Question For The Christians

[Guest Spinoza]

I do not believe that you were ever a Christian. Did you believe that Jesus was God ?

 

Are you kidding me? Out of my entire post this is all you take from it? Who the fuck are you to question my life experiences or doubt what I say? Do you know me or anything about me?

 

For your information I did indeed believe that for over 6 years. I majored in religious studies in college and was planing on becoming a minister or missionary.

 

Is it really so hard for your pathetically unimaginative brain to conceive that I might have changed my mind about the question of god's existence?

 

If you are coming here to make friends or understand people then you have a strange way of doing it. AGAIN, is it possible for you to stop hurling insults and actually explain what it is you find about my stance qualifies as "militant?" Do you even know?

 

You might want to accuse us "militant atheists" of being to much like fundamentalists, but in MY book this question makes YOU quite a bit like them. The only people I have ever heard come on here and question my status as an "ex" have generally been fundamentalists.

 

Holding a few extra crazy beliefs does not detract from the fact that you still carry around that same fundamentalist tendency to talk out of your ass.

 

It doesn't feel too good to be told that your beliefs are B.S., does it ?

 

If Christians do that to you, does it make it any better for you to do that to them ?

[Kuroikaze]

It doesn't feel too good to be told that your beliefs are B.S., does it ?

 

If Christians do that to you, does it make it any better for you to do that to them ?

 

First off, still not an answer to my question.

 

secondly, I am a big boy and can take criticism, ALL beliefs can and MUST be open to it.

Claiming that I was never really a believer is not an attack on an idea, but an attack on both my honestly and my personal journey. It is also rather pointless since you do not know me well enough personally to say anything of the kind. My reaction was not anger, but simply amazement the ridiculousness of your statement.

 

On the other hand, I openly ASKED you to challenge my ideas, one of the founding principals of our government is the right to tell others their beliefs are B.S. In general I am more interested in attacking beliefs instead of individuals. If you cannot understand the distinction or you think we should all just be nice for niceness sake while people with idiotic beliefs try to run rough shod over our political system, our schools and anything else they can think of in order to foist those beliefs onto us the by all means live your life like that, but do not ask me to, and do not put of some false front of acceptance that only extends to the people who accept you and then accuse me of being the bad guy because I do the same.

 

Thirdly, not all ideas are created equal, many ideas whether religious or not are bad and do not deserve respect.

I will give you a non-religious example.

 

The anti-vaccination movement, most of the people in this movement believe that vaccinations are somehow responsible for autism, now some of them actually have children who HAVE autism, so their beliefs are closely related some heavy emotional trauma, now I am aware that countering these people and their movement may heighten that emotional pain somewhat. However, the reality is that there is NO scientific support for the notion that vaccinations cause or are even related to autism. Studies have been done many times with out finding a connection. Moreover, this movement has actually caused deaths and sickness because the people who refuse vaccinations put themselves and others at risk for infections that have been all but eliminated for decades.

 

So, should I say nothing because I do not want to hurt someones feelings? Or do I speak up, knowing that opposition to this idea is for the good of all, even the anti-vaxers.

This is my problem with the liberal religious ideology you come at these discussions with. Reality and the correct understanding of such is more important that our feelings.

If I think your beliefs are B.S. I will tell you so, and if it offends you too bad, keep your beliefs to yourself and no one can criticize them, speak them aloud and they will be open to criticizism. If they cannot be adequately defend them then you should choose better beliefs, blaming me for your choice to believe things which are not provable is just an emotional reaction, and has no place in a discussion between adults who actually care if their beliefs correctly represent reality.

 

Lastly, let me point out that at NO POINT did you criticize my beliefs, you just hurled insults. If you have any argument to bring to bear on any of my beliefs I would welcome it, one because I believe I can adequately defend my beliefs, and two, because I would welcome ANY correction to an incorrect belief which I hold, but you can't just say its wrong you need to show me exactly why it is wrong, using evidence and reason

 

 

P.S. the reason why your comparison fails is that you assume the reason I disagree with you and or fundamentalist Christians is over emotional content, that I am angry with Christians for hurting my feelings or something silly like that. I disagree with you and with Christians in general because there is no evidence to support your claims. The issue is not over who's feelings got hurt but whether or not ones beliefs are in line with reality.

[Guest Spinoza]

 

.... fundamentalist tendency to talk out of your ass.

 

 

What was the question ?

[Guest Spinoza]

.... fundamentalist tendency to talk out of your ass.

 

 

What was the question ?

 

I don't know what your ideas are. How should I challenge them ?

[Guest Spinoza]

 

...In general I am more interested in attacking beliefs

 

 

why ?

[Kuroikaze]

...In general I am more interested in attacking beliefs

 

 

why ?

 

Because all beliefs should be criticized, if they are true then they can stand the criticism, if they are not true then.........do I really need to explain the scientific method to you?

 

Do you really think some beliefs should not be open to criticism? if so why?

[Kuroikaze]

.... fundamentalist tendency to talk out of your ass.

 

 

What was the question ?

 

I don't know what your ideas are. How should I challenge them ?

 

Well you seem to think you know quite a lot about my beliefs, the question was of course about your accusation of "militant atheism" what exactly you think that is, and why you think it is a bad thing. You seem to think I am one, so why not start there?

 

I have laid out plenty of my beliefs in my posts thus far, so challenge away.

[Guest Spinoza]

.... fundamentalist tendency to talk out of your ass.

 

 

What was the question ?

 

I don't know what your ideas are. How should I challenge them ?

 

Well you seem to think you know quite a lot about my beliefs, the question was of course about your accusation of "militant atheism" what exactly you think that is, and why you think it is a bad thing. You seem to think I am one, so why not start there?

 

I have laid out plenty of my beliefs in my posts thus far, so challenge away.

 

Militant atheism would be someone who only believes there is no God (whatever that is) and doesn't want to hear otherwise.

[Guest Spinoza]

...In general I am more interested in attacking beliefs

 

 

why ?

 

Because all beliefs should be criticized, if they are true then they can stand the criticism, if they are not true then.........do I really need to explain the scientific method to you?

 

Do you really think some beliefs should not be open to criticism? if so why?

 

I am critical of militant Atheism for the same reason you are critical of Militant Theism.

[Kuroikaze]

Militant atheism would be someone who only believes there is no God (whatever that is) and doesn't want to hear otherwise.

 

See, this is exactly my point you hurl an insult but when forced to actually state your thoughts, your position is nothing more than a straw man, and clearly shows you know nothing of even Dawkins and Hitchins which your attack so often. As this particular definition would not apply to even them, even Prof Dawkins when asked how certain he was that there was no god, gave a scale running 1-7 1 being a full theist, 7 being completely convinced atheist, Dawkins himself only called himself a 6.

 

Now, I have already attested that I don't particularly have a problem with the notion that there might be a god, but my atheism only defines what I am not, it does not define what I am, which is to say I am a skeptic and a rationalist. I rejected Christianity because it is not supported by adequate evidence, likewise there is no evidence to support the notion of ANY god existing. If it makes me "militant" in your mind, that I reject an unproven hypothesis then so be it. If there is a god I am quite willing to believe once the evidence warrants said belief, but since no one can even agree on a definition of the word "god" I doubt very much that any proof will be forthcoming.

 

So, neither I, nor Dawkins, nor Hitchens nor ANY atheist I have ever met meets the definition you have set forward, so perhaps you will give it a rest?

[Kuroikaze]

I am critical of militant Atheism for the same reason you are critical of Militant Theism.

 

but you are critical of something that only exists in your own mind, before you criticize anothers beliefs you should make sure you actually know what those beliefs are.

 

Besides it is worth pointing out that fundamentalist Christians want to force their beliefs on others, and do so in a variety of ways that no atheist I know of would approve of. Door to door evangelism, political force, social force, and even at times violence. I can't think of a single example of atheists doing any of these things in order to force atheist beliefs upon others.

[Guest Spinoza]

Militant atheism would be someone who only believes there is no God (whatever that is) and doesn't want to hear otherwise.

 

See, this is exactly my point you hurl an insult but when forced to actually state your thoughts, your position is nothing more than a straw man, and clearly shows you know nothing of even Dawkins and Hitchins which your attack so often. As this particular definition would not apply to even them, even Prof Dawkins when asked how certain he was that there was no god, gave a scale running 1-7 1 being a full theist, 7 being completely convinced atheist, Dawkins himself only called himself a 6.

 

Now, I have already attested that I don't particularly have a problem with the notion that there might be a god, but my atheism only defines what I am not, it does not define what I am, which is to say I am a skeptic and a rationalist. I rejected Christianity because it is not supported by adequate evidence, likewise there is no evidence to support the notion of ANY god existing. If it makes me "militant" in your mind, that I reject an unproven hypothesis then so be it. If there is a god I am quite willing to believe once the evidence warrants said belief, but since no one can even agree on a definition of the word "god" I doubt very much that any proof will be forthcoming.

 

So, neither I, nor Dawkins, nor Hitchens nor ANY atheist I have ever met meets the definition you have set forward, so perhaps you will give it a rest?

 

I am a better atheist than you then. I do not believe in a God (as defined by Hitchens) either. I am a 7 on that scale.

[Kuroikaze]

I am a better atheist than you then. I do not believe in a God (as defined by Hitchens) either. I am a 7 on that scale.

 

You clearly state in your profile that you believe that everthing is god, suggesting you are a type of monist or pantheist, so either you are lying or have no idea what you believe, you cannot simultaneously believe that everything is god, and that there is no god at the same time.

 

Quit speaking is circles, now the so called "militant atheists" aren't hardcore ENOUGH for you? Give me a break.

 

Neither Dawkins, Hitchens or myself define god at all since we are atheists, others define god, therefore it is their job to offer evidence the god they claim is real, actually exists, none have manged to do that without defining god in a way that makes the definition useless, being an atheist requires you believe in NO gods. There is no more evidence for your god than the traditional one, at least not that I can see, though you are welcome to prove otherwise.

[Kuroikaze]

I am a better atheist than you then. I do not believe in a God (as defined by Hitchens) either. I am a 7 on that scale.

 

Further, it is quite silly to hold with totall conviction that which you cannot posible know for certain.

[Guest Spinoza]

Well - I am an atheist just like Baruch SPinoza is an atheist.

 

I am an Atheist like Einstein is an Atheist.

 

I am an Atheist like Carl Sagan is an Atheist.

[Guest Spinoza]

This is my kind of Atheist.... Baruch Spinoza.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CqAptCxZq4

[Kuroikaze]

Well - I am an atheist just like Baruch SPinoza is an atheist.

 

I am an Atheist like Einstein is an Atheist.

 

I am an Atheist like Carl Sagan is an Atheist.

 

Bull shit, I don't know much about Spinoza beliefs, but I know for certain Carl Sagan was not any sort of Pantheist. Have you ever read Demon Haunted World? Carl Sagan had no problem criticizing religious beliefs or pseudoscience and did so with just as much directness and Dawkins does. Carl Sagan was, like myself, as skeptic first and foremost and believed in the scientific method, he did not pick his beliefs based upon their emotional appeal.

 

Yet when I point out that all beliefs should be criticized or questioned you don't even seem to understand why, and think I shouldn't cause I might hurt someones feelings, at least that is how it appears to me, you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong.

 

I actually consider Carl Sagan a personal hero of mine, and his works are considered to be a great introduction to the skeptical movement, I place him right up there with a few of my other hero's Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Paine to name two.

[Guest Spinoza]

Well - I am an atheist just like Baruch SPinoza is an atheist.

 

I am an Atheist like Einstein is an Atheist.

 

I am an Atheist like Carl Sagan is an Atheist.

 

Bull shit, I don't know much about Spinoza beliefs, but I know for certain Carl Sagan was not any sort of Pantheist. Have you ever read Demon Haunted World? Carl Sagan had no problem criticizing religious beliefs or pseudoscience and did so with just as much directness and Dawkins does. Carl Sagan was, like myself, as skeptic first and foremost and believed in the scientific method, he did not pick his beliefs based upon their emotional appeal.

 

Yet when I point out that all beliefs should be criticized or questioned you don't even seem to understand why, and think I shouldn't cause I might hurt someones feelings, at least that is how it appears to me, you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong.

 

I actually consider Carl Sagan a personal hero of mine, and his works are considered to be a great introduction to the skeptical movement, I place him right up there with a few of my other hero's Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Paine to name two.

 

Sagan is my Hero too....

 

Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example

Baruch Spinoza

and

Albert Einstein

—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.

^[35]

 

In another description of his view of God, Sagan emphatically writes:

 

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

[Kuroikaze]

Sagan is my Hero too....

 

Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example

Baruch Spinoza

and

Albert Einstein

—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.

^[35]

 

In another description of his view of God, Sagan emphatically writes:

 

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

 

I think you misinterpret this, in a sort of quote mining of Demon Haunted World.

 

I mean, if someone held up a pen and said this pen is god, I would clearly be forced to admit that their god exists, but i would also point out that there is absolutely no reason to call their pen god, and that to do so, is to do nothing but play semantic games.

 

Notice Sagan never asserts that HE would call the pysical laws that govern the universe "god", merely that if someone uses the term "god to describe those things then he would admit that such a god exists. However as far as I can see there is absolutely no reason to call the physical laws of the universe "god," since we already have a way to describe the physical laws of the universe, we can just call them "the physical laws of the universe" Words have definitions and meanings, communication between people is impossible unless we can agree on the definitions of words, when you use a word like "god" and then define it to mean something that it has traditionally never been used to mean, you simply confuse everyone, and make commutation impossible.

 

Incidentally do you realize that Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins both generally do the same job, in that they have worked to educate the public on issues of science, and few traditional theists would make any distinction between the atheism of Sagan and Dawkins. I know because I have had those conversations with theists before.

 

 

 

But back to my original point, which is that in my estimation you have a not so hidden bigotry against a group of people who you refer to as "militant atheists"

I think you need to take a step back and realize that people are not so simple, and that perhaps if you sat down and actually talked with us, like you have been doing with me rather than just insulting us you might learn something, and find you have more in common with us "militant atheists" than you think.

 

First you might stop using that term, as it WILL offend us, and it IS ridiculous. First of, to compare it to what you call "militant theism" is nonsense, because militant theism is ACTUALLY militant. militant theism is the short of theism that causing Ugandan government to currently attempt to pass a law that makes homosexuality a capital offense, or that makes Serbians and Croats kill each other, or Muslims take out murder contracts on people who draw cartoons of their prophet, and to say that people like Hitchens who take a stand against that sort of behavior is the opposite side of the same coin makes a mockery of the whole thing, and is factually absurd.

[Guest Spinoza]

Sorry.... by Militant Atheists I was referring to the people on this Forum who say F$%k Off, and You're full of sh&t - no matter what i say ....

 

Even when I say I am an Atheist just like Baruch Spinoza and Carl Sagan.

 

 

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. -

Carl Sagan - My hero.

 

Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.

Baruch Spinoza

 

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/baruch_spinoza_3.html#ixzz18W37gWtY

[SoulofSilver]

When what you claim and what you are have obvious contradictions, yeah, you're full of shit and need to fuck off.

[bdp]

Sorry.... by Militant Atheists I was referring to the people on this Forum who say F$%k Off, and You're full of sh&t - no matter what i say ....

 

 

I'm not militant anything, and as far as spiritual beliefs I'm nothing at all - not atheist, not agnostic, not religious, just nothing. I have no religious beliefs, and I know I speak offensively even when I try not to, but I can't help it, when I read through your posts it's like working my way through a ten ton bag of fortune cookies. All 'spiritual' talk seems like nonsense to me. I don't dislike you and I don't begrudge anyone the right to believe anything that helps them, but I just can't take it seriously.

 

but at least you're not a complete asshole like rayskidude, or a braindead idiot like barelohim.

[LNC]

Which is why Christianity is not based on absolute morality, but on theological relativism.

The death of Jesus doesn’t do anything to cover sin.

There is no provision in God’s law for a human to serve as a sin sacrifice.

Such a sacrifice is illegal and believing it do be otherwise is rebellion against God.

 

 

Where is it stated in the Law that God cannot take the penalty for sin upon himself. If it were merely a human sacrifice, you would be right; however, Jesus was no mere human as no mere human could do what Jesus did in his miracles, including his resurrection. Nor did Jesus claim to be a mere man. He claimed deity (John 8:58 & elsewhere) and the same essence as God the Father (John 10:30).

 

That’s Christian mythology.

Jesus undermined parts of the law, made false prophecy, and claimed to be something he wasn’t.

 

 

2 Corinthians 5:21. Which parts of the Law did he undermine and where is your evidence for that assertion?

 

More Christian mythology.

Jesus undermined parts of the law and such behavior doesn’t fulfill anything.

 

 

Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 10:4Galatians 3:23-25, & elsewhere. Same question as above.

 

This is Christian mythology rooted in relativism and wishful thinking.

Jesus did not fulfill the law and has no qualifications to make an invalid and illegal sacrifice.

Such improper actions are in themselves sinful.

 

 

Evidence please...

 

Jesus didn’t even fulfill the duties of an expected king messiah.

Teaching against parts of the law, as Jesus did, does not make anyone righteous.

Humans are not valid sin sacrifices according to God’s law, which Christianity ignores when it gets in the way of their subjective wishful thing.

 

 

More evidence required to back your assertions...

 

Jesus had no authority or legitimacy to circumvent God’s law.

The words of a messianic failure don’t mean anything in terms of salvation.

God repeatedly warned his people not to be seduced by false teachers and wonder workers.

An expected king messiah was to lead people into great compliance with the law.

Jesus did no such thing and his modern followers mock the very God they claim to adore.

 

Not one bit of evidence to back up any of your assertions. I will look forward to you providing some..any.

 

LNC

[Guest Spinoza]

God is Love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16

[bdp]

 

 

Not one bit of evidence to back up any of your assertions.

 

 

Just like you. By the way I demolished Habermas while you were gone. Quite easily, and got bored with him very quickly. Again, just like you.