Extreme Evangelical Atheism vs. Moderate Atheism and Traditional Christianity

Extreme Evangelical Atheism vs. Moderate Atheism and Traditional Christianity


For those that do not like to read or have the background info already its not necessary to read the thread I will sum it up here. However please do not ask me a question if the answer is in the body of the thread.

Ok; I am saying that a subset of Atheists that I call Extremist Evangelical Atheism’ or EEA, is an evil even a satanically motivated position to take, and its primary goal is to destroy or harm Christianity. I did of course delineate between the majority of atheists, known as Moderate atheists as being moral ethical etc vs. The EEAs who are cruel and may be satanically motivated! I hope the comments and discussion (if any) does not degenerate into a toxic peeing contest.

For a long time atheism has enjoyed an advantage both in classical psychology and theology. Most of Freudian psychology takes religious beliefs to task as nearly any high school student will confirm. However, Atheism avoids much psychoanalysis both
professionally and by armchair shrinks, so this theist wants to how if his suspicions will play out on the mixed PC audience.

To begin; atheism began to change in the mid 20th century with the introduction of the ‘presumption of atheism’(poa)concept, I think it was Anthony flew* that popularized it. and becoming somewhat accepted by many atheists and a by good number of professionals. However that is not the theme essence or the main idea of this thread.

This thread was created not to discuss the validity of the ‘presumption of atheism’(poa)concept, or what atheists believe etc but rather its to study and discuss a growing subset atheists that present disruptive, malevolent behavior. I have named it ‘Extremist Evangelical Atheism’ or EEA for brevity. I do not want to disrespect or insult my friends, the majority of atheists. Luckily most atheists are responsible, moral and above all ethical in their views and activities. In this thread I refer to them as moderate atheists.

I love the forums and post on several, along with several defaults. It gives me something to do while at work ha ha! Well, I am self employed! I usually post in a very copious manner, and most of my posting does discuss religion. Not only does my online activities revolve around metaphysical topics so does my offline life, I own a church and two n.p. humanitarian missions (three if one counts the spiritual war room). I also am well traveled, so I do have a very good idea of contemporary events and the mood of the average Joe, and a better idea of what people with religious issues feel. I have noticed that religious folks are being attacked online as a default activity of Extreme Evangelical Atheists (the EEA’s).The only thing a theist or Christian or worse a pastor has to do to get the slights and veiled insults underway is post that fact or other God facts in his introduction! The good thing is that the EEA’s are in the minority, for now.

I have thought about this phenomena for some time now, and still wonder why EEAs feel the need to attack Christians their symbols and traditions. I have asked why as a matter of fact! Usually the replies are ; “ You are paranoid, thin skinned, you are irrational, I don’t like to be forced to listen to Christian speak“, etc. I don’t believe those are accurate answers in the majority of cases!

EEAs seem to be on an mission to destroy Christianity completely if it was in the power of EEAs. Those are some of the differences of an Extreme Evangelical Christian and an EE Atheist ie; The number and frequency of unprovoked attacks such as the insults* and belittlements against God or the believer and secondly it’s the viciousness of the attacks. Personally I feel some of the EEAs are satanically motivated. Motivated and influences is different. All people are influenced by the devil from time to time in every day events that tempt us. However motivated is different. Its like the difference between a tornado watch and warning! Well, this post as all has gotten too long! I would have liked to gotten into presumptive atheism that will be part two.


Reverend Anarchist

 

your avatar combined with your named identity shares it, perfectly..............

a beast with horns as the revanarchist


the liars are the beast who will mislead


ie...... reverends of 'anti-christ' (against truth)

 

The truth? EM = God? Yeah right!

 

This strikes me as delusional.
There is New Atheism, which is largely the front of professional jerks Hitchens and Harris. They make the claim that religion is a scourge and have no qualms about attacking all monotheistic religions. The most radical comment made was by Harris, who stated that some ideas are dangerous enough that it might be okay to kill people for them-- an idea not shared by the vast majority of even militant atheists. And I'm not sure that's really what Harris meant (it's connected to his belief that torture is fine and dandy in the battle with Islamofascism).

Other than those guys, who are all about hyperbole and selling books, even militant atheists usually have no desire to destroy religion. Those who do realize it's a pipe dream. Communists had that hope decades ago, but even the USSR figured out that coopting religion was more workable than destroying it. Even when people say religion is a scourge, very few believe it possible to destroy. Most assume we have to find some way to live with religion.

The reason atheists focus more on Christianity is because most atheists live in Christian countries. Western nations are largely Christian, while Islamic nations tend to be stuck in medeival times (when in Christian society there were no prominent atheists). Actually I heard recently on Pandora an Israeli death metal band whose lyrics were primarily blasphemy against Judaism. Open societies have detractors and detractors target the culture that a) most affects them personally and b) they are most familiar with.

Personally I see religion as capable of good or evil. One thing I like about religion (potentially) is its ability to organize people for good causes. I see this as something to co-opt rather than to destroy. I see more in common as an atheist humanist with theists that have a humanitarian streak than with atheistic Randroids (who have more in common with the Religious Right, when it comes down to it). I think militant atheists are a pain.

But let's put it in perspective.
Atheists are more despised in America than any other group.
And most sects of Christianity do indeed hope to eliminate us through either conversion or burning us in Hell when the world ends.
How could evangelical atheism be "evil" in light of its mirror image in the much larger Christian population?

 

I think you're being a little unfair (maybe even a little biased) in picking out atheists specifically on this point. The fact is that there is a subset of people who will act, react and speak out on any subject in an aggressive, offensive and hatful manner. The subject and the position they happen to take upon it could be anything. You only need to check out some of the policies "discussions" here to see plenty of examples of that entirely independent of theism or religion.

Such people will attack Christians because they're there. You're reviewing what is largely an English speaking western environment where Christianity is the primary religion. In a different environment, the target would be different. I also don't agree with you that there is any major difference in scale, scope or fundamental motivation between the extremists atheists and the extremists Christians (or indeed any others).

I don't believe anything like Satan exists so I'm going to politely ignore that aspect of your post.

 

What the heck is EVANGELICAL ATHEISM?

 

I explained what the term meant in the OP. Try a search engine.

Advanced search About 3,420,000 results

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...THEISM?&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Rev A

 

Do these Evangelical Atheists have daily TV programs like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Hal Lindsey etc?

 

I think it's a mistake to get hung up on a single word in a long and detailed post. It wasn't the best of choice of words but it's hardly the key point.

 

Do you require AGREEMENT from people who don't believe in God?

What exactly is the d*mned issue?

Do your thing and ignore them.

 

It's pretty important. The OP claims the primacy of a group that exists primarily in the collective imagination of conservative Christians.

 

You can't evangelize a personal non-belief in deities. There's no doctrine or program of beliefs to promote or to witness to others. Your terminology has problems. Antitheists would probably be a better term than 'evangelical atheists' which is an oxymoron.

The presumption of atheism follows from a general progression towards a scientific worldview. In other words, as people began to accept that science built a more accurate understanding of the world, they started to adopt the philosophical bases of science more broadly. It was not one idea propagated by one man, it was a wide shift in perception by whole populations over centuries. Atheism is the presumption because no conclusive evidence suggesting deities exist has been found. This lack of evidence logically leads to a dismissal of the theist claim. While a lack of evidence is not proof of absence, it is sufficient cause to dismiss the question pending further evidence to the contrary. That's where the presumption of atheism comes from--not Anthony Flew or anyone else. It's a logical consequence of wide acceptance of logic and science.

All Anthony Flew did was write about a point of view that was already present. He described something that was already being accepted. The fact that he later changed his opinion is irrelevant.

Why bring it up then?

Attacking religion is not the same thing as promoting or evangelizing atheism. I think you should consider more carefully the definition of evangelism. Attacking Christianity by revealing its flaws should not be cause to automatically accept atheism--it would because to either reform Christianity or create a new religion that addresses those philosophical problems. Pointing out that the Christian god is not consistent or sensible does not automatically mean that a person must fail to believe in any deities.

This comes back to the odd Christian perception that denoting errors in a Christian's argument or mistakes in his "facts" is the same as an attack. In healthy organizations, valid criticism and factual error is cause for reform, not a siege mindset. When an anti-theist shows Christians mistakes in scripture or errors in the Christian argument, that should be cause for the Christian to rework his argument and consider revising scripture. Reacting as if that criticism was an attack just reveals how flimsy Christianity can be.

Because they are atheists who feel that widespread philosophical errors are dangerous and should be confronted rather than meekly accepted. "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Allowing Christians to wrest control from secular authorities is dangerous for atheists, because we are often some of the first targets of theocratic rule. We very jealously guard the principles of religious freedom, and we do not appreciate people threatening that.

When Christianity shoves itself into secular life, it represents a danger. I am aware that Christians see it as innocuous, but just about everyone else is fearful of Christians for a reason. Your history is rife with examples of Christians reacting strongly and negatively against other religious groups.

This forum is an example of how the vast, vast majority of atheist 'attacks' on religion are prompted by believers either insulting and attacking atheists or by sticking their theocratic desires into secular life. Why do Christians feel a need to provoke atheists and everyone else by putting sculptures of the ten commandments on the courthouse steps?

Then you really don't understand a thing about them. Their motives are quite rational, not motivated by hateful spirits. Reasonable people are scared (*)(*)(*)(*)less by radical Christians, and we don't want to give any ground to them.

 

Well, somebody has their cue cards messed up.

I know a lot of Atheists will frown on this because they don't like government making laws that restrict their liberty, but that is irrelevant. Atheists also claim (as in the above statement) that according to them, there is a lack of evidence to promote the existence of God. Well, anybody can express an opinion.
According to the laws in the US.
Evidence: " something presented in a legal proceeding, as a statement of a witness, an object, etc., which bears on or establishes a point in question"

The taking of the Census of the US is a legally binding operation of the US Government and anyone found to be falsifying information on the census questionaire is subject to heavy penalty. Therefore, when the people voluntarily give there information to the census bureau agents, they are in fact making a statement as a witness.. they are giving testimony regarding their own being. Subsequently, those statements by those individuals to the census bureau agents are an evidence of the facts that are attested.

In the 2008 census, it was reported that 173,402,000 adults in the United States attested that they were Christian. That public attestation also serves as a "profession of faith". What is a profession of faith:
"1: an occupation requiring special training in the liberal arts or sciences, esp. one of the three learned professions, law, theology, or medicine
2: the body of people in such an occupation
3: the act of professing; avowal; declaration

4: also called "profession of faith"
a; a declaration of faith in a religion, esp. as made on entering the Church of that religion or an order belonging to it
b; the faith or the religion that is the subject of such a declaration

Footnote: (C13: from Medieval Latin professio the taking of vows upon entering a religious order, from Latin: public acknowledgment; see profess) "

Because this information (the numbers) are derived from the latest (200 census of the United States, the record thereof is an Official Government document and can be found on the internet at :
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf , this record at the website can be used as evidence pertaining to the census and that religious status of the people who participated.

Because a profession of Faith (especially in the Christian churches) denotes a belief in the existence of God, and because these records evidence the total of 173, 402,000 attestations, the majority of this country believe in the existence of God. What more "evidence" would one look for? The record is a tangible item and is based upon the experience of those people who participated.

Reject the information if you desire, but your rejection will only reflect your bias against religion and Christianity and would be further evidence that particular followers of the philosophy of science are bigoted.

 

This seems to contrary to Harris's beliefs, can you cite the source?

 

That is utter BS.

Its that super victim mentality that I keep pointing out that has affected every aspect of modern atheism, and I find it veru interesting that you end a thread with that thought when you began the thread by accussing others of delusion!

Lets take a look:

1. Are atheists denied education?

2. Are atheists denied economic access? Do you have a job?

3. Are atheists allowed to vote?

4. Can atheists be identified on site? Thus descriminated against?

5. In fact, would care to tell your stories of repression to an inner city black man? a Mexican immigrant? A Muslim shop owner in New York City?

What the polls say is not that your are hated, its that you are not trusted.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

You are not trusted for reasons just like this. When you walk around in this country and see real poverty, see a burgeoning drug war on our Southern Border, joblessness, or talkl with venterans as they return from Iraq and Afghanistan and consider yourself the most oppressed person in the world? America?

Who are you fooling?

And then we have the growing segment of EEA that Rev is talking about. Take a look a Bishadi in this thread or any other and tell me he is not an EEA?

In fact, look at any atheist website and see if moderate atheism is the norm on there, or whether it is EEA's that haev taken over? Lets look:

http://www.atheists.org/religion

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8361.htm

http://www.mzla.com/bible/

Atheists are going to re-write out Bible for us in that one. Take it and mock it as the center, yeah atheism!

http://atheists.org/blog/2011/09/08/keep-evangelism-and-politics-out-of-us-military-funerals

Apparently, as a Christian and a Soldier, should I die in battle, it would be bad to celebrate MY faith at MY funeral? WTF guys?

It's interesting that the group the filed to block the WTC cross first wrote this:

"Those who died in the attacks did not “sacrifice” themselves, as this implies some act of choice. They were murdered by religious fanatics. Their deaths were not heroic. They were not tragic. They were pathos. The deaths of those who died in rescue attempt were both tragic and heroic. Their sacrifices honor us all."

http://atheists.org/blog/page/3

And, after a massive backlash, wrote:

"There are Atheists who are falling in with those who are against the American Atheists, Inc. lawsuit regarding the World Trade Center Cross. The suit has been called everything from frivolous to petty. They also believe we are fighting against religion, which is causing us to appear as fundamentalist as the most rabid believer."

http://atheists.org/blog/2011/09/09/the-wtc-cross-why-the-lawsuit-needed-to-be-filed

So, which is it? Whatever it needs to be to attack religion right? The shifting standards, first the agressor and then the victim right?

EEA's are out there, and they ARE the voice of modern atheism.

 

No, atheists are a minority and haven't a viewer or adverting to fund such an endeavor. However there have been attempts, but the viewers nor the financing was there. If I were an atheist I would be attempting to secure financing etc to spread the 'other good news' ha ha'..(that is what I would call it) Atheists truly need a GOOD PR effort to educate the public about moderate atheism.

RevA

 

Hehehe .. it never even enters your mind to take a wee glimpse at societies where atheism is not a minority position, does it? I live in a country where up to 85% are atheists and there's absolutely nothing here of the things that you fantasize about will emerge if people loose your faith.

People simply go about their businesses like people on this earth always do. No "financing etc to spread the 'other good news' ", no such "endeavors" and absolutely no education "about moderate atheism" or any other absence of religious ideology.

It's only when you have an ideology to sell that you do something. Then you unite in groups and build houses in which to entertain the ideology, form congregations, start tv-stations and other media to promote it. But if the ideology is absent .. nothing. Except, of course, due response to those who have ideologies to sell but that goes for anyone, regardless of their own respective ideologies. And the more bizarre an ideology, the more intense a response you'll get. That's what this "militant" atheism is about. It's simply a response that matches bizarre ideologies.

 

If extremist views such as those espoused by Falwell or Hagee represent the majority, things are far worse than I thought.

 

Yes I agree. However, I understand the motivation for picking a word or unimportant idea out of a long post. I usually entertain the nit picking accuser but if they are being malicious I choreograph the ‘entertainment’ to produce a 'tactical' advantage to benefit my side of the argument. That advantage could be useful and applied to another reply in that same thread, or even in another subject. So please don’t tease me! ha ha…

(I hope that mess makes sense!)

Soooo, it should be obvious what EA's are. I think an EA is not necessarily a radical atheist activist, nor are EA’s as detrimental to the atheist movement as the radical atheist activists. This is a forum with people of many cultures, with wildly diverse beliefs and educational backgrounds and life experiences. It’s difficult if not impossible to please every one or to avoid insulting members. There is a huge difference between intentionally taunting and insulting members and doing it by accident. I will be honest and say that I sometimes allow the devil his due and give an eye for an eye, and drop ‘heat words‘* intentionally*. I don’t use the heat words often, unless the debate has degenerated into a toxic peeing contest.


Heat words; These are not so hot they flame. However they can cause a flame to burst out sometimes by design. They are like emoticons, but a bit more targeted and effective.

Rev A

 

Face it, RevAnarchist, it is you who present a belief to which others must respond. And as I just said above, the more bizarre it may be, the heavier the response will get.

The less basis in reality a belief has, the more, well, to use Carl Sagan's immortalized word, extraordinary. However, the more a belief without basis in reality tries to actually promote a basis in reality, the more bizarre it becomes. And from what you've said on this forum about cosmological arguments, evidence and what else, that's apparently where you are with your belief.

If those who try to point this out seem militant to you then that's your perogative. Unlike belief systems that tend to have basis in reality, such as politics and humanitarian sentiments, criticism of religious belief systems always hit on a personal level even if it's only a criticism of the belief and not of any person. That causes a mobilization of personal defense systems and when that happens, the critics automatically become the militant offenders and the defensive person not only becomes the victim but also collateral damage. Which is twice the victim; one for his own beliefs and one for the cause of the offenders.

 

Hmm' tell me oracle what are those things that I fantasize about? Oh, BTW, I do consider other societies when it’s important or relevant to the discussion

Well FW you are agreeing with what I said! The situation is reversed (I am taking your word for it) with atheism being the dominate group. Now what you should have understood is that Atheism is not a religion nor is it a belief system, so why should there be EA's in your country? If they are the majority there is no need for them to evangelize their cause eh? If southern Baptists are an extreme minority they may mirror the atheists here that have base of viewers, therefore no advertising dollars etc.

I feel you are not accurate stating that there are no Churches etc. EDIT WILL FINISH THIS NODE IN NEXT REPLY

No I can not agree. Militant atheism is a minority of a minority that has a perverted world view and the leaders of such a group would possibly be mentally ill (if he expresses said attrubites). The paradigm of the group is defective and promoted deviant behavior, at least those that participate in violence or criminal behavior, just as are the AOG (Army Of God) Christians that murder abortion MD's such as tiller the baby killer (sorry I cant remember his real name) or commit other crimes. So the radical atheists are not responding to a bizarre stimulus* they are responding to a fabricated stimulus, a fantasy created by a sick mind. The real problem comes when the sick mind is attached to an intelligent sly brain, of any kind of group. But I digress. Your ideas and conclusions were not well thought out, with all due respect each of your conclusions fails even the mildest of litmus tests is.

Rev A

 

You put alot of work into a post that doesn't address the issue you are citing. None of what you posted makes the case for the truth of Christianity, or any deity. It only makes the case of the preponderance of Americans who believe, however nominally, in that deity. It is not "evidence" to the validity of such beliefs. No bias here, just good reading skills.

 

2 items;

you mention the 'pipe dream' of ending religions....?!? Why would it be a pipe dream?

Meaning; if all children had a venue to learn about "everything" in all nature (reality) and never ever have to read a line item of 'well god did it'...... then what belief of a supernatural be required?

second.....

the mirror image of 'evil" is "live"

 

christians consider anything not christian an atheism.

muslims are atheist to them and they believe in the same god

remember the RevA is just a preacher and i aint met one yet that is honest beyond belief.

to me the militant is the liar that stands on a podium like hitlers and tries to blind the minds eye of anyone they can

 

that is the perfect line item for the thread.