The former leader and president of American Atheists, Ellen Johnson, talks about some jaw dropping statistics about how atheists vote and what they vote for. Johnson is the successor of the most hated woman in America. Now, I fully understand that not "all" of you hold her views but like Richard Dawkins, she is the voice for American Atheism and is trying to get all of you to drink the kool-aid. Of course in 'light' of this Public Relations nightmare the organization immediately placed on their website "American Atheists has positions open for Editor and President" as to 'save face' from the public outcry. So how did she get to the top then?
Is this really who you want to go down in history as being associated with? "No of course not, no way, we aren't like that at all." Let me shoot it strait here, let's use some logic because I actually love you. You don't become president of anything without expressing your opinion. An organization would appoint someone president who can best represent their viewpoint, a president has to have a mouth on them. I know I have been one. You have to be able to sell your ideas. So please don't give me the "we aren't like that" speech. A chain is as strong as it's weakest link and Ms. Johnson was the weakest link of a Walmart $3 dollar necklace.
Why professing Christians would break such a sacred Covenant with God to follow the likes of Johnson and Dawkins is so beyond my comprehension. Then, only later to find that the leaders are flakes. Remember you can't put Jesus on to make your flight more comfortable. You do it because you are so very grateful for being saved from death. Your loyalty would be a lot less shallow.
Any other company would fail with a president like Ms. Johnson. If you were to get rid of a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs, the company would suffer a great deal or fold completely. Without Ray Comfort there would be no Living Waters or Way of the Master. Atheists tried to make Ray a laughing stock by quote mining his soda/banana presentation. To some now, he is labeled "banana man." But we still love him and his ministries because of the good fruit (banana) we see. On a side note, did anyone else notice that it was atheists that broke the quote-mining rule by editing his soda/banana parody. Don't you all even complain about Ray quote mining? Am I the only one that sees the total outright hypocrisy here? Do any of you have any morals? Does Ms. Johnson have any morals? Can you see a pattern here?
You would pick this lady or Richard Dawkins over Jesus? Really? No, really?
Carl Packman wrote recently a news article about Richard Dawkins creepy viewpoint of The Genius of Charles Darwin. Packman points out "Dawkins, in choosing a form of firebrand fundamentalist atheism over the discipline science, is no longer the champion of reason but rather a kind of evangelical against religion" Packman also observed "It's not very long before Professor Dawkins cuts to the chase and explains how utterly irrational and dangerous spiritual beliefs can be (indeed it was an amusing undertaking to see how long it was until Dawkins plunged his dagger once more into faith)."
Like Dawkins, Ms. Johnson is the spokesperson for all of you like it or not. What I don't understand though and I often wonder, doesn't anyone see through these people? Don't you see the push of their own Dogma of atheism as a religion. Please don't answer that, it was rhetorical. I just don't get you all.
Don't you think the charades and damage has been done already? Let me take a wild guess, when that day comes when it's Judgement Day each and every one of you will say, in reference to being an atheist, "No of course not, no way, we aren't like that at all." It's time right now to Repent and trust in Jesus our Lord and our only Savior. We will never fail with Him as our President like Ms. Johnson and Richard Dawkins has failed all of you. Do it today!
Dan:
ReplyDeleteShe is (was?) representative of an organization. I expect it is safe to say that most atheists do not belong to that organization. The fact is she is no more the voice for atheism than Hitler was the voice for christianity. Is he really whom you want to go down in history as being associated with? "No, of course not, no way, we aren't like that at all."
The fact is "American Atheists" (of which I have never heard) is no more representative of atheism in general than any of the old christian groups (Inquisition, anyone) is representative of christianity as a whole. Indeed, there is a stronger case for tying such groups to christianity. It is not that christians in general today support such ideas. They don't. These things seem to happen when christian groups get significant political power. Even then, it is probably more an indication of the sort of people who seek power than of any belief system.
I'm canadian so I've never had any contact or association with the american atheists.
ReplyDeleteTherefore I have no idea or cares as to what she did say.
Nice attempt at broad-brushing there, Dan.
By the way, it was an offshoot wacked-out christian sect that actually had people drink kool-aid. Are you trying to make atheists look bad by comparing them to an incident from your religions' history?
You ask how did Ellen Johnson become the head of AA? Perhaps it's the same way that all those pedophile preists in the RCC and other xian sects get to their positions of leadership.
Except all Ellen did was lip off. The priests were worse. Were's the "holy spook/ghost" or whatever it is when you need him/her/it?
It's religions that have the heirchical authoritarian structure, not atheism. We can choose to listen to famous atheists or tell them to pike off as we please.
I am amazed how quickly you bail on someone. I am beginning to understand how some of you claimed Christianity and immediately broke the covenant you made with God when, let's say, some secular scientist teased you about it. Remember you can't put Jesus on to make your flight more comfortable. You do it because you are so very grateful for being saved from death. Your loyalty would be a lot less shallow.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute...one minute you're calling for us to "bail" on someone, Ellen Johnson, and the next minute you're criticizing us for having "shallow loyalties"?
Pike off, Dan. You're full of it. I've tried to be polite with you before, but you're not worth it.
Like Dawkins, Ms. Johnson is the spokesperson for all of you like it or not.
ReplyDeleteWell, Dan, that was truly stupid of you.
Just because she's the head of the organization itself doesn't mean that the organization, American atheists represents all atheists. Look to the bolding for the hint.
Something else; her opinions and attitudes may change over time. It's what happens to everyone. If someone's opinions and attitudes no longer match that of the organization itself, then the organization is within it's rights to dump that person, president or not.
The fact that the AA people have changed their leadership because of what she said should tell you something. That being, that her opinion is not representative of even the group itself anymore, much less all atheists in general.
In addition to what pvblivs and reynold have said, I would just say this. All I know about Ellen Johnson is what she said in this video clip. While I do not agree with her about her reasons for not voting (I don't think "protest" not-voting accomplishes as much as trying to get the best person for the job in office), I don't see how she qualifies as "the most hated woman in America" under any standards. She presented her viewpoint, which I happen to disagree with, in a reasoned and logical way, and said nothing hateful. You might consider lightening up on the hyperbole, Dan.
ReplyDeletecheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
Ziltch,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how she qualifies as "the most hated woman in America" under any standards.
No "Johnson is the successor of the most hated woman in America. If you clicked the link you would of read: Madalyn Murray O'Hair proudly coined herself as the the most hated woman in America in a magazine interview, was best known for suing in 1963 to have prayer removed in the public school system in Murray v. Curlett,
When O'Hair was murdered by an atheist then Johnson took over as president of 'American Atheists.'
Reynold,
I concede to your point. A truer statement would be: Ms. Johnson is the spokesperson for all American Atheists, like it or not.
Pike off, Dan. I might have deserved that. Maybe I should explore the loyalty of atheists in a new post.
I added to the blog "Why would professing Christians would break such a sacred Covenant with God to follow the likes of Johnson and Dawkins is so beyond my comprehension. Then only later to find that the leaders are flakes."
Thanks Reynold I apologize for sounding like I was two faced. Can I use the excuse of it was getting late? Thanks for speaking truth to me.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThen Pat Robertson represents all of you Christians....you all must therefore think that hurricanes are attracted to cities with lesbians. Or maybe Peter Popoff is your spokesman...so you Christians are all thieves. Sorry, Dan, no sale, I am my own representative. Another theist attempt to make us look as silly as you all. I don't need a spokesperson to voice my opinion that there are no spooky, incompetent father-figures stumbling around up in space. I just don't buy it. That's all.
P.S. Dan,
ReplyDeleteCan you explain how Ray's banana/coke can bit was "quote-mined"? I have seen it a few times and also heard it on the nightline debate....and we represented it in context. Thanks.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteA word to the wise: If you persist in ignoring my points just because you have lost hope of converting me, it will reflect badly on your message. I make no comment on whether it should; but you know as well as I do that it will. Other people will notice what looks like a pattern of snubbing.
Ah the bananananana/coke-can argument. I first read it in Comforts "The Atheist Test", when it was handed to me by a fellow student outside the University (It's a shame I was in a hurry, or I would have stopped to speak with him about it).
ReplyDeleteActually, Dan, How about a blog post on The Atheist Test? What's your opinion on it?
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteYou are a sensitive one. I thought your post was a statement more then a question. Pattern of snubbing? Aw come on now I have posts the receive no comments at all like THIS ONE. Should I take it that atheists cannot even possibly argue that point so they stay silent? Should I take it as a WIN! for the team?
With all do respect I don't have opinions on all subjects. I have limited time to do things also. Did I mention that I homeschool our four kids? Besides I will never lose any hope for any of your Salvation.
Now, tomorrow my wife and I turn 40 and it's our 8th anniversary, are you going to get upset if I ignore everyone?
Clos,
Then Pat Robertson represents all of you Christians.
Ouch that hurt, I can't catch my breath, touché. I think we can all agree that we all fall short of God's glory.
Can you explain how Ray's banana/coke can bit was "quote-mined"?
That one is easy they took the whole coke part out and quoted just the Banana. It sure is sad that not just a couple of minutes ago I read what you said: By endorsing this film, you are endorsing the fraud contained therein. Are you dishonest?
So are you dishonest? Atheists quote mined Ray just as possibly 'Expelled' did. I think we can all agree that we all fall short of God's glory.
There is none that do good no not one!
Sensitive? Perhaps. But I noted that after I informed you that you could not convert me because your description of your god was an acknowledgement of wickedness, you seemed to ignore all my posts. I am just pointing out that if that is a deliberate strategy, it is probably unwise.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Atheist Test:
ReplyDeleteTEST THREE
C: Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?
...
If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
Yes, please. Enlighten us with your amazing intellect and your broad understanding of all things quantum. Provide details regarding this alleged intelligent mind, which you assert "must" have been present.
Nevermind the fact that "tests" like these are intentionally misleading (by omission of data, scientific discovery, and consensus of the educated/experienced) -- if their own half-witted attempts at catchy zingers fails itself, then what should we expect of the rest of it?
We're all still waiting to hear why it is that god, who allegedly wants all of us to commune with him eternally, refuses to reveal himself to more than a miniscule percentage of humanity, and why Dan's version (or anyone else's version) is the correct one despite all of the mutually exclusive competitors.
In the absence of compelling evidence, logic, or rational reasoning, the only appropriate conclusion is that if there is a god, its nature is indeterminable, and as such the only prudent course of action is to abstain from worshipping any of them. Coupling this recognition with the fact that virtually every deity postulated by humanity stands accused in its own holy text of blatantly immoral acts, and we see that not only should we abstain from worship, but we are morally obligated to deny any of those proposed deities -- at least as wholly good deities.
I have said it before, and I will continue to say it: regardless of the existence of a deity, I will not worship it. I will commune with it if it reveals itself to me, and I will befriend it if it behooves me, but worship is out of the question. I may thank it for creating me, but at the same time I expect better results from something so powerful. At present, at the very least, I see no evidence of any being worthy of worship.
So I respectfully decline.
(To be clear, I also see no evidence for any deity of any kind, but my point is that even if there were this sort of evidence, it does not follow that every such being should be worshipped, and no matter how overwhelming an experience it might be to "meet" such a being, worshipping it is another matter entirely.)
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteAll I can do at this point is refer you to HERE. Man's intellect is now how we get to God. The system would fail because of the subjectivity. There must be a common factor. That factor is God Himself. He will have to pull you to Him. He will get all the credit.
That reminds me Pvblivs, sometimes I also get out of the way so God can do His work. The last thing I want to do is get in the way. I cringe when I feel someone getting convicted. I am not alluding that is what was happening to you but please understand if I stay silent some times. Squeaky wheels do get the grease.
Let me tell you what my wife just said and it came out shallow but that wasn't the intention, I thought it would be a great t-shirt for atheists.
I mentioned that if I had a ministry I would spend a great deal of time away from her and the family also, even more then a blog.
She said "Ministers get paid, bloggers don't"
Then I blurted out "OK Tammy fay" (it was the first televangelists wife that came to my mind, God rest her soul). I said that the day before our 8th anniversary. So now I have some damage control to attend to. Have a great night all.
God will be answering my calls while I am away.
Dan- it sounds like your wife is concerned about your family. That's something we have in common: nothing is more important to me than my family.
ReplyDeleteTake your time, and think about what is important to you. Cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
Dan,
ReplyDeleteSorry I did not see this thread before posting my bizarro-Ray at the newest thread.
That one is easy they took the whole coke part out and quoted just the Banana. It sure is sad that not just a couple of minutes ago I read what you said: By endorsing this film, you are endorsing the fraud contained therein. Are you dishonest?
No dan, I saw it the first time complete, I was just as astounded. The coke can part does not give it any merit, does not change what we see in the video without the coke can. No quote mining Dan, just painly play of the ridiculous part. Now, I wonder how oh how if those whose deeds are evil, who do no good do quote mining then it is justified for you or Ray to do that as well? Do not miss this part Dan! Ray and minions use this trick time and again, they accuse atheists of doing something just as well, like that would justify the Christians to do it.
G.E.
By the way, I have never read anything by Dawkins, except the selfish gene, which has nothing to do with atheism. I got bored (though the ideas were interesting and useful he could have done a better presentation), and have not read anything by him ever since.
ReplyDeleteAs of Johnson, this is my first encounter with her. While I might disagree on not voting, I saw nothing hateful in the video.
G.E.
Ray and minions use this trick time and again, they accuse atheists of doing something just as well, like that would justify the Christians to do it.
ReplyDeleteYes each and every one of use is hypocritical at times. Mankind is fallible, agree?
Mankind is fallible, agree?
ReplyDeleteAgree on this part.