Atheist Bullshiters

[webmdave]

Recently a Christian poster made the allegation that anyone who walks away from Christianity always leaves a "strange" version of it. Although this poster declined to define exactly what a "strange" version of Christianity might be, the topic on which this Christian posted his observation had to do with Christians who believe the world is approximately 6,000 years old, was created in six days, in general cling to a Biblical literalism, and who in many cases believe their worldview should be promoted in schools and through other educational venues. Now the Christian poster didn't actually say that such literalists were strange in their beliefs, but that was the implication based on the context of the conversation in which he did say that he had never met a Christian who believed such odd things (World only 6,000 years old, etc). I suggested to this Christian that he hadn't been around much.

 

Anyway, I attempted, unsuccessfully, to help this Christian understand that there is no way to define "strange" when it comes to various Christian beliefs, because there are so many versions of Christianity believed and followed, both throughout history and now. In reality, any and all versions of Christianity are thought strange by other people in other versions of Christianity. It all depends on who is carrying on the conversation.

 

He wanted to be inclusive in his embrace of all Christians, regardless of marked theological and behavioral differences, but still held that there are strange versions of Christianity. When pressed harder to define "strange" he simply stopped commenting.

 

When Christians see members of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church_%28Topeka%29">Westboro Baptist Church</a> out picketing, many Christians simply disavow them as not doing what "real Christians" should be doing. I would guess that Westboro Baptist would be considered a "strange" version of Christianity by many. The trouble is, Westboro's members have as much scriptural support for their positions as do the more liberal and less aggressive versions of Christianity. By being selective, and because of all the contradictions, Biblical support is fairly easy to come by.

 

OK. Well, this guy in the YouTube video is not a member of Westboro Baptist Church, but he does believe he is a true Christian. Undoubtedly some Christians will find this YouTube Christian as a bit strange. The response was made by a member of the Forum section of this site who goes by the name "Celt Cat."

 

The language used by the Christian in the first video is not work friendly.

 

So, here's the question for any and all: Is this Christian following a "strange" version of Christianity? Please try to explain your answer.

 

<span style="font-weight:bold;">The Christian:</span>

 

If this doesn't load, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w8NZYK5iHE&eurl=

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/player2.swf?video_id=0w8NZYK5iHE&l=485&t=OEgsToPDskK7MsBYIIpu_7OoPDx4NR7c&s=08D05BE1CA0B9B27:53C662DC848F75CD" id="movie_player" name="movie_player" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" quality="high" height="370" width="450"></embed>

 

<span style="font-weight:bold;">

An ex-Christian response:</span>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABOgxMbhjHg"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABOgxMbhjHg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABOgxMbhjHg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[mwc]

Quick note to Celt Cat. The book he's referring to wasn't the bible but "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. The one he was waving around, raving about and reading the quotes from. This is the one he wants to go through page by page.

 

mwc

[Poonis]

Definately an argument from anger. I think that his anger derives from his ignorance, and that is how it comes out. That an the strawman attacks. Definately not someone worth debating as his irrationality and hostility would more than likely yield violence than decent debate. A very unhappy person, and to me, very sad.

[Kelli]

Quick note to Celt Cat. The book he's referring to wasn't the bible but "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. The one he was waving around, raving about and reading the quotes from. This is the one he wants to go through page by page.

 

mwc

 

Thanks, I realized that after I made the video. I take notes while playing the videos, so I didn't see him waving it around. I assumed incorrectly that he meant the Bible. Either way, he won't listen to anyone who doesn't completely agree with him, so whatever book you're talking about, trying "rational dialog" with Glenn is impossible.

[neverclear5]

I'm amazed that a guy quoted as saying that there is some accurate history in the bible is his proof. There,s accurate history in the film braveheart, but not all of it is. I can write "by the way I'm actually god" in the back of a history book, but that doesn't make it so.

[southdakota2005]

Very disturbing to watch. There is no way you could sit down with someone like that an debate.

[Poonis]

As I have stated many times before, the *only* evidence that christians use to support their side are one of two things, (1) they read about it somewhere, or (2) they heard about it from someone else.

 

In glen's case, he points to Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I cannot simply accept something as true, just, and correct just because I read it somewhere. This in itself is just reiteration of the claim. All I want is proof so that I may examine it for myself.

[YDOAPS]

I also responded to this video. I made a link to it on this site when I posted the video on YouTube, but here it is again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_srG4VypZk

 

I need to watch GlennReb's video again. Somehow I completely missed the part about us leaving "strange" versions of xianity.

[mwc]

YDOAPS, a quick note to you is that Albright is actually a well known biblical archaeologist (pretty much the pioneer in the field) so just dropping his name is understandable. It is his work that gave a lot of credibility to the bible as historically accurate (and he made some goods finds...all interpreted through the bible...some even reasonably so...and it's largely his work and his legacy that modern, so called minimalist archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein, are working to correct...even most mainstreamers find him irrelevant anymore but have to reference him since he's the one who dug at a given site).

 

Of course not knowing any of this is more understandable unless you're into this kind of stuff.

 

mwc

[Mythra]

William F. Albright (the archaeologist that McDowell cites) died in 1971. And he was a very poor example of an unbiased scientist. He was a Methodist who used the presupposition that the bible was fact to guide his archaeology and influence his findings.

 

If the fundy-boy wants to read a more contemporary opinion by modern-day archaeologists, he should try "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.

 

Of course, the dude would never actually read it. Because it's nothing but moronic lies.

[Mythra]

Here's a pretty good blurb about this subject. From an Internet Infidels article:

 

Archaeology was in its infancy then and raw apologetics became the guiding force behind biblical archaeology. During the high point of biblical archaeology--the "American School" under William F. Albright and his students in 1920-70--"numerous simplistic and uncritical interpretations of archaeological observations were proposed . . . as answers to complex Biblical questions."27 Proponents of today's "New Archaeology" have criticized the Albrightians for presupposing that the Bible is a completely reliable historical source and who shaped data to fit a procrustean bed based upon that presupposition. Indeed, an excellent example of this is with John Garstung's excavation of Tell es-Sultan (the biblical Jericho) in which he found that the walls had been flattened exactly as the biblical account described. Later, Kathleen Kenyon's work revealed that Garstung had made many embarrassing mistakes in his enthusiasm to prove Joshua's Conquest of Canaan. Yet McDowell relies almost solely on the speculative findings of Garstung, Albright, Wright and other Albrightians in establishing the reliability and historicity of the Bible. McDowell's scholarship is so poor that one could think that he outright misrepresents the data; he willfully ignores critical evidence and uncritically embraces the Albrightians in order to create the illusion of biblical historicity.

[Mythra]

So, here's the question for any and all: Is this Christian following a "strange" version of Christianity? Please try to explain your answer.

 

Don't you find this to be universally the case though, Dave?

 

All christians believe that they are following the one true christianity. Catholics are sure that they're the true ones. Seventh Day Adventists, the same. Baptists, AOG, Lutherans, Charismatics, JW's - they're all positive that they have the true faith, as given by GOD.

 

They are convinced that their interpretations are the correct ones, and all others are strange (or, in the worst cases, satanically inspired).

 

Unfortunately, there is biblical support for all of them. Just goes to show you what a convoluted, confused book it really is.

 

I mean, we could make a pretty good argument that Westboro Baptist is the closest of any of them to following true christianity.

[♦ nivek ♦]

"What do I have to say to his evidence?"

 

"Yo, TaliBorn Boy... Points Go Out"

 

Don't try to bullshit me with your dumbassed half witted, thus unarmed, approach to historical apologetics.

 

You are as bad as any mullah preaching his religion of pieces.

 

Fuckin' A, at least that sectarian sprecches my langwith..

 

kFL

[Poonis]

I messaged the angry christer on youtube and asked him simply, "Would you kill an atheist if God told you to?"

 

I won't hold my breath, but I would like a response.

[pandora]

He mentioned something a lot of people from his generation and older: that we're doing it because "It's popular." It is my mother-in-law's favorite accusation.

 

Hell, I don't know about you guys, but real life is not easy being a agnostic or an atheist in the midwest. Granted, there does seem to be a lot of atheism online, and avenues for us to gather and support one another, but I came to this on my own. I pondered the evidence (mainly the existence of equally sincere and IMO more beautiful religions) and came to my own conclusion. Yes, I had liberal professors (a couple are just liberal Christians, however), but I did not "come out" to my professors because I knew they would disagree with me! (with the exception of the youngest addition to the department... my last year there, I told him about it, and it turns out he is also an ex-christian)

 

I dunno... does anyone have anything good to refute this particular attack against us and how we came to the place we are at?

[Vigile]

Wow, when I was a xian I would have said this guy is not a True™ Christian.

 

I'm not sure which atheists claim there are not absolute truthes. Absolute morality, none, absolute truthes, hard to find, but they're around.

 

I wonder how this little rant of his would play if you replace Atheists with Jews, Blacks, etc...?

[Unknowing1]

Just a bit upset wasn't he. Sounds like he has issues over and above being upset with Atheist's. I don't remember ever slapping him or any other christian in the face, in fact the opposite is true, I've been slapped more by Christians and expected to let it keep on happening.

 

Anyway, haven't read the book he references; however, if he wanted someone to believe then perhaps he should have chosen a couple of other examples.

 

The first example he sited, I cannot dispute...I believe the Bible does contain substantial history of old testament tradition, why wouldn't it, traditions that occured back then should be referenced if you are writing about something during a certain period of time. If I'm writing a book about the civil war I sure am going to make sure that the traditions I depict occured during the period of time I am writing about.

 

The second example, the accuracy of innumerable Bible sources of history, can't dispute that either. Using the same reason as before, if I am writing a story about the civil war I sure am going to throw in some accuracies.

 

Based on his thought process I guess Scarlett Ohara is a real live person and Gone with the Wind depicts her life. What an interesting concept! Wow! Oh but wait, my research has determined that Margaret Mitchell's book was released in 1936 and she admitted that it was an act of fiction eventhough there was a civil war and Atlanta burned. Bummer.