Atheism Is For The Weak

[crazy-tiger]

You seem unable to understand just what compassion means... in this case it means "the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it"

I feel your pain. See, I do have compassion.

On a par with "I'm not racist... I have <insert minority here> friends...

 

It fools no-one, but does make you look a fool.

Actually, Jesus died on a Cross to keep you out of Hell and all you do is mock Him.

I don't... how can you mock that which didn't happen?

Kind of like, if your car were stuck in a ditch and I came over to pull you out. And after pulling you out of the ditch; you mocked me, threw mud at me and told people what a rotten person I was.

No...more kind of like my car being stuck in a ditch and you telling me that someone has pulled it out for me.

 

That person hasn't been seen, the car's still in the ditch and our intelligence is being insulted...

Even if you are ungrateful that Jesus died for you, you don't have to mock Him.

Sorry... but it's kinda hard for me to mock that which doesn't exist...

 

It's like trying to mock the Tooth Fairy... it just isn't possible for me.

[Asuryan]

Lightbearer,

 

 

 

Wonderful post. You stated many points, all of them are correct and well put, and you underlined some contradictions that just had to be underlined.

 

 

 

However, Inspectogeneral keeps presenting examples such as "is music logical?" and "is taste logical?" and "is love logical?". I'd like to talk a bit more about that.

 

My theory is that music, love, taste, and faith, are logical. With this word I mean that their origins and their working can be evaluated with rational means, and discussed with the help of logical statements too. I elaborate:

 

 

 

1) Is taste rational and logical? Yes, it is. The human tongue presents a set array of taste buds, able to discern amongst 4 basilar tastes: sweet, sour, salty and bitter. (recently, there's a theory about 7 basilar tastes, but this is not the point). There are people with a very rare genetic defect, which increases their sense of taste, but as I just said, that is a genetic defect.

 

Scientists have noticed a lot of time ago, that if you put a sweet solution on a baby's tongue, she'll show signs of enjoyment and will try to taste the sweetness again. If you put a bitter solution on a baby's tongue, she'll show signs of displeasure and will try to avoid that taste, even turning her head away if the neck is strong enough.

 

This works on all babies of the world. And on very, very little babies (as you can see I talked of babies still unable to even move their heads). It's an universal thing. No one will like to savour a spoonful of bile, no one will find a spoonful of sugar "distasteful". So, the sense of taste does have something very rational and logical about it.

 

But you could say: well, what of those people who like mushrooms while other people don't? That's rational and logical too. Modern psychology can trace the origin of someone's penchant, or refusal, of a certain food. Certain times it can be easy to trace it. Certain others it can be harder. However, I myself could say "Well, I don't like clams because. Just because." or I could be objective, do a bit of research myself, and acknowledge that I started hating clams since the day my mother beated the crap out of me to try and force me to eat a plate of clams pasta.

 

 

 

2) Is music rational and logical? Of course it is. What separates music from noise depends on sociological factors (think about Columbus and his men listening for the very first time at the Native Americans' songs and drums. "Infernal noise" for a group, "Music" for the other), but also mathematical factors. Rhythm, ie., as a music component, is and has been a part of many cultures both past and present. It was present in Homer's epic poems when they were trasmitted orally, it was present in native africans and americans culture, it was present in ancient oriental cultures, it's present in ours today. Again, try to put some death metal music in a little baby's room. She won't like it (the only way he'll like it is if he's listened it very often when in the womb), while on the other hand the classical music pieces with flutes, harps and violins (at, of course, a normal volume, but this was implied also for death metal) will always be considered pleasant by the baby, even if it's the very first time she listens at it.

 

 

 

Want me to go on with love and faith? I can do it, no problem, but first read my first 2 points and give me your opinion (huh. Everyone else too )

[NotBlinded]

You and HanSolo are certainly very patient people.

She wasn't like that before the operation.

 

 

When "she" went by the name, Harold.

 

Not that kind of "patient" you silly mouse, and I was known as "Herald" not Harold. Sheesh!

 

Would you believe me if I told you I was a great artist? Probably not. You would ask me to prove to you that I am a great artist. To do so, I would show you one of my paintings. Then you respond that you do not believe that I painted the painting and that the only way you will believe that I am a great artist is for me to paint in front of you so that you can see and believe for yourself. At this point I am offended. Number one, you have called me a liar because you did not believe me when I told you that the first painting was mine. Number two, because you arrogantly thought that you deserved your own special sitting while I painted a painting just for you. It is at this point I bid you adieu and shoe you the door.

But, IG, the point is is that it can be verified. It's just whether your ego allows it or not. Again, God cannot be verified. Proof requires more than just belief or having faith in the person being truthful. I would not believe you if you told me you saw a cow fly even if you had a photo of it. Would you believe me? It has nothing to do with arrogance when demanding evidence. It has more to do with pride when you feel you have been insulted by someone that doesn't believe you. That is a reflection of yourself. Other people only have the power over your feelings in so much that you allow them to.

 

Besides, a painting is something that can be verified. Once again, you are comparing apples to oranges so-to-speak. There is a saying: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I would actually change the word 'evidence' to 'proof', but thats just me.

[Amanda]

And what purpose would it serve to describe the God I believe in? Would we compare Him to what ever someone else beleives in? What would be the point of that?

 

Why not state and define what you believe exists?

InspectoGeneral, how can we debate 'God' if we haven't mutually defined it? You might be surprised that many people do believe in a "higher power", some may call it the natural forces of the universe and others may call it God... maybe there's an agreement on a concept and are only disagreeing on nomenclature. That would change the nature of the debate.

 

Any way, calm down IG... whatever you believe, whatever I believe, no one's beliefs are going to change absolute reality. You're safe either way. The only thing any of us have to lose on here is ignorance, and the one thing we can gain is knowledge... if we're putting away pride and having an open mind. Lightbearer, Crazy Tiger, Asuryan, and NBBTB have valid points, IMO. I don't think making a mistake tells the character of a person, but how they handle them. There are questions to you about some of your beliefs, NOT about YOU, except for when YOU react instead of interact! Stop taking it so personally! BTW, this is not a message board but a debating forum... that's what we do here.

Would you believe me if I told you I was a great artist? Probably not.

Actually it would depend on what was at stake. If you just came on here and said you were a great artist, I would probably believe it to a great degree. If you wanted me to hire you to paint my family for a few thousand dollars or more, I'd probably research your claims a little more seriously. Not necessarily that I think you are lying, but your interpretation of a great artist and mine might be different. We'd have to have a mutual definition of a great artist to seriously discuss it further, right?

Number two, because you arrogantly thought that you deserved your own special sitting while I painted a painting just for you. It is at this point I bid you adieu and shoe you the door.

I suspect you have problems in your social life with this kind of understanding of your world around you. I'm curious to know why you would consider me arrogant for this, and not an honor? I mean, I am giving up my time, my energy, my effort, to come to your studio just to watch you work! NOT to give me anything. I wish someone was interested enough to ask to come watch me work! I may even let them help...

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer,

 

 

 

Wonderful post. You stated many points, all of them are correct and well put, and you underlined some contradictions that just had to be underlined.

 

Ahhh, thanks! I get a little upset when I poor time and energy into a long, drawn out, well-thought and researched post and it gets ignored. Not that I post for others apporval, but it's a discussion/debate so I want to contribute meaningful constructive things. When I spend time and energy to type something I want it read/heard/acknowledged. Plus I made that post between three and four in the morning. I lost sleep over it!

 

 

 

However, Inspectogeneral keeps presenting examples such as "is music logical?" and "is taste logical?" and "is love logical?". I'd like to talk a bit more about that.

 

My theory is that music, love, taste, and faith, are logical. With this word I mean that their origins and their working can be evaluated with rational means, and discussed with the help of logical statements too. I elaborate:

 

 

 

1) Is taste rational and logical? Yes, it is. The human tongue presents a set array of taste buds, able to discern amongst 4 basilar tastes: sweet, sour, salty and bitter. (recently, there's a theory about 7 basilar tastes, but this is not the point). There are people with a very rare genetic defect, which increases their sense of taste, but as I just said, that is a genetic defect.

 

Scientists have noticed a lot of time ago, that if you put a sweet solution on a baby's tongue, she'll show signs of enjoyment and will try to taste the sweetness again. If you put a bitter solution on a baby's tongue, she'll show signs of displeasure and will try to avoid that taste, even turning her head away if the neck is strong enough.

 

This works on all babies of the world. And on very, very little babies (as you can see I talked of babies still unable to even move their heads). It's an universal thing. No one will like to savour a spoonful of bile, no one will find a spoonful of sugar "distasteful". So, the sense of taste does have something very rational and logical about it.

 

But you could say: well, what of those people who like mushrooms while other people don't? That's rational and logical too. Modern psychology can trace the origin of someone's penchant, or refusal, of a certain food. Certain times it can be easy to trace it. Certain others it can be harder. However, I myself could say "Well, I don't like clams because. Just because." or I could be objective, do a bit of research myself, and acknowledge that I started hating clams since the day my mother beated the crap out of me to try and force me to eat a plate of clams pasta.

 

Yeah, taste is logical and rational. Logical and rational mean different things too, which I think some people try to inter-change them. Man is a rational being (for the most part) so if you think about it, taste is rational. If something tastes bad it is probally something you should not be eating in the first place.

 

And don't talk about babies because then i'd have to talk about my adorable 4 month old niece, who is the cutest and oddly, the smartest baby I ever encountered. It's weird how rational she is, how rational babies are in general. Think about it, they cry because they know if they do it, you will take care of them. Babies are also happy too. Like my niece takes alot of pride in herself, when she's held and she stabilizers herself without falling down, she smiles and laughes. When she hears music she nods to the beat. She even knows how to talk on a cell phone! We put the phone on loudspeaker and someone will talk to her and she'll look around and try to find whos speaking, then she notices the phone and grabs it with her little fingers and puts it on her ears! Then she puts it up agianst he mouth and cuws (you know, baby talk). It's so cute, but so smart too. My point and observation is that babies come out and use rationality and reason even at a young age. It's a natural state. You ever seen a baby pray for help? But I am getting way off subject, I wanted to address your points.

 

 

 

2) Is music rational and logical? Of course it is. What separates music from noise depends on sociological factors (think about Columbus and his men listening for the very first time at the Native Americans' songs and drums. "Infernal noise" for a group, "Music" for the other), but also mathematical factors. Rhythm, ie., as a music component, is and has been a part of many cultures both past and present. It was present in Homer's epic poems when they were trasmitted orally, it was present in native africans and americans culture, it was present in ancient oriental cultures, it's present in ours today. Again, try to put some death metal music in a little baby's room. She won't like it (the only way he'll like it is if he's listened it very often when in the womb), while on the other hand the classical music pieces with flutes, harps and violins (at, of course, a normal volume, but this was implied also for death metal) will always be considered pleasant by the baby, even if it's the very first time she listens at it.

 

 

 

Want me to go on with love and faith? I can do it, no problem, but first read my first 2 points and give me your opinion (huh. Everyone else too )

 

Ehhh... music can be rational or irrational. Compare a ochreasta symphony to a hobo beating a trash can and ask yourself which one could be rational considered music. InspectoGeneral seems to be subjective about everything. It's hard to explain things to subjective people.

 

Love is logical and rational. Faith isn't... so i'd love to hear your arguement. But keep in mind this thread is "Athiesm Is For The Weak" so we don't want to hijack and flame InspectoGenerals thread about how Athiesm is for the weak.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot to address another thing. Amanda says she is a Christian... but she still calls for a definition of God.

 

See? Defining and stating terms is important in discussions. Even if InspectoGeneral thinks we can't comprehend his arguements or plain english for that matter.

 

But again, InspectoGeneral claims to be a real Christian... so Amanda what does that make you exactly? I mean that as a definition, not your character. What, as I asked in my previous post, is a true Christian?

 

Also Amanda brings up the points I do, about the "great artist" thing, which I appreciate.

[Eponymic]

And what purpose would it serve to describe the God I believe in? Would we compare Him to what ever someone else beleives in? What would be the point of that?

 

Why not state and define what you believe exists?

 

Why are you being so utterly defensive & stand-offish?

 

The atheist believes that there is no God. Is it possible to know this? No. There is no way an atheist could verify that there is no God. So it is possible that there is a God.

 

Food for thought.

 

The food is that you can't be definitive either way.

 

Would you believe me if I told you I was a great artist? Probably not. You would ask me to prove to you that I am a great artist. To do so, I would show you one of my paintings. Then you respond that you do not believe that I painted the painting and that the only way you will believe that I am a great artist is for me to paint in front of you so that you can see and believe for yourself. At this point I am offended. Number one, you have called me a liar because you did not believe me when I told you that the first painting was mine. Number two, because you arrogantly thought that you deserved your own special sitting while I painted a painting just for you. It is at this point I bid you adieu and shoe you the door.

 

Well hello there Polly Pessimistic. Damn man. Were you deprived of your teddy bear as a child or something? Almost every other word out of your mouth is distinctly presumptious & cold.

 

You can't make a blanket statement like this about everyone. Because it just doesn't apply to everybody. Some people will take you at your word when you show them your painting. Heck, I know some that will take you at your word when you initially tell them what you do.

 

What sad, malevolent bug in your ear has you being so callous here? Because, you came here with this chip on your shoulder. We sure as heck didn't create it.

[Amanda]

Oh yeah, I forgot to address another thing. Amanda says she is a Christian... but she still calls for a definition of God.

 

See? Defining and stating terms is important in discussions. Even if InspectoGeneral thinks we can't comprehend his arguements or plain english for that matter.

 

But again, InspectoGeneral claims to be a real Christian... so Amanda what does that make you exactly? I mean that as a definition, not your character. What, as I asked in my previous post, is a true Christian?

Lightbearer, thanks for your interest.

 

I haphazardly and reluctantly found myself in seminary for three intensive years. Fortunate circumstances would have it that I studied a new and unique way of understanding the Bible. One thing, it had to make sense!

 

Learning these scriptual teachings through the manuscript from which the KJV was written, I learned some incredible nontraditional insights, IMO! I've found Atheism, Buddhism, Suffis, and other spiritual teachings harmonious with these findings, and even helped understand these scriptural teachings better! Embrace them all! Taking this out into the "Christian" community, I was being ridiculed for these beliefs. Oh well...

 

These teachings say we know "Christians" by their actions... NOT by their labels. Hence, IMO, I have met the most wonderful "Christian" group here, than anywhere else I have ever been... even if their label is ExChristians! What the label "Christian" has come to mean now, especially fundamentalism, is scarcely any recognition to what I think the initial movement was about. The religous right (fundamentalism) was the same then as today, and the character of Jesus separated himself from it and even spurned them!

 

I seriously started considering the appropriateness of me using the label "Christian" when a poster named Vixentron (sp?) simply stated in a post early on... I bet the "Christians" don't even accept Amanda. I thought about that... and sadly she was right. I receive much more consideration and respect here than I ever did by the collective Christian community. I am still referred to as a Christian here... because I offer another perspective to these teachings, and I suppose a label doesn't really mean that much to me. As you can see... it didn't take me long to determine with whom I wanted to hang out... being here over a year now.

 

Did that answer your question? Now, I could define God for you, however... I think you and I are on the same side of this debate in even the suggestion that being an Atheist is weak.

[Lycorth]

What sad, malevolent bug in your ear has you being so callous here? Because, you came here with this chip on your shoulder. We sure as heck didn't create it.

 

Don't ya know? He's on fire for Jebus. He can neither do nor say any wrong, because he's guided by the Holah Spurt and at war with deliberately wicked sinners who eat children and make baby Jebus cry

[NotBlinded]

These teachings say we know "Christians" by their actions... NOT by their labels. Hence, IMO, I have met the most wonderful "Christian" group here, than anywhere else I have ever been... even if their label is ExChristians! What the label "Christian" has come to mean now, especially fundamentalism, is scarcely any recognition to what I think the initial movement was about. The religous right (fundamentalism) was the same then as today, and the character of Jesus separated himself from it and even spurned them!

Wouldn't that just be the ultimate irony?? I see it the same as you (you have helped a great deal with my understanding) and find it very sad that they can't recognize it. It's sad because it is embelished with so much nonsense that the very essence of the teaching is lost. Sure, they may read it and understand what it means, but they can't truly comprehend its real meaning. I swear, when this realization hit me, I was like this: and then laughed and cried at the same time.

[Poonis]

Inspecto General, wouldn't it help to define God first? How can we discuss something exists if we do not have at least a mutual idea of him/her/it. BTW, I happen to believe in God too, however, my definition might have some differences to yours.

 

 

And what purpose would it serve to describe the God I believe in? Would we compare Him to what ever someone else beleives in? What would be the point of that?

 

Why not state and define what you believe exists?

 

This was asked because you cannot provide a description of your god that is not derived from (1) something you read/heard somewhere, and (2) your desire (belief) that what you have read/heard is true.

 

For, once you have defined your god, this is followed with the "how do you know?" question and becomes redundant as your definition will certainly not be based upon your personal experience and as such, is nothing more than what you call "heresy".

 

And since your god, being non-existant, is powerless, there is nothing your god can and/or will do to me because of this, and this is why it is only you left to defend what you believe.

 

...and this is why you will not define your god.

[Asuryan]

Yeah, taste is logical and rational. Logical and rational mean different things too, which I think some people try to inter-change them. Man is a rational being (for the most part) so if you think about it, taste is rational. If something tastes bad it is probally something you should not be eating in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that is the reason we have a sense of taste. I know that logic and rationality are different things, of course: my first instinct was to simply state that the sense of taste, music, etc, are rational things, but since I had the impression InspectoGeneral was using the "logical" word in a very broad sense to define *everything* which can be understood, studied, analyzed and evaluated, I took care to use the "Logic" and "logical" words he likes so much to use, just to be sure he'd understand what I meant (namely, that even if one of these things produces irrational or illogical results, the *reason* why it does produce such results can be explained and understood).

 

 

And don't talk about babies because then i'd have to talk about my adorable 4 month old niece, who is the cutest and oddly, the smartest baby I ever encountered. It's weird how rational she is, how rational babies are in general. Think about it, they cry because they know if they do it, you will take care of them.

 

 

 

I completely agree with you When they cry, it's because they need something. They don't have any other means of communication, so crying is their first and foremost way of interacting with the world. It's so wonderful to watch a baby growing!

 

 

 

My point and observation is that babies come out and use rationality and reason even at a young age. It's a natural state. You ever seen a baby pray for help? But I am getting way off subject, I wanted to address your points.

 

 

 

You are right again.

 

We could say that our "praying for help" would be equivalent to a baby (let's say, in immediate danger) just shutting up, hoping that the mom will do something for her... even if the mom's not in the room and if the baby's cries could attract the mom to take care of that danger. "I have faith in my mom, I don't have to actually DO anything (such as crying), because she loves me and knows things that I don't and she'll help me for sure". Nonsense.

 

 

Ehhh... music can be rational or irrational. Compare a ochreasta symphony to a hobo beating a trash can and ask yourself which one could be rational considered music. InspectoGeneral seems to be subjective about everything. It's hard to explain things to subjective people.

 

 

 

True, music can be rational or irrational. But the reasons we call something "music" or "Noise", those can be explained. However, the "rhythm" factor is usually present in all kind of musics, even the less codified ones. I'll explain: if we take a trashcan and throw it against some other metal trashcans, we'll have some noise. If a hobo beats the same trashcan with a stick, it *could* be considered music, even if it's dissonant and loud and the timbre is not of our liking. This is not because of one sound being produced by a human being while the other is a natural occurrence, I think: after all we often consider music even the songs of many birds. That's what I meant, essentially.

 

Love is logical and rational. Faith isn't... so i'd love to hear your arguement. But keep in mind this thread is "Athiesm Is For The Weak" so we don't want to hijack and flame InspectoGenerals thread about how Athiesm is for the weak.

 

 

 

Well, you're right. On the other hand, Inspecto is not making any sense and is a self-admitted troll... not only that, he's a guy who doesn't think a real human feeling such as compassion can be felt on a message board, and he's also a guy who just likes to insult everyone with snotty but at the same time idiotic remarks, and then when people take offense (which as a self-admitted troll is exactly what he wants) he just says everyone that "it was just a joke" and that "we can't take a joke".

 

Huh. Speaking with you about these things is more entertaining than feeding the troll he's not answering us anyway btw.

[Amanda]

Well, you're right. On the other hand, Inspecto is not making any sense and is a self-admitted troll... not only that, he's a guy who doesn't think a real human feeling such as compassion can be felt on a message board, and he's also a guy who just likes to insult everyone with snotty but at the same time idiotic remarks, and then when people take offense (which as a self-admitted troll is exactly what he wants) he just says everyone that "it was just a joke" and that "we can't take a joke".

 

Huh. Speaking with you about these things is more entertaining than feeding the troll he's not answering us anyway btw.

Asuryan, interesting concepts on logic, in regards to food and music. You are right. I even thought of foods I like that a friend may not, and it is usually because I've been exposed to them and/or taught to appreciate them. I suppose that's the same for music too. However, I must admit that unfortunately I lack a cultivated, sophisticated appreciation for either, but I will also submit their is logic for that. :wink:

 

Hey, IG was driving me crazy there for awhile too! I initially thought he was a member just spoofing us... however, I felt it had gone way too long. I kept insisting, this guy is NOT real! Obviously he is. NBBTB seems to have the insight to IG's reactive behavior. She saw where he came on here, made hasty generalizations about us ALL, and treated us accordingly before we even said anything. According to HanSolo, moderator, it seems IG has been warned about causing discord without contributing genuinely to these forums. I suppose the good thing about IG, is it doesn't make me look so bad.

[Lightbearer]

Oh yeah, I forgot to address another thing. Amanda says she is a Christian... but she still calls for a definition of God.

 

See? Defining and stating terms is important in discussions. Even if InspectoGeneral thinks we can't comprehend his arguements or plain english for that matter.

 

But again, InspectoGeneral claims to be a real Christian... so Amanda what does that make you exactly? I mean that as a definition, not your character. What, as I asked in my previous post, is a true Christian?

Lightbearer, thanks for your interest.

 

I haphazardly and reluctantly found myself in seminary for three intensive years. Fortunate circumstances would have it that I studied a new and unique way of understanding the Bible. One thing, it had to make sense!

 

Learning these scriptual teachings through the manuscript from which the KJV was written, I learned some incredible nontraditional insights, IMO! I've found Atheism, Buddhism, Suffis, and other spiritual teachings harmonious with these findings, and even helped understand these scriptural teachings better! Embrace them all! Taking this out into the "Christian" community, I was being ridiculed for these beliefs. Oh well...

 

These teachings say we know "Christians" by their actions... NOT by their labels. Hence, IMO, I have met the most wonderful "Christian" group here, than anywhere else I have ever been... even if their label is ExChristians! What the label "Christian" has come to mean now, especially fundamentalism, is scarcely any recognition to what I think the initial movement was about. The religous right (fundamentalism) was the same then as today, and the character of Jesus separated himself from it and even spurned them!

 

I seriously started considering the appropriateness of me using the label "Christian" when a poster named Vixentron (sp?) simply stated in a post early on... I bet the "Christians" don't even accept Amanda. I thought about that... and sadly she was right. I receive much more consideration and respect here than I ever did by the collective Christian community. I am still referred to as a Christian here... because I offer another perspective to these teachings, and I suppose a label doesn't really mean that much to me. As you can see... it didn't take me long to determine with whom I wanted to hang out... being here over a year now.

 

Did that answer your question? Now, I could define God for you, however... I think you and I are on the same side of this debate in even the suggestion that being an Atheist is weak.

 

Yeah that does. I actually said something similiar on Mr. Grinches thread about Hell. That Jesus would think most of his modern followers are assholes. But that's the joy of being an athiest, Jesus' words dont effect me.

 

I'll get back to that in a second first I need to address Asuryan's post.

 

True, music can be rational or irrational. But the reasons we call something "music" or "Noise", those can be explained. However, the "rhythm" factor is usually present in all kind of musics, even the less codified ones. I'll explain: if we take a trashcan and throw it against some other metal trashcans, we'll have some noise. If a hobo beats the same trashcan with a stick, it *could* be considered music, even if it's dissonant and loud and the timbre is not of our liking. This is not because of one sound being produced by a human being while the other is a natural occurrence, I think: after all we often consider music even the songs of many birds. That's what I meant, essentially.

 

Could? Yes. I apologize, I was making a double point there too, I didn't really explain that one. The symphony, you see, requires much more thought, planning, skill, creativity, management, harminous perfection, more rationality and general inspiration then a hobo with a drumstick and a trash can lead. So you can say it's more logical, rational and better. It's because of the minds that put it together. What stands as a tesitament to mankinds greatness and the power of the human mind more, the temples dedicted to blood sacirfice to the Gods, or the World Trade Center? But people claim they are one in the same. Christians do this in a weird way, by claiming the mind and reason are inferior to the power of faith, and like InspectoGeneral says, have limitations where as faith can achieve something like knowing the unprovable, unknowable existence and character of the creator of every tiny molecule to every man you see around you. Faith by definition is the abandonment of reason, belief without proof or evidence to belief in anything. It's pure mysticism and sometimes, in InspectoGenerals case, it pisses me off. To claim the mind, that made your live so damn easy and healthy right now compared to the savior they claim to represent who lived a shitty life, is inferior, limited and equavalent or below something like blindly waltzing around in the universe serving the purpose of something they can't prove; is just plain irrational and stupid.

 

It wouldn't be a problem but...

 

Here is where I tie this all together. Because InspectoGeneral could not have come at a better time for me. Every where I go in life I am blasted with religion and politics, you have to where you beliefs on your shoulder so much nowadays it's pathetic. Whenever I look for answers to questions I get "God knows" "Pray about it" "God has a plan for you!" ... Everytime I go on the internet, like on Facebook (this networking tool for college kids, like MySpace except not stupid) all I see is people with this "Favorite books: The Bible" or "Favorite books: I dOnT rEAd lOL~1!" but its always "Favorite quote: [insert bible verse]" During college in the past year every day I come home to the dorm to some flyer inviting me to come to a Christians group's shin-dig. Or they come around knocking once a month. It's summer break and I turn on the news and what do I see "ZOMG ISRAEL IS GETTING BOMBED IS JESUS COMING BACK?!?!?!" I go online and all I see is "God" this and "Jesus" that...

 

I don't think it's good for my health... I try to avoid it, but it's everywhere. The final straw for me was last week at work a group of my co-workers (co-actors actually) were sitting around going "I don't believe in so and so" and kind of joking around so I say "I don't believe in God." It was like walking into a lions den. I got bombarded with so many questions, aqcuisations and such. I didn't even get to say more then about 4 sentences explaining what I believe before a group of about 10 -12 people instantly hated me and out-casted me. A few came around a couple hours later. But the reaction just shocked me. Everytime I say I an athiest, and try to explain why, I get threats to be beaten up or cussed out or ignored or isolated.

 

So I go online and here is InspectoGeneral, claiming "ATHIESM IS FOR THE WEAK" and I'm already kind of pissed off about it in the first place. Like I said, it's just salt on open wounds. Not that it bothers me that much. Just the priniciple, the attitude, the disrespect. I've read some people were afraid to claim what they believe, some on this site claim that. I don't believe in fear so I stand up for what I think. This is America! You should never have to hide your beliefs. I stand up for my mind.

 

Because all I ever see are people smashing there heads against the wall asking "Why am I bleeding?" or better yet "Your an idiot for not believing in God" and they bang away. They ask why I look sad all the time, but i've never been happier, they say being an athiest means I am spiritual dull, but i've never felt more spiritual!

 

Especially this past week. I am really coming out strong and beginning to tell my Christian friends "I'm an athiest, take it or leave it." Because I am sick of people like Inspecto. "You have nothing to defend, you stand for nothing, it's a horriable thing to live by" You self-admitly believe in something you can't proof but continue to do so anyways!

 

I've never felt stronger, freer and spiritual. Everyday it grows and everyday I see a beautiful awe-inspiring world that people can't just take as is. They want to explain it away with some God or alien, it's not earth, it's God's Creation and it's imperfect, horriable and nasty because of sinners who tainted it.

 

I am not a sinner. I am the man without sin. That's my strength, my pride, my life, my mind and my soul. I belong on this earth more then alot of people here because they can't see it as it is. To me A=A, to them A=B if you believe it does, just believe alot. For some reason I am wrong for this. I don't hate the world, I hate the people who don't love it as much as I do. I hate the people who claim superiority over me because they evade it and live a doctrine that worships death and escape from this world.

 

I know I probaly pissed off alot of people reading this by now. But that's what I think and believe and I stand by it. I don't hate Christianity, or Christians, just ignorance. The place where I live has alot of this it's called the Bible Belt, and for some reason, a decent religion got transformed into a grotesque monster, one that I have little respect for. I am trying to go about my life with respect but people like InspectoGeneral push my buttons. And I shouldn't let him. But when you get this everyday it gets old really fast.

 

So I ask, again, how exactly am I weak?

 

I'll end my rant here, I'm tired and haven't slept much. But I needed to say these things. It's really bothering me lately.

[Amanda]

I don't think it's good for my health... I try to avoid it, but it's everywhere. The final straw for me was last week at work a group of my co-workers (co-actors actually) were sitting around going "I don't believe in so and so" and kind of joking around so I say "I don't believe in God." It was like walking into a lions den. I got bombarded with so many questions, aqcuisations and such. I didn't even get to say more then about 4 sentences explaining what I believe before a group of about 10 -12 people instantly hated me and out-casted me. A few came around a couple hours later. But the reaction just shocked me. Everytime I say I an athiest, and try to explain why, I get threats to be beaten up or cussed out or ignored or isolated.

 

Lightbearer, I have had the same thing happen to me! People don't do this because you're Atheist, they do it because you are NOT exactly like them, IMO. You wouldn't believe what I've had people in seminary tell me because I expressed a belief in universal salvation! Oh.... God is going to hold me accountable for that! I just keep on insisting on trying to drag innocent people to hell with me! OMG! You should hear them when I say I think being gay is perfectly acceptable, or that I believe in something similar to reincarnation! I have to start ducking then!

 

What gets me, is that I say... okay, let me show you the reasoning for my stand using the Bible. Hey, I don't think a lot of people in seminary has read too much of it! They don't want any part of that! Being ignored and isolated by those people may be a good thing.

 

Once I discovered in the Bible the justification of universal salvation, I told a family that had been some of my very best friends for 20 years! They didn't talk to me for a year after that, and after a few choice words to me! Finally, over a year later, they did start calling me, expressing what a good friend I had been, were sorry about the fall out, wanted to continue our friendship and asked if we didn't discuss religion any more. Can you believe all that happened just because I said God will not throw anyone away?

 

Just to summarize... I understand your frustration.

[Ouroboros]

The final straw for me was last week at work a group of my co-workers (co-actors actually) were sitting around going "I don't believe in so and so" and kind of joking around so I say "I don't believe in God." It was like walking into a lions den. I got bombarded with so many questions, aqcuisations and such. I didn't even get to say more then about 4 sentences explaining what I believe before a group of about 10 -12 people instantly hated me and out-casted me. A few came around a couple hours later. But the reaction just shocked me. Everytime I say I an athiest, and try to explain why, I get threats to be beaten up or cussed out or ignored or isolated.

That's because all religions preach peace and love and understanding. They just want to show how much they love you by hating you and beating you up! Didn't you know?

[Vigile]

The final straw for me was last week at work a group of my co-workers (co-actors actually) were sitting around going "I don't believe in so and so" and kind of joking around so I say "I don't believe in God." It was like walking into a lions den. I got bombarded with so many questions, aqcuisations and such. I didn't even get to say more then about 4 sentences explaining what I believe before a group of about 10 -12 people instantly hated me and out-casted me. A few came around a couple hours later. But the reaction just shocked me. Everytime I say I an athiest, and try to explain why, I get threats to be beaten up or cussed out or ignored or isolated.

That's because all religions preach peace and love and understanding. They just want to show how much they love you by hating you and beating you up! Didn't you know?

 

What churches do these people go to? What state are you in Lightbearer? Honestly, in the more than 20 years I was a xian I was never taught to hate atheists, nor did I spend much time thinking about them. I met a few and they more fascinated me than repulsed me. Do you or others think that perhaps this atheist bashing attitude is something new or something that is growing in the US? It's really quite contrary to the xianity that I grew up with - not to defend it or anything, it had its share of fucked up teachings.

[Ouroboros]

What churches do these people go to? What state are you in Lightbearer? Honestly, in the more than 20 years I was a xian I was never taught to hate atheists, nor did I spend much time thinking about them. I met a few and they more fascinated me than repulsed me. Do you or others think that perhaps this atheist bashing attitude is something new or something that is growing in the US? It's really quite contrary to the xianity that I grew up with - not to defend it or anything, it had its share of fucked up teachings.

I can feel and see some pressure against Atheism. Once me and my wife was invited to couple, my wife knew them, but I hadn't met them before. They talked about some problems their kid had at school, and they assumed we were Christians, and made a derogatory statements about one of the teachers, and they made the point clearly that this teacher was not "approved" by the couple of the sole reason that he was an Atheist. And I see this here and there in conversations with people. Atheists are assumed bad people, or actually the worst people. If anyone asks I tell them I'm agnostic or non-theist, which is less threatening, and then it's easier to explain in a friendly atmosphere.

[Lightbearer]

I come from the state of Louisiana... the churched I went to were primarily baptist

 

And it's a good point you brought up, it seems to be more recent that athiesm is considered a bad thing.

 

InspectoGeneral sort of illustrates this new movement.

 

You see, I am a business student, I study things like supply and demand, marketing, selling, adveritising, product development and such.

 

So what I am seeing is this -- they need a new agenda to promote. Religion is basically politics. And politics has to take a few pages out of the businessmans book to get support.

 

The product is soul salvation. They need to think it up, research it, develop it, package it, find a market for it, promote it, advertise for it, and sell it.

 

So we all now about "The Good News" and that used to work pretty well, because people didn't know "The Good News" ... well the secrets out and most of the country, about 80% know the good news. So now what? Bapists in particular always need to go out and get more people. That's all the preach about is getting people to come to them. But it gets to the point where most people are either at another church, or refuse to come or whatever. They have to be loving and kind so an aggresive approach is not... pratical.

 

It's gotten to the point where the major churchs in the country need to point figures at someone to blame for everything around them. Low church attendance, violence, prayers being kept out of school. And then there's the Republican party who, looking for a new base of voters to appeal to, appeal to the large majority... Christians. The Rebuplicans were pretty reasonable people until Reagen came and then it slowly became the "Christian values" party.

 

So, we have a huge group of people who need someone to blame for the current state of the world and why, to them, it seems like it's working against them. Look at the way the country went retarted in the 60's and 70's, and before that there were two World Wars that devasted the world. So obviously there is a moral decay going on. Even I see this. But Christians need to explain it and put the blame on someone.

 

Can't blame God because He is perfect and sent his son to die on the cross for the sin they see around them. You could blame the devil, but that doesn't practical, they need something people can see. Man is sinful, but they had thier sins forgiven, can't blame them. Plus, if you go on tangents about sin you'd have to declare things like riches, worldy possesions, sex, scientific advancements, and the like as sinful. Like Mr. Grinch pointed out in another thread, that's not pratical because the average person values these things too much. Plus it's not pratical too tell people these things, they would lose thier target customers and turn off potential customers. Same thing goes with other religions, they can't prove thier is any better then anyone elses so launched a campaign against them might back fire. Once again, this is not pratical, it doesn't show the love, compassion and ultra-kindness image thier product has to build up. Plus, if thier believe in God is wrong... what makes our believe in God right? Better not agitate other peoples religions because they may lose pontential converts, or they might not be able to blame because they can use the same arguements against us.

 

So who's left to blame? Athiests! They don't believe in God so they obviously can't have morals. They are dangerous because they lack morals, need to be fought and warned against, and live thier lives in sin and blindness reject God's love for them. Plus, if athiesm is better then thier brand of theism is might tear down the soul-harvesting machine they have created. Plus, athiests obviously don't believe in anything at all so they have a better oppurtunity to be converted! And if they don't convert, well they can easily be blamed for the moral decay of society because they have no morals. Because morality is only dependent on faith. And according to the new political movement, our country is a religious spiritual faith-based one. These athiest have non of that so they must be against our country. Better to smear them and make them look weak and stupid then let them challenge our power.

 

So there you have it. Athiesm is easy to target, and easy to blame. InspectoGeneral puts it pretty well...

 

Logic and reason may be great as debate topics, but they are rotten to live by.

 

Atheism may be a great debate position, but it is rotten to live by.

 

That's the kind of crap churches feel the need to tell people. Athiesm is spiritual dull because they don't worship anything or believe in anything. It's dangerous because they don't have morals etc. Athiests believe we came from monkeys too so we can behave like animals. And coming from monkeys is ridiculous because it's not mention the Bible and scientists who read the Bible said so. And Ann Coulter said so. And coming from dust is more logical. And athiesm is illogical. And logic is rotten to live by. You need faith. Everyone has faith. Athiests don't (at least that's the generalization) and because of this athiests are bad. Our Founding Fathers were Christians (which is crap) so athiests go against the founding principles of this country. Plus, athiests go against the mainstream, which Christians do. Athiesm is just being rebellious. Athiests are just mad at God because they want to live a life of sin.

 

Why should athiests care what we do, if we put our religious sympols on property they paid for with thier tax money? They are athiests, they don't believe in anything! How can they get offended? Why should we care if we offend them? They don't have anything to offend or defend anyways. They are unpopular! Athiest are and secular-humanists are one in the same right? Athiests must be liberals. Communism promotes athiesm and look how many people died because of it? That must be athiests fault! Nazies were athiest's so all athiests must be Nazis right? All the evil in the world has been caused by athiests, "secular-humanists", people who believe in evolution. Some people who practice witchcraft were athiests so all athiest practice witchcraft. The Church of Satan is just a group of athiests so all athiests must worship satan! Look at all the evil caused by athiests!

 

.... This just carries on and on and on...

 

Mix half-backed, collectivist, mystic, illogical, and reality evading arguements and mindsets like this with an under-educated masses, and some righteous crusading holy rhetoric and sprinkle the top with mass hysteria and there you have it. The end product is hatred and fear of athiests. Market it, package it, and ship it to the local distributers... with the use of the internet as well (which was invented by an athiest) to get the word out.

 

It energizes the bottom line and gives them something to complain about and a way to gain more support and utimately more monterary offerings.

 

Look around you, if you don't believe me thats it's a corrupt soul-stealing money-mongering machine go to your local bookstore and look at how many christian books you find. The Bible is the only book you need if you are a Christian but, it has hundreds of thousands of spin-offs and other books explaining it. To the extent of my knowlege, the Bible doesn't really address athiesm. So it's up to the modern preachers and political pundits to do this. And they can spin it to the most horriable degree they possibly can. Ignoring the fact that our greatest enemies at the moment, the islamic terrorists believe in the same God they do. And that Jesus' teachings resemble communist and socialist teachings. Or that Christians aren't immune to crimes and immorality.

 

Don't get me wrong. Profit-making and business is fine with me, I am a business student after all. But selling lies, slander and hatred are not the way to do it.

 

I'm not the only one who see's this, Amanda pointed it out too, almost every Athiest on this board has probaly had some problems with these issues. My athiesm is not everyone esles. I dont like being called an evil nazi or communist. It's funny because being an Objectivist I support capitalistism, freedom, and individuality more then any Christian yet I am still put in groups that are the exact opposite of what I think, believe, and live by. Why? Because I say I am an athiest.

 

I hope this answers your questions. Plus, I still don't see how this is weak.

[Lightbearer]

[This is a second post]

 

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v9/i4/atheists.asp

 

Atheists

How can you believe in creation when there is no God?

To say there is no God is to say you have enough knowledge to know there is no God. But an atheist can never have enough knowledge to be certain there is no God. He would have to know everything, because if there is something outside his area of knowledge, that something could include God. An atheist would have to be everywhere in and out of the universe all at one time, because if there is anywhere he cannot be, God could be there.

 

No atheist can claim total knowledge, therefore atheism is self–refuting, because knowing everything and being everywhere is to be like God. Since no one can prove ‘there is no God’, the question becomes irrelevant and so does atheism. Thus, Creation cannot be ruled out as a potential alternative.

 

 

Straight from the horses mouth.

[Thurisaz]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v9/i4/atheists.asp

 

Atheists

How can you believe in creation when there is no God?

 

To say there is no God is to say you have enough knowledge to know there is no God.

 

Straight from the horses mouth.

 

No. Consider a certain other bodily orifice of that horse.

 

"How can you believe in creation when there is no God?" What the FUCK?!

 

Who'd want to believe in a "creation" without any belief in any creator anyway?! Oh, I forgot, it's a den of fundies. Logic is unwelcome there.

 

"To say there is no God is to say you have enough knowledge to know there is no God."

 

But to say that "there is no omni-everything gawd in this observable world" still is something entirely (and unpleasantly) different...

 

Always the same old crap... wanting to puke about always the same bullshit...

[chefranden]

Well, I've only read 3 pages of this thread and already I've come to a cinamatic conclusion about InquisitorGeneral. He's the guy in the black burka with the red sash flashing his old timey swords. The crowd anticipates the demise of Indiana Jones, because who can restist such magnificant swords weilded with such skill and arrogance -- then Indi just plugs him and gets on with is adventure.

 

 

 

[Ouroboros]

Chef, you know the story behind that scene, right?

 

The script was that he was going to have a fight, but Harrison Ford was sick and couldn't do the fight, so someone suggested "why not just shoot him". And so they did, and it became the funniest scene in the whole movie.

 

It also illustrate how I feel about the difference between religious fundamentalism and free-thought. When I was Christian, I had to learn how to respond to the difficult questions from non-Christians. But now, as a free-thinker, I don't have to read or learn much at all, but only use reason. It's like having the "Freethinker Bible" by default in the brain. Funny, since the argument that "God planted yada yada" in our souls, then he must have planted free-though and rationality against religious fundamentalism.

[chefranden]

Han, no I didn't know that.

 

... Feel free to mock this post, since it's all you've got.

 

Dear Inquisitor,

 

Is mocking you the same thing as mocking God?

 

chef

[Lightbearer]

Apparently GHW Bush said athiest's should not be considered citizens in a nation unitied under God.

 

Hmmm... You think this is constenst with my theory of using athiests as scapegoats.

[Amanda]

Apparently GHW Bush said athiest's should not be considered citizens in a nation unitied under God.

 

Hmmm... You think this is constenst with my theory of using athiests as scapegoats.

 

Lightbearer, I have to agree with you, unfortunately, that Ateist often get generalized into a condescending position. However, I can't believe ANY president of the United States would say that! That is terrible! The implications of that are tremendous for everyone! Do you know how I can find a reliable source citing that statement?

 

I hope it is easier to find than it was for me to find what antisemetic response Mel Gibson made in his DUI arrest. Gosh, there was so much publicity about it and it was quite hard to find what he actually said. Even when I did find something, I wouldn't call the resource all that reliable. Wow... what a thing for a president to say, whose ultimate position is to enforce the rights of ALL people!