I am noticing that so far you are all telling me that all of you who I have been talking to are ex-christians.
Why is it that most ex-christian atheists seem to be the most militant (from my experience)? are wou guys actually anti-God? Am I wasting my time talking with you guys (I don't mind) if you are really so against God?
DB
I speak for myself only, but I classify myself not as anti-god, or anti-Christian, but as anti-theist. I don't think any human qualifies to say he has access to the divine, and I think anyone who says otherwise is dishonest -- willfully or unwittingly. Religion -- theism in particular -- tends to stifle human imagination and inventiveness in favor of maintaining a convenient veil of mysticism over various phenomena. In Christianity, the religion with which I have by far the most experience in dealing, this is easily illustrated throughout history -- especially in those cultures where Christianity has found itself in power.
ReplyDeleteI cannot stand willful ignorance, and I loathe the spread of ignorance, whether willful or unwitting. Thus, when fundamentalist Christians seek to legislate their interpretations of their religion's doctrines, I stand in direct opposition. When they seek to spread ignorance, I seek to expose the truth.
I am a 'weak atheist,' and a 'strong anti-theist,' then, and while I don't expect there to be a god of any kind, I'm not about to claim definitively either way. I will say, though, that the god described by fundamentalist Christians is a logical contradiction on a number of fronts, and does not match with the plentiful evidence provided to us by science. I sincerely hope that their version of god does not exist, for that guy is a monster.
At any rate, as I say, I'm open to the possibility that a god may exist, but I wouldn't worship one even if it could be shown conclusively that a particular deity was the one most eligible for worship. The only way I'll worship (now, anyway) is if I'm forced via suspension of my "free will." I look at the possibility of deity logically, and there is just no logical reason any deity would give a rat's ass as to whether any of its creation worshiped it or not. If such a deity were "good," by any human standard, it would not allow a single soul to suffer eternal torment. Temporary torment? Fine. Eternal? That's just being a totalitarian prick.
So yeah, you're wasting your time if you want me to bow down, and it's highly unlikely you'll convince me that anything approaching the god depicted in the bible is true (no matter how you interpret the bible), but on the plus side, my "cold" attitude, versus your "hot" attitude, means that neither of us will be spat out.
Mostly, I like to debate, and it's an excuse to research topics of interest. That, and when I visit my dad (a very fundamentalist Christian), I can complete all of his sentences as he trots out thoroughly debunked fundy arguments.
:)
--
Stan
It appears to me that all they want is to be argumentative. I'd love to engage in a rational discussion with at least one of them. I honestly am afraid that it's not possible.
ReplyDeleteI actually thought that GE and EX-Pat were hopeful candidates but they quickly revert back to their old ways. I honestly think it's because of their relationship with stan, bean, froggie. I've taken time to read some of their blogs. They range from fooliness or outright vulgar.
This is especially true with stan, who relates the subject of "Fine Tuning" with a vulgar sexual act.
Da Bomb said,
"Am I wasting my time talking with you guys (I don't mind) if you are really so against God?"
G-d tells us that sometimes we need to dust the dust from our feet and go on.
It saddens me when you meet people that are so closed minded. I know that they will probably take offense to this next statement, but we need to pray for the veil to be lifted from their eyes, all of our eyes.
Bless you my friend,
No Doubt
Hey DB,
ReplyDeleteWell, I cannot be anti-God if I do not believe it to exist (I know, I aid that already. But you seemed to miss the point).
I just like this ability to detect scatology at first sight. I did not have it as well tuned until I started debating fundamental creationists.
Unlike Stan, I do not mind if people want to believe there is a God. Like Stan, I cannot stand willful ignorance. yeah, I know these two are somewhat contradictory Stan. So, you do not need to tell me. But a God-believing person, who does not start denying evidences for scientific stuff, who does not want to intermingle religious beliefs with science in the classroom, does not bother me.
Now, I do detest the charlatanry of creationist apologetics. I think this is a remnant of my Christian past. I grew up believing that Christians would try hard not to lie, not to be dishonest. I left Christianity in peace (no traumatic experiences triggering anything, just plain accumulation of knowledge and reason until it was obvious). Part of my starting disbelief was the realization that those arguments I was using as proof for God were not reasonable. One little point, and yep, I could see that, then another point, and yep, I could see that. But I still thought that the arguments were sincere, just badly constructed out of ignorance, not out of dishonesty. So, I had these nice feelings towards Christians, and then, after a few years I discover the likes of Comfort who make a living out of plain lying about what scientists discover (particularly evolution), and about all kinds of stuff that the "atheists" believe. That I could not stand. I could not stand the lying to those Christians who, I would expect from me having being one, would trust these charlatans because they cannot even imagine them to be professional liars.
So, that is why I debate. Let me summarize:
1. I like the thinking exercise.
2. I detest the liars for Jesus.
So, note Daniel that I do not call you a liar. I say that those you take the arguments from are liars. I think you are sincere. Thus, I also think you deserve better than become another liar with time.
Oh, well, I think you are wasting your time trying to convert me. Not because I do not want to believe. But because I doubt there is any way of proving that there is a God. It just does not make sense. Since you take the arguments from those other guys, and since I already know what they are all about. Well ...
We can still be friends, right?
I still do not know what to do if God tells me:
Disobey this command!
G.E.
This is especially true with [Stan], who relates the subject of "Fine Tuning" with a vulgar sexual act.
ReplyDeleteI have a blog?! (Sometimes, even I forget...)
Last I checked, masturbation was not a vulgar sexual act, and even Jimmy Dobson endorsed it in my very old copy of Preparing for Adolescence, so long as it wasn't done with lustful thoughts... Who he was kidding, I don't know, but it was in his book.
If you don't have a sense of humor, stay away from the three posts I've made on my blog, and probably any future posts I make there, if that ever happens. They're either absurd satire, semi-absurd parody, or quite plausible satire parodying absurd fiction, and they all attempt to show just how specious certain theistic claims are. In the case of the FAG (the Fine-tuning Argument for the existence of God), hubris is committed explicitly, and its masturbatory parody shows why, if crudely. Judge for yourself, or don't...
G-d tells us that sometimes we need to dust the dust from our feet and go on.
The bible also says one should always answer a fool according to his folly, lest he think himself wise.
...of course, right before this, it says to never answer a fool according to his folly, lest you look foolish, too...
Incidentally, ND, I have to ask: Do you get special bibles that omit the vowels when they say 'god,' or 'Yahweh,' or 'Elohim,' or any of the other names by which the Christian god is described? I'm extremely curious right now, and while I admit a certain amusing aspect to my curiosity, I also figure that Hebrew bibles probably behave this way, so maybe Zondervan or some other enterprising bible publisher has taken to producing bibles for Messianic Jews which omit key vowels...?
If not, I see a business opportunity...
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"I speak for myself only, but I classify myself not as anti-god, or anti-Christian, but as anti-theist"
Both "Christian" and "God" apply to "theist".
"I don't think any human qualifies to say he has access to the divine, and I think anyone who says otherwise is dishonest -- willfully or unwittingly"
That's a big generalization. Can you admit you could be wrong?
"tends to stifle human imagination"
God increases my imagination. It is open minded to believe in more than "this is it".
"I look at the possibility of deity logically, and there is just no logical reason any deity would give a rat's ass as to whether any of its creation worshiped it or not."
If you set up and sacrificed your life savings for an orphanage (a creative work) for
homeless children and the community and the children gave you no thanks or any recognition but a hard shoulder...wouldn't that make you rather hacked off? That's logical isn't it?
Assumptions you make Stan.
"So yeah, you're wasting your time if you want me to bow down"
Well, one day you will. Every knee shall bow as I am sure you already know.
Wasting my time? Ye I am sure if you are not going to even consider the fact that you there could be a God then I am wasting my time.
"Eternal? That's just being a totalitarian prick."
And please, YOU GUYS KNOW THAT I AM A CHRISTIAN, then why use this type of language when there is no need to?
Please don't do it again.
DB
P.S. "The bible also says one should always answer a fool according to his folly, lest he think himself wise."
Read your Bible more carefully, the verse before also says:
Pr 26:4 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him."
There is a time and a place to do the right thing.
And don't cast your pearls before swine is another one. Mt 7:6
ReplyDeleteHey G.E.
ReplyDelete"I say that those you take the arguments from are liars."
Please don't generalize. Many people who I listen to encourage me to be honest. C.S. Lewis I think is quite honest...David Pawson is one of the best theologians I have come across and takes topics seriously...he is not in favour of that Wilberforce.Huxley (spelling?) debate a century ago. He thought that instead of laughing at evolution all the time we should take the situation seriously.
John Lennox is another one who was brought up in a strong christian family being taught to make up his own mind. He read Marx and others and yet he is a firm believer.
"Oh, well, I think you are wasting your time trying to convert me. Not because I do not want to believe. But because I doubt there is any way of proving that there is a God. It just does not make sense. Since you take the arguments from those other guys, and since I already know what they are all about."
I doubt there is any way of proving (scientifically) there is no purpose behind this universe which you by "default" accept.("I am my own master" type of thinking)
I don't have the faith for that. The Lord makes the best explanation for me and the arguments for Him seem the best (especially philosophically).
A friend of mine has been doing a philosophy paper at uni and he found that most/many (can't remember which) philosophers believe in God and do not look favourably at people like Dawkins who doesn't think he has a belief or faith.
Take the best conclusion about our universe and follow the evidence. This is all I am doing. This is all God expects of us I believe.
Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead".
"We can still be friends, right?"
Yep, but my real brothers are the ones who follow my Lord.
Good chatting...
Dan
Hey Danny,
ReplyDeleteYup, sorry for the exaggerated generalization. You are right. Many of these apologists do not knowingly go into the lies, and might not be able to see the fallacies. The stuff just seems reasonable to them.
I still know what their arguments are about. Ray is still an oil-snake salesman. He willingly and openly lies. Same with many others. But let us let that thing rest.
G.E.
DB,
ReplyDeleteI was forgetting. One of my aunts uses very strong language. She is quite the Christian, very committed. I cannot just generalize and think that all Christians will feel offended by strong language. Also, try it! It does not hurt, it is part of our cultures, and allows for enormously economical direct communication (well used and put together). My aunt is a master in that. When she says those words, the words are the only ones that would have conveyed the message properly.
G.E.
Hey No Doubt,
ReplyDeleteWell, I think you can have an honest exchange with all of us. All it takes is not to take so many little details personally, and to not start making accusations just because someone uses the word "Jew" or a derivative in some sentence.
Also be aware that argumentation often requires you to accept that your arguments might be identified as fallacies (which does not always mean that you are doing those on purpose, nor that the arguments are actually fallacies, which you could just clarify). Or that arguments that do not prove anything can be called "empty babbling" for economy's sake. You know, expect that if others see that you are wrong, then they will tell you. Otherwise there is no point of having an exchange.
G.E.
DB,
ReplyDeleteYep, but my real brothers are the ones who follow my Lord.
Well, I was not asking to be your "brother". And I think you did not need to write that.
G.E.
In reference to the subject of this post, I was raised in a rather progressive, yet church-going Christian family.
ReplyDeleteI can vaguely remember believing that the bible was the word of God, but by the age of twelve I had decided that basically, the ible was an ancient book of myths by authoritarian, warring tribes trying to control their people and increase their power.
I suppose I was a born skeptic and when told to believe in God, based on faith, I rejected that outright.
I cannot be a presuppositionalist, no matter what I tried, it didn't work.
I have been an evidentialist since as far back as I can remember.
Beliefs are not ideas that the mind posesses, beliefs are ideas that posess the mind, and I shall control my own mind based on logic and reason and not belief.
That is all,
Dale
I live in the Bible belt. I am around people who are actively wanting to set up a theocracy. I have Governmental Representation that outright denies science. People that want to rewrite history so that it fits what they prefer. The first thing most people ask you when they meet you is 'Where do you go to church?' State laws get offered that ignore the Constitution and rights of minorities are trampled upon.
ReplyDeleteI speak up for these things, at the risk of losing my job and alienating my family. I come here in the hope that you have something. Something new or something I have overlooked. For me to be honest with myself I have to point out where things break down or don't make sense.
I try not to say anything I cannot back up, so that I keep a good conversation. I expect no less from whom I am speaking with.
No DOubt,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you know about my 'old ways'? The first time we corresponded was a couple of weeks ago! And, if I recall correctly, your first comment to me was to ridicule the entirety of my comment without explaining what was so ridiculous/foolish about it.
As a matter of fact, you staunchly refused to back up a single assertion you made about me in that whole thread and you never did explain what was wrong with the definition of 'scientific theory' I provided (copied from the National Academy Science's website!), did you?
Or perhaps by 'old ways' you mean me calling you out on your tendency to needlessly call people anti-semites?
Until you're ready to back up the things you say, you're never going to be involved in an honest discussion - and you've nobody to blame for that but yourself.
Da Bomb,
In response to this post - have I ever said that I used to be a Christian? I don't think so.
And no, I'm not anti-GOd or anti-Christian or even anti-theist. I am, like Beams, interested in standing up to the lies and falshoods being spread by (YE) Creationists with regard to science and atheists in general. Apart from that, I just enjoy the discussion - as I hope you already know!
Cheers,
Both "Christian" and "God" apply to "theist".
ReplyDeleteNo, that's backwards. "Theist" applies to Christians and gods, true, but the other way begs the question. Also, the "anti-" is not a statement of militant anger or anything of the sort -- I'm anti-AL rules, too. When I encounter theists, I am simply unafraid of broaching the religion subject, including stating my position(s), and critiquing theirs.
That's a big generalization. Can you admit you could be wrong?
Absolutely. I have no problem with the fact that I can and do make mistakes. To date, however, I've not seen any reason to expect my conclusion to be invalid -- that no human is qualified to say he has access to the divine, if there even is such a thing. You're more than welcome to make a case to the contrary.
It is open minded to believe in more than "this is it".
That's a bit of a straw man -- I don't look up and say, "this is it," but I look up and say, "that's [redacted] awesome." Then I seek to know as much as possible about what I see, which is why I'm a physics major with an eye for astrophysics (and/or particle physics) in graduate school.
If you [sacrificed for the benefit of others, and received no recognition]...wouldn't that make you rather hacked off? That's logical isn't it?
No, it's not [logical]. If you truly sacrificed for the benefit of others (yes, I realize that to be my paraphrase, but run with it, if you will), then it is illogical to feel slighted if the others do not show appreciation -- that would imply that the sacrifice was at least partially for one's own benefit, and thus not a pure sacrifice.
Of course, we're talking about more than orphanages and homeless children; we're talking about the ultimate parent of those children placing them into a situation in which over 90% of them -- conservatively -- will suffer eternal torment, who waited several thousand years (over a hundred thousand years, technically, despite what YECs say) to offer any "fix" whatsoever, and even then offered such a weak "fix" that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has his own version of it set up, and if the incorrect version is chosen, you'll suffer the fate as the other ~90%, despite your good intentions.
No, thank you, I'll remain skeptical and unimpressed, especially if you also claim this guy to be omniscient/omnipotent, and "good."
In point of fact, then, it is absolutely illogical to state that any action by any number of finite, limited creatures could possibly cause harm or even disappointment to an infinite, unlimited creature. Again, then, no, it is not logical for god to act like Rodney Dangerfield (though at least Dangerfield was joking).
Every knee shall bow as I am sure you already know.
ReplyDeleteNot without removing my "free will," mine won't. If there's a god waiting to meet me when I die, I'll happily offer to shake its hand, and introduce myself, and I'll request an audience to seek out answers to things which puzzled me (though not all answers -- having all the answers is certain death), but I will not offer to worship -- that's just silly. I don't remove my hat in a courtroom, so what makes you think I'll willingly worship?
[I]f you are not going to even consider the fact that you [sic] there could be a God then I am wasting my time.
Then perhaps you're not wasting your time, since I said at the onset that I am not against the possibility of the existence of a god, but rather that I am against the arrogant hubris demonstrated when someone asserts that 'god says [whatever].'
As to your [feigned] offense to the use of the term "prick" to denote one who is unnecessarily cruel, I will not apologize. Instead, you need to grow up and stop being so petty. I could have used any number of far more potentially offensive terms -- accurately -- yet I chose an extremely mild term. You should be thanking me, not crying about it.
Indeed, the complaints that certain people make against profanity or expletive use are asinine. Whenever someone uses 'replacement profanity,' such as "darn," "crap," "shoot," etc., their meaning is transparent, and their dishonesty is just as evident. Far more offensive, really, is when a person uses quite otherwise "acceptable" speech to insult someone.
What's the freaking deal, anyway?
Tell you what. Rather than call your god a "prick," I'll say this:
The doctrine of eternal torment, if implemented by a deity, renders that deity nothing short of an autofellating, capricious villain, who, rather than use his power to prevent such torture, prefers instead the apparent self-gratification found in voyeurishly cataloging the perils which befall others.
Or, you could just say he's a prick.
Read your Bible more carefully, the verse before also says:
Pr 26:4 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him."
Yes, I know. Read my post more carefully, and you'll see I said exactly that. I guess it's a good thing I'm nobody's fool.
Love and hugs,
Stan
Militant huh? So you expect us to strap bombs on our backs and blow up the nearest church?
ReplyDeleteIt's quite simple, the ones who don't enjoy discussing things won't post on blogs and discussion boards. Most (almost all in fact) of my friends are Atheists, none of them could care less about discussing Atheism or Science vs Creationism. It's just not something they are interested in.
I however was hugely into Creationism growing up. Which is why I have said more than once that I probably know more about Creationism that most of the Creationists on the blogs (like AJ's and HolyClub). I had stacks of books, magazines, technical journal subscription. And only relatively recently threw them out.
I don't hate God. That would be nonsensical.
I do hate people that lie about me and tell me what I think. It's one of the quickest ways to piss me off in fact. Which is why Ray Comfort is a target of particular ire, since his whole shtick is to lie about people, including me personally.
I do hate people that lie about me and tell me what I think. It's one of the quickest ways to piss me off in fact. Which is why Ray Comfort is a target of particular ire, since his whole shtick is to lie about people, including me personally.
ReplyDeleteAmen.
I went to Stan's blog, and I could not find anything about any vulgar sexual act ... :-(
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your ideas. Obviously I disagree with you in general. I do pray that you all may come to know our glorious Maker!
Just a couple of points.
G.E.
I said "Yep, but my real brothers are the ones who follow my Lord."
You replied: "Well, I was not asking to be your "brother". And I think you did not need to write that."
Sorry if you took that wrong. I had in mind what Jesus said:
Lu 8:20 And it was told Him by some, who said, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You."
Lu 8:21 But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."
I am glad to be a friend :)
EPM,
I remembered reading somewhere on your blog that you said you were from a moderate christian family...so I assumed you were once a christian.
BeamStalk,
"I try not to say anything I cannot back up, so that I keep a good conversation. I expect no less from whom I am speaking with."
Hmmm you run a hard line LOL. I hope we can still discuss ideas and take the most logical one? Depends by what you mean by "back up".
Dale,
"I shall control my own mind based on logic and reason and not belief."
I think we all try to do that. Every person believes something for some "reason" that makes sense to them.
"I cannot be a presuppositionalist, no matter what I tried, it didn't work."
I think we all presuppose...E.G. Our rationality is able to find truth about our universe by inferences. Lewis loves discussing that :)
BathTub,
"Militant huh? So you expect us to strap bombs on our backs and blow up the nearest church?"
LOL, I meant seeking to pull down belief in God instead of seeking Him.
Stan,
"Yes, I know. Read my post more carefully, and you'll see I said exactly that."
Oops...somehow I over looked it?
cheers guys,
DB
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteI am from a moderate Christian family, but you of all people should know that that doesn't make one a Christian!
Cheers,
Good point DB, we should define terms. This is something that should always be done in a discussion, so that we are discussing the same thing. To me "back up" means that you can present some evidence or some expert that is in the field being discussed that will help to give your point some credence. Factual evidence being the best but an expert in the field works also. There are always experts who disagree on subjects, even if some don't always base their claims on evidence. Mind you I will be quick to point this out. :)
ReplyDeleteHey Matt,
ReplyDeleteYes I do know and understand that :) The way is narrow and there are probably many "christians" that aren't. I need to make sure that I continue to actively follow after Him.
So I was wrong. Although generaly if someone grew up in a christian family, by benefit of the doubt they must have believed at some point :)
Dan
Hey BS,
ReplyDelete"To me "back up" means that you can present some evidence or some expert that is in the field being discussed that will help to give your point some credence."
Hmmm, you are right there could be many "back ups" that disagree. LOL. All (or most) people can think, so I hope you will have possible credence for yours and other's thoughts.
DB