Send in the atheists

Would the Crusades have been considered a pushback of Nero's Roman crusades against early Christians? Doesn't that sound an awful lot like a pathetic excuse to misbehave? Its common sense. You don't need to have a doctorate, have special mindbending powers, or anything else to figure out people's motives.

quote:

---

Those that get a real thrill out of intellectually dismantling the opposition.

---

If atheism was really about the unbelief of deities, there would be no causation for having such an in depth analysis, now would there? This goes back to what I've been saying since you've known me. Militant atheism extends much further than disbelief, otherwise, why spend inordinate amounts of time trying subvert that which doesn't even exist? Since you are so fond of bringing up irrelevant past instances of human atrocity done in the name of Jesus, or Allah, or whoever, (all of which I wholeheartedly condemn) let me kindly remind you that militant atheism has spawned the most vicious minds in all of the world.But this isn't a contest between atheists and theists for who is the most depraved. As you are aware, I don't support the vast majority of theism, and I don't condemn atheists for being atheists. Crash, it was you that called Dawkins a "militant." I used an altogether different term. Better yet, he phrased that for himself. So, really, what is your objection?

quote:

---

When I hear people say, "All you need is a little religion," I cringe. I think "religion" is part of the problem. I think religion is just another worldly system, only veiled in a spiritual guise.

---

If a relationship with the Creator is considered a "religion" to you, then I'm religious. For me, a relationship is a relationship. My understanding of the matter is religion is telling me how I should reach God, whereas, my beliefs entail God trying to reach me.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it it difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

...you've lost me. I have no idea what you're even talking about. Maybe you need to quote a little more of the original message, but even going back to what I wrote, I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's not common sense, NJ, it doesn't make any sense. Believing in God doesn't make people live a certain way; Christians (for instance) don't feel any greater need to adhere to the precepts of their faith than anybody else does. I mean it's abundantly obvious that being Christian doesn't get in the way of people having sex with whoever they want, or raping and murdering, or divorcing, or (hell) eating shrimp and crab and wearing polyester/cotton leisure suits.Just believing in God, clearly, doesn't make anybody feel like they can't do things. If there's one thing religious people are good at doing, it's interpreting the tenants of their religion in such a way as to represent the least amount of restriction in their lives (as well as, usually, the most restriction in the lives of others.)Ted Haggard was as religious as could be but clearly, he saw no problem with fucking gay hookers and smoking meth. It's hardly the case that countenancing the existence of God makes you feel like you can't do the things you want to do. You're not making any sense at all. Atheism is about the fact that the case for the existence of deities is insufficient. You can analyze that as in-depth as it takes to support that contention.Listen to yourself for a second, NJ. What you're saying is that because atheism is so well supported, it's false. How does that make any sense? Because people act like it exists. People believe it exists. And that belief leads people to do bad things to people who believe differently.It's really fucking simple, NJ. If we didn't live in a society where so many people were forcing their religious beliefs on as many people as they could, there'd be no need for books like "The God Delusion." No, it hasn't. Hitler was Lutheran. Stalin was an Orthodox seminary student. Pol Pot was Buddhist. Hardly "militant atheists". But how quickly you theists forget those facts, huh? I forget what term you used. Is "militant" not a synonym for it? That the same terms are used - and thus the actions are held as equivalent - for atheists who write books as for theists who commit mass murder. Yes. That's a religion.

quote:

---

Would the Crusades have been considered a pushback of Nero's Roman crusades against early Christians?

---

Alright, my apologies. Last week you had stated that militant atheism is basically a backlash of years of theological oppression-- i.e., the Crusades.I was objecting to that because its a convenient excuse for an old problem. So I'm responding by saying that blaming theism for militant atheism makes about as much sense as blaming the Crusades on the tirades of Caesar Nero who hunted the early Christians.Would that be a fair assessment to conveniently blame something like the Crusades on the secular occupation of Rome?Does that make a little more sense? Its supposed to, but, yes, I agree that just because somebody says that they are this or that means very little. There are millions and millions of people who call themselves Christians and live like hell. In fact, all Christians, to some degree, are still and always will be guilty of sin. The evidence is not in a self-proscribed definition. The evidence lies within themselves and they choose to live out their lives.Jesus spoke about that a number of times. Heck, the Israelites screwed a bazillion times, even though they believed in God. This only serves to prove that its not about religion, its about the relationship. Crash, every one is guilty of this-- including you and me. We always try and come up with some clever way why what we did (insert instance here _______) really didn't go against our laurels. I agree... Which is why the air of religiosity is worthless. So why so much effort? What purpose do you get out of coming here day in, day out, telling people that they believe in sky daddy's? What do you get out of it? What? How did I say, or even imply that? People act like it doesn't exist. People don't believe it exists. And that disbelief leads people to do bad things to people who believe differently.And to quote you.... Seriously Crash, what do you constitute as "forcing"? Because if a man stands up on a pulpit in front of a congregation of like-minded fellows, that somehow constitutes the "forcing" of religious beliefs. But when Dawkins stands in front of a like-minded congregation, he's just telling it like it is. Somehow he isn't forcing anything. He's just sharing his opinions.The Bible uses a Greek word to describe this: Its called, hypocrisy.

quote:

---

Since you are so fond of bringing up irrelevant past instances of human atrocity done in the name of Jesus, or Allah, or whoever, (all of which I wholeheartedly condemn) let me kindly remind you that militant atheism has spawned the most vicious minds in all of the world.

---

You haven't read one thing I've written. Its not about the name, Crash. Its not about what you call yourself that is going to determine who or what you are. If you want to be a Christian, you don't use your upbringing in the Lutheran church as a means to commit genocide in the name of Christ, who preached against the very thing!So, then, why not have a problem with the persons behavior rather than attacking the very precepts designed to keep those atrocities at check?Wouldn't it make more sense to attack the hypocrites of Christianity, rather than Christianity itself?I mean, what exactly did Jesus say that was so utterly offensive that the scorn of the world should still come upon Him?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

I'm pretty sure that's not what I was talking about. It was the recent trend of more "visible" atheism that I was talking about. Yes. So the idea that atheists are afraid that belief in God will force them to live the Good Life is pretty stupid, isn't it? Since atheists can just look and see that belief in God doesn't really make you do anything at all. Yes, exactly. So why would atheists have anything to fear about belief in God, except for the fact that such a belief would be counterfactual? Do you think this takes effort? NJ, I don't think you could rise above freshman-level apologetics if you tried your hardest. It's nearly trivial to rebut argumentation at this level, because the flaws of faith are so self-obvious - and faith's defenders are so generally ignorant of the debate that has gone before them.I can't believe you think this requires substantial effort on my part. Atheists are people who are convinced by evidence - the more evidence, the more convinced. And they're people who, generally, prefer truth to lies.So what you're saying is that you think atheism is false because atheists disagree with you, loudly. You think they have some ulterior motive, and the evidence you're presenting for that is that when you say stuff that isn't true, or offer arguments that don't make any fucking sense, atheists tell you so.How the hell does that make any sense? How many times have I presented examples, NJ? I think "believe in our God or we'll fucking kill you" counts as forcing, and that was the primary means of Christian evangelicalism for about 1400 years.But, closer to home, something like "our religion says fetuses have souls; therefore, no one can be allowed to abort their own fetus" is forcing religion on other people. Even if you can't make them believe in your religion, if you make them live your religion, it's the same thing.Forcing your religion on people is when, because your religion says it's wrong to drink, you force the bars to close - for everyone.It's hard for me to understand how you still don't get that. But it really goes to why it hardly takes any effort to rebutr your nonsense - you can be relied upon to make exactly the same mistakes and false statements, over and over again. Arguing with you is usually just a matter of telling you the same thing for the 20th time, in a slightly different way. Priests talking to their flock is not an example of anybody forcing religion on anybody, and nobody has ever, ever said that it is. What you're doing here is arguing with a really stupid strawman. They're not the hypocrites. A lot of these people are following the Bible exactly as written - or as someone tells them its written.Christianity makes people do things they wouldn't otherwise do, NJ. It's impossible to deny that. Atheism doesn't. Non-religiousness doesn't make people do anything - but telling people they have to go kill a brown person or else go to hell, that makes people do things they wouldn't, otherwise. Who the hell knows? There's absolutely no written record of Jesus saying anything at all.

A true belief does if you allow it to blossom. Read my quote. That little epigraph is the summation of what I'm talking about. Because somewhere in the dark recesses of the mind, we all suspect that God exists. There is that terrifying prospect of being wrong for the atheist. And this really was what Pascal's Wager was all about. Its really no consequence to the Christian if he dies, and no God exists. His body will become nutrients for a flower, and nothing else. If there is no cognizance in the grave, then there is no consequence to live life like hell. But if there is a God, we are going to stand in Judgement. Typing words takes effort. And you wouldnt do it unless you derived some enjoyment from it. So, I'm asking you a genuine question. Why do you like it? This isn't a loaded question. I'm honestly curious as to why you find these topics so appealing. I suppose this question should be directed to everyone. When juxtaposed by the great apologetics, you are being too lenient on me. I think there is always some underlying motivation, yes. See, Jesus got right in everyone's little face and exposed their sin. He did it to the Chief Priests, and He's still doing it today. That level of inspection, that causes a deep introspection, is an uncomfortable journey. So people resist it.

quote:

---

Seriously Crash, what do you constitute as "forcing"?

---

Believe in God or we'll kill you? Believe in God or we'll kill you, has been a part of Christian evangelism for about 1400 years? When was the last time someone held a gun to your head and asked you to accept Jesus or die? You seem to be confusing Christianity with Wahabi Islam, which intersetingly enough, you seem to have no complaint about. Unbelievable. They're people, Crash. They are innocent human beings, babies at that, created by other human beings. And by killing them, YOU are forcing all of your secular philosophy on them. We can't allow your selfishness to override human decency. Nowhere in the Christian faith is it wrong to drink. Or have you forgotten Jesus' first recorded miracle? What is wrong is to drink to excess and loose your scruples. Make a compelling argument and there will be no need for me to repeat myself.No one is forcing you to do anything Crash. Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You get to live life exactly the way you want it lived. So eat now, for tomorrow you die. Feed the hungry, visit those in prison, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Those bastards! Kill a brown person or else go to hell? Where do you come up with this stuff?

quote:

---

I mean, what exactly did Jesus say that was so utterly offensive that the scorn of the world should still come upon Him?

---

Blow the dust off that Bible and open it. Those red letters are the words of Jesus.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

"We" as in "we Christians"? Because some of us suspect no such thing.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

whoops wrong posterEdited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Really? Can you use your great mind reading powers to tell me what I'm thinking right now? Pascal's wager is a false dichotomy. It doesn't account for the option of: there is a diety just not the one I worship. Great, what if God exists but he's not the Christian god If there is a christian god maybe, what if there's a God who just doesnt care what we did during our mortal life?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

True belief, huh? Is that anything like a true scotsman?Don't you think Ted Haggard thought he had a true belief? Who's "we", kemosabe? I suspect no such thing.Honestly. I don't. If you ever tried, NJ, you'd find that magical thinking is pretty easy to train yourself out of doing. It's not really that terrifying. Sure, it's a possibility, but if God is determined to act like he doesn't exist - to, indeed, present so much evidence that he does not that any reasonable person would be convinced beyond almost all doubt - then He can hardly blame us when we take him at his word.Honestly. It's not something that worries me, nor any other atheist that I know. I wonder if this is some kind of Freudian displacement on your part, NJ? Is there maybe some fears you have that you're having trouble coming to terms with? I like arguing and debating, and I try to do it from a position that is correct whenever possible. You've been here way too long for this to just be some spiritual crusade on your part, so clearly, you enjoy it, too. So turn your argument back around on yourself. Haven't you just proved that your own enjoyment of these discussions is evidence that Christian beliefs are bankrupt? 1400. (Or so.) I didn't say that it was a legacy of the last 1400 years. I said it was the legacy of the first 1400 years. I'd like to say that you guys wised up, but really the restriction was one imposed from without. Honestly you guys can't help but admire the use of violence to proselytize. I mean, as recently as a few years ago Ann Coulter was saying about Muslims that we should

quote:

---

"...invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Town Hall, Sept 14 2001.

---

You must be thinking about somebody else. I've never been shy about criticizing Islam for its relentless anti-woman stance, its backward sexual mores, its complete disregard for the separation of church and state, and even less tolerance of atheists than you Christians have been forced to show.There aren't a whole lot of Muslims around here promoting conservative Muslim beliefs, oddly enough, so I don't generally have occasion to oppose them directly. If you were a Muslim, though, rest assured we'd be talking about the destructive history of Islam right now and the violent thuggish tactics that have been used to advance their ridiculous religion. So you can really take that smug sense of having caught me out in some kind of nonexistent contradiction and cram it up your ass.When Muslims, Jews, and Christians get together, they can agree on almost nothing - except, invariably, how much they hate gays and atheists. It's a hilarious pattern. No, they're not. Your belief that they are is a fundamentally religious belief.That's what I'm talking about. When you tell a rape victim that she has to carry her rapist's child - and potentially have to suffer his attempts to gain visitation or custody for years - because "it's a person", that's you forcing your religion on her.Personhood starts at birth. That's the law. Your views on the beginning of personhood are religious in nature. Well, some Christians disagree about that; but regardless, it was actually Islam I was alluding to - you know, that religion you say I never complain about. There's no need for you to repeat yourself at all. What is needed is for you to respond, meaningfully, by rebutting the arguments that have been put before you.Since you never do that, the arguments are always available to be used against you. I don't remember "visit people in prison" being in the Bible. Is that the 11th Commandment? They were called "the Crusades." I assumed you knew about them, since you alluded to them before. You're not aware that the Church was intimately involved in propagandizing for that conflict? That the Church told its members that they had a religious duty to go kill Muslims?Where do I "come up" with this stuff? It's recorded history, NJ. Maybe you should look it up sometime. I've never met someone so astoundingly ignorant about the history of their own religion. How do you jope to defend a religion you don't know anything about? Except that he didn't write any of them, and no written record - of any kind - appears until nearly 8 decades after Jesus had died.What's recorded in the Bible are the words of Jesus, the fictional character. The words of the actual Jesus, Jesus the man, have never been recorded and are lost to history.(Lol! Red letters? What do you have, the Children's Illustrated Bible? Seems appropriate, somehow. Do they sound out the hard words for you, too?)

The other problem is that it assumes that one can simply choose one's beliefs based on what one wishes to be true. Sure, if the evangelical Christian God does exist, then his followers will have eternal bliss, I guess, and unbelievers will have eternal torment. I'm not sure why this is supposed to convince me that this God actually exists, the dark recesses of my mind notwithstanding.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I believe he was referring to Matthew 25:

quote:

---

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

---

Which implies you should feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the imprisoned or you will be put into everlasting fire.

Unless of course the only true religion is that whatever you believe is the worst that can happen after death is what happens to you. That means the atheists are embraced by oblivion and you will burn in torment for all eternity.I ask you - how can you take that risk? Given that possibility the only sane choice for a gambler is to be an atheist. A sobering thought.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Just as likely as any other religion I've heard of, and there'd be a certain justice in such a system.I'm always puzzled why so many people seem attracted to the concept of a cruel and sadistic God, anyway. I suppose that the idea of being one of an elite who'll go to heaven while the majority burn for eternity would attract anyone with an inferiority complex, and that might be a partial explanation.

Battered wives stay with their husbands, don't they?

I don't know, but I think the judicial branch of our Federal Governemnt would disagree with you.Also, what I found interesting, is the fact that you believe what makes something "wrong" is whether or not some sort of consequence is involved.If "wrong" is being committed - whatever wrong may be - and no consequence was applied, does this necessarily make it right?