Halloween party at school dressed in a white sheet and hood, I told him that he would have brought more honor to his family if he had used a brown sheet and came dressed as a turd.

    Do I speak up when my peers raise such things? Hypothetical question. Those I am with would be as outraged as Jasmine and I, and you are. I am particularly sensitive on the subject of the Jews. I am no Zionist, but as Christians, the vast majority of what we know about God comes through the Jews. My debt is enormous, and far beyond my ability to pay. Whether all Jews are all sweetness and light is a non-starter. No one is.

    According to the Bible, those who worship a different god, or worship god in the wrong way, are not worshipping god and would therefore be considered, by Biblical definition, atheists. Do you dissociate yourself from those particular Biblical verses?

    Those who worship “a different god” (as if there could be more than one) or who worship God in the wrong way are not a-theists. That isn’t theology, its simple English. Words mean what they mean. Personally, I don’t recall ever seeing that word in the bible, and would be very surprised to see it there. I’ve read it several times, but I could be wrong. Someone would have to point it out to me. So I can’t very well dissociate myself from Bible verses that I don’t believe, certainly that I don’t know to exist. Again, that isn’t theology, or even morality. Simple accuracy in word choice.

    I believe that those “who worship a different god, or worship god in the wrong way”, are simply wrong. They may be sincere, they may be honest, they may be intellectual frauds as may atheists and Christians also. But honest or not, I believe that they are simply wrong.

    I do think it matters. Worship, whether of a statue of money, or Jim Jones, or whatever, real or imagined, has the effect of changing us into what we conceive that entity to be. If we conceive of God as merciful, and praise Him for His mercy, we tend to become more merciful. If we conceive of Him as judgmental, and praise Him for His judgments, you can expect to become more judgmental yourself. I expect you’ve seen examples.
    That is why I think it is important to get it right, to worship in accordance with the truth, so that I may become more like the truth. More like “I AM” than like “That which is Not” To reprise, things go better with the truth.

    Probably more philosophy of worship and theology than you wanted! bad habit on a pet subject.

    Are you a liberal Christian who views the Bible as being about God, or do you view the Bible as being by God?

    ‘fraid it’s as bad as you think. I am definitely from the conservative party of my church, although as an Episcopalian, that’s a pretty low bar (and that’s another thing we like).
    But I do believe that the Bible is ultimately purposed by God, to tell His story, in the way He wants it told. I do NOT believe that the human authors took dictation. I think that absurd. But even in the tales taken from oral tradition, picked up by nomadic sheep-herders on their travels, God picked and chose what they heard, what they remembered, and importantly, what they mis-remembered (sort of like guided mutations in DNA); eventually crafting it the way He wanted. I believe that the editors who chose what went in or stayed out were guided by Him, and that ultimately, the book in my hand is the one He wants me to read and understand. I would say that it contains the Word of God –not quite the same as IS the word of God, but close enough for stone throwing.

    Part of the reason I stick to that pretty closely is that I want a measuring stick for my own thoughts. Otherwise, I am tempted to think whatever I want, and believe my own mind is the standard by which all can be judged. I think it much better to have something to measure against.
    I am vulnerable then to a charge that my ruler is not accurate. I’m OK with that. It would be like 4 carpenters arguing about where to put a wall. “My tape says 10 feet is right here” “No, Mine says over here!” the third says “you’re both crazy, 10 feet is right HERE!!” and the forth one says. “who needs a damned tape measure? put it where ever you want.”
    I don’t know which of the first three I trust, but I want someone who believes that the truth is important, even if he is wrong about what that truth is.

    I’ll save the particulars about why I think this one good for some other day, probably over at my blog.

    I’ve gone on WAY too long for you and for me. But you did ask a civil question. And that runs the risk of having to entertain a bore.

    R. Eric Sawyer

  12. Billy, Yes, I do speak up within my circle of contacts. Plus, I have my own posts here at wordpress on the subject.

  13. Worship, whether of a statue of money, or Jim Jones, or whatever, real or imagined, has the effect of changing us into what we conceive that entity to be…. That is why I think it is important to get it right, to worship in accordance with the truth

    Seeing as how there is no demonstrable truth, it would be nice if you all just imagined a nice, don’t bother anyone else kind of god and worked to be more like him.

    As for your carpenter analogy, it seems carpenters have worked out standards for measuring sticks all on their own throughout history, wouldn’t you agree? Your 4 carpenters notwithstanding, there have been some monumental achievements throughout history where humans established their own measuring sticks. There’s your truth, and I find that very important.

  14. Chief, Sure it would be nice. There are two difficulties:

    First, when we imagine, we tend to create god in our own image, who likes who we like and hates who we hate, basicaly just a stronger more magical version of ME. By worshiping me, I just want more power. Religions all around the world have done exactly that, including christianity at times and places. You have seen the results. The only antedote is to believe because it is true, and that brings me to the second difficulty:

    Even if we could agree on what we would like God to be like, if there were such a being (because it would be good for us to worship someone like that), it is tough to worship something you don’t believe exists. Even among worshipers, We don’t worship God as he is presented to us, we worship God as we believe Him to be. In both difficulties, we have got to keep the truth as the goal.

  15. And the truth I see is all of you seek and conveniently find the god you want; therefore, if you must seek a god, it would do humanity well if you sought a nice, don’t bother anyone else kind of god. Seek, and ye just might find.

  16. We don’t worship God as he is presented to us, we worship God as we believe Him to be.

    What is the God that is presented to you like? How is the presentation made?

  17. Been busy. Sorry. But (((Son))) is back on campus.

    Eric: First, I’m glad to hear you are willing to call out, or at least show desrespect of, those holding objectionable ideas. Hopefully, you do the same with regards to those holding objectionable positions who also use god(s) to support their position.

    As for the rest? I’m impressed. Really. You may be the first honest theist I have had contact with (I think you are wrong, but I appreciate honesty). You seem to recognize the limitations of both religion and holy texts — all views of religion, god(s) and holy texts are shaped by the personal experiences and beliefs of the individual. If someone is a racist, their god(s) will be racist. If someone is a homophobe, lo and behold, so is their god(s).

    However, to take your example of the carpenters, the ‘objective’ measurement can be interpreted in so many ways as to make the idea of objectivity questionable. The most holy-roller snake handler is every bit as sure that his view of the texts is the one correct one, the one ‘objective’ view point, as the most high-brow High Episcopalean; The Southern Baptist is as sure as his point of view as the Aryan Church of God (if one exists by that name, no idea off the top of my head). When it comes to personal belief, objectivity, if removed from an independently testable system (such as the scientific method), is chimerical.

    I personally have no problem with anyone’s personal beliefs. When a group attempts to force beliefs onto all members of a body politic, without testing the effectiveness of these beliefs, then I have the problem.

    Jasmine: Good to hear.

    Philly: Ah, you dreamer, you.

    Eric: Couldn’t say it better myself.

    Philly: Ditto.

    Chappie: I think that the way god(s) is presented to you is based upon your personal psychological makeup, your history, your politics, and your other non-religious attitudes.

  18. Chaplain, probably a poorly turned phrase. I mean that there is a discrepancy between the official teaching of any religion and the image of divinity that exists in any worshiper’s mind and heart.

    Of course there is a further discrepance between my understanding of God (which, for better or worse, is what I in fact worship), and the God of reality, should He exist at all as I claim.

    The challenge for all honest people is to refine the internal image toward the truth. Some honest folks in that strugle have become Christian. Other honest people Have decided that their internal image was so far off that positing no god at all was more accurate than the image they had.
    Both may be right.

  19. The challenge for all honest people who believe in a god is to accept the explanations from atheists as to why they don’t believe in yours or anyone else’s gods rather than assert some cockamamey reason fashioned in your imagination.

  20. Chief, you may note that my challenge says nothing about converting anyone to my religion. Rather it includes me among those who need to be ready and even seeking to move away from “my religion” into increasing truth.

    I am quite willing to engage as to why I think what I do, as are you, but I have no desire to push it.

  21. R., it’s so good to see you acknowledge that you had in fact made a challenge. I think that’s a fabulous thing for someone who purports to affirm honesty to do.

    However, you may note that my objection to your challenge had nothing to do with any alleged effort on your part to try to convert anyone. It was, in fact, about you disingenuously representing the motivation for atheism.

    Perhaps one day you may live up to that challenge of being an honest person and forego both engaging in such behavior and attempting to hide such behavior by such pedestrian attempts to steer discourse away from noticing it.

    Here’s to being an honest person!


  22. Eric:

    Other honest people Have decided that their internal image was so far off that positing no god at all was more accurate than the image they had.

    This is a surprise considering your earlier comments. It is, to seel a phrase from Philly, disingenuous. It is (to me) committing the fallacy of the straw-man argument.

    My internal image of god(s) is not ‘off.’ My conscious decisions to move from universal deist to agnostic to (eventually) atheist was based on observations of the truth in the real world. Increasing truth requires the ability to objectify and confirm that truth. Truth is based upon fact. Fact cannot be created out of ephemeral writings or thought; it can be discovered through observation, quantification, objectification and experimentation of the natural world.

    God(s) are supernatural. They are (if they exist) outside the realm of reality — they cannot be observed, quantified, objectified or subjected to experements. Why? They are, by definition, supernatural.

    To imply that atheists exist because we were unable to rectify god(s) and our internal image is a well-done straw-man argument. I cannot speak for others. I am an atheist because I see no part of the our universe which cannot be explained through various scientific disciplines — if we don’t know the answer yet, it does not mean that we should insert god(s). It means we need to keep looking for the natural processes involved.

  23. (((Billy))) I meant by no means to impinge the motives of you or any atheist for coming to atheism. I meant to support the idea that moving into atheism could be a move toward truth (even given my opinion about ultimate truth). For instance, for someone growing up in the system you quoted from in your original post. If a son or daughter of that system said “this is a load of crap” and became an atheist, I would take that as a move toward truth. The (presumably) only difference you and I would have is that where you would think such a person had arrived at truth, I would see it as a way-point only; the rejection of the false is a good thing. Discovery and acceptance of the true is a further step.

    You and I both need to move towards increasing truth. It is self evident that you believe such a journey for me will take me towards your position, and I believe that it would lead you towards mine. I suspect that at least in some respects, we are both wrong.
    My point is that this is the quest, and the journey. I expect we agree about that need, even while disagreeing about the result of such a journey.

    I note that both religious faith and rejection of religious faith can come from good motives and false, can be the path of an honest seeker or someone who wants self-justification, and can accordingly produce openness to those with whom we disagree, or condemning rejection. In the midst of our pretty major differences, you folks have met me pretty honorably, and for that I thank you.

    R. Eric Sawyer

  24. You and I both need to move towards increasing truth. It is self evident that you believe such a journey for me will take me towards your position, and I believe that it would lead you towards mine.

    This “truth” thing is a charade. The only journeys that exist are ones of acquiring knowledge and applying knowledge, and the acquisition of knowledge comes by way of empirical, observable and measurable evidence.

    Furthermore, “truth” implies an absolute, and absolutes are hard to come by; therefore, if you accept the idea of truth being obtainable and truth is mostly not obtainable, then you must reconcile with having doubt. It’s this failure to reconcile which leads many to the comfort of accepting faith-based beliefs as truth.

    So no, I certainly don’t see your journey leading you to any position of mine. In fact, I don’t even see you having left the starting gate since your entire concept of a journey and how to embark upon it are antithetical to mine. Faith, feeling and revelation are not modes of transportation, but rather modes of idling and staying put.

  25. the chaplain How is the presentation (of God) made?”
    Three words: lavish musical numbers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: