Apparently, secularism sucks

I like reading Alan Craig's blog posts; it gives me an insight into what it must be like living in the bible belt of the US with lectures about morality, society decaying and some brilliant (eh?) retorts against Atheists in general. I should feel lucky that a guy like this is living on the proverbial doorstep.

This time, Alan is frothing at the mouth at plans to cut down the number of places at CofE Schools reserved for practising Anglicans. This he says amounts to active discrimination "against believers who want church school education for their offspring".

He blarts on about some nonsense about aggressive secularism that was popularised recently by the Pope and, amusingly, "attempts by the 20th century totalitarian regimes to eliminate God (Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot come to mind) should provide “sobering lessons” on tolerance".

I agree. Without Christian values society would fall into complete and utter chaos. People without god are indeed dangerous creatures.

I mean just imagine all of the raping, torturing, murdering, adultery, crime, paedophilia and other moral indiscretions that only belief in a supernatural agent can prevent. And that's the key isn't it? It's not that the supernatural agent will actively STOP you from doing those things. It is mere belief that stops you.

In other words, Christians are scary people because they are literally on the brink of a violent rampage. One Richard Dawkins quote could easily tip them over the edge in Alan Craig's world... and that's a scary thought.

Seriously though (for a moment) Christians, and indeed most religious people I encounter, rationalise perfectly well considering their starting position. If belief is all that is required, because no supernatural agent intervenes, then any loss of faith gives you a potential mass murderer (simply because the argument is that people without belief will commit atrocities because there is no supervisor).

This is entirely rational given the starting position. And it's what makes religious people think they are being rational too. However, if the starting position is founded on weak grounds the argument fails completely.

All you have to do is find someone who has committed atrocities either in the name of god or with an active belief in god (or better still, someone who says that god told them to commit atrocities). 

I think the point I am trying to make is that no society ever caved into moral bankruptcy or social chaos simply because a person demanded evidence for something. No society ever disintegrated because rationality and reason were demanded of its population.

For the failure to acknowledge the above, and for suggesting that Hitler was part of the secular agenda (see Chapter 17 of God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens for an eloquent and conclusive rebuttal to this charge), Alan Craig has already demonstrated that he has lost the right for an opinion on the matter that could be taken seriously.

It's also clear that Church of England morality, founded on the familial values of Henry VIII, is hardly the beacon to which all other religions aspire to reach. Particularly when they are competing for hearts and not minds.

Christianity is still a blood cult and there's no escaping it. I understand minority religions would like to have the level of influence afforded to people whose only qualification is reading a work of fiction but you CAN be "good without god". 

Sadly, there were no argumentum ad mal genitalia submissions from Alan Craig this time around... disappointed.