Extreme Evangelical Atheism vs. Moderate Atheism and Traditional Christianity

You realize that you express opinions that illustrate exactly why many of us atheists hide that we are atheists. You demonize us for feeling demonized! As such, we do not feel demonized, we ARE demonized...by people like you.

 

This is the seed of irrationality: you have no answer so you change the subject.

By the way, Satan is part of Christianity specifically so that BELIEVERS can absolve THEMSELVES. I do not believe in Satan. I can't use that excuse for being evil.

I'm not resorting to the Bible on this one. I'm cogitating the logic of Satan only.

 

This issue of tricking flies back in the face of the believer. How does the believer know that the Bible is not one of Satan's tricks?

It's like The Matrix. Once you start jumping realities, you can never know what's real anymore. Maybe there's another level above the one in you're in now, and an infinite number above that.

I loved The Matrix series, but this one thing did bother me. I was upset when it turned out that leaving the matrix was the real reality. How do you know? If there' one shift, there could be any number.

Old Testament and New Testament. How do Christians know that there aren't more and more newer testaments coming down the pike?

 

Article 1, section 4 of the Texas Constitution states:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm

But...

Insisting that someone acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being in order to hold an office IS a religious test! The US Constitution has its share of disingenuousness, but this bit in the Texas Constitution is blatant contradiction.

By law, it is illegal for (most) atheists to hold office. Not only is this bold-faced religious discrimination, it contradicts the US Constitution and is thus null and void despite the fact that Texas has never seen fit rescind it's discriminatory law.

These laws still exist in the constitutions of 8 states, but all have been rendered null and void more than once.

http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2010/02/no-religious-test-tested.html

[Justice Hugo] Black noted the irony of religious tests, writing, “Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith."

 

I can't answer that. I'm not religious, so Satan is not really part of my repertoire. I just love George W. Bush quotations and thought I could sneak one in.

 

It doesn't matter what I say does it? I sneeze and you atheists turn it into a dragon's roar of contempt and latent innuendo.

I correct even the most egregious errors, like, "Sorry chaps, we are not rapists!", and you guys hear, "Scum and villany, burn at the steak!"

I attempt to say, "Here are some good reasons to believe in God," and you guys hear, "AGGGHHHH! It burns, make the bad man stop! Why is he forcing his religion on us .... in a religion forum I chose to be in?"

Of course, my all time favorite is when I say, "I disagree.", and you guys say:



Whose fault is this?

Skepticism and cirticism is a two way street. So, if you base your life at finding fault in others, do not be surprised when they poke back. And when they do? Well, you guys are still not exactly trapped on trans-atlantic slave ships in peril of being chained and dumped over board ... so stop acting like it.

 

No worries, just remember what happens when atheists gain power as well.



Really, the fact that the Texas Constition has a provision that an atheist can skirt around (which is why it still stands) should not be too alarming. After all, you actually have to field a viable candidate who can ACTUALLY generate political consensus for it to even be a real issue.

Indcidentally, you should be proud that you live in an overwhelming religious country that views tolerance and acceptance so highly, that it would create systems that seek out and dismantles religious tests when they are found.

Might be a shock, but most religious people disagree with them as well - which should be comforting.

Instead, its an opportunity to take a crap on all of us

 

VOM is one of the most pure and real publications I have found. They report the violations of human rights and the ongoing persecution of the Christian Church and Christians by government and other powers that be in stark detail. I admire those fearless missionaries more than my favorite intellectual hero, Kurt Gödel*. God gave the theist genius Gödel his intellect, but God must of gave the missionaries reported on by VOM the courage of a thousand ordinary men.

I am totally floored by the level of bravery the those missionaries muster. Their faith in God and God himself gives them the power of will required to ignore the dangers of repressive murderous regimes to hand out bibles and the good word. God bless the real heroes of our age.

* Godel was a meek man but was brave in his own way. He being a theist and a MetaPhysicist surrounded by ‘logical Positive’ thinkers of the Vienna circle era demonstrated a kind of 'clandestine courage' I suppose. He being correct while his contemporaries were wrong, at least concerning his famous incompleteness theorem gave him some strength I would imagine. Still I would have liked for him to have taken his LP friends to task publicly. Now that would have been a treat!

Rev A

 

Indeed, few more examples;

Christians killed in Dien Bien Phu protests| Cathnews India
May 9, 2011 ... Dozens of demonstrating Hmong Christians have been killed by Vietnamese and
Laotian security forces during mass protests last weeks, reports indicate. ... “In
response, the government launched an aggressive crackdown ...

www.cathnewsindia.com/.../christians-killed-in-dien-bien-phu-protests/

Christians Murdered In Demilitarized Zone
Aug 29, 2011 ... Christians Murdered In Demilitarized Zone ... in late February in the “de-
militarized zone” occupied by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
The government's military recently initiated an offensive aimed ...

www.compassdirect.org/english/country/.../newsarticle_1174.html

2 Christians killed, others tortured in Chinese Government ...
Aug 3, 2001 ... WASHINGTON (BP)--Two Christians have been killed in the Chinese government's ...
8 and was kicked and beaten by government security forces. ...

www.worthynews.com/1778-2-christians-killed-others-tortured-in-chinese-government-

I am most worried about China (harming Christians or persecuting the church etc) because they are the most powerful, and fully atheist. North Korea is a close second. However as in the two examples Christians are often scapegoats for what ever the seculars dream up.

Rev A

 

it is sad but yet encouraging to know that others are standing so bravely for what they believe! VOM is really great and I am glad to know that the good news of Christ is being spread by such brave men and women. http://www.prisoneralert.com/

 

Only in regards to such things as politics and most jobs. On the other side of that coin, is the fact that the government cannot stop nor dismantle our authority to conduct such tests on the 'private' side of this society, and even to publish our findings in regard to those 'private' side 'religious tests'.

 

Wow, I just read this post and had to look it up for myself. The Texas constitution actually says that! How the heck can a constitution that violates itself pass any kind of ratification process?

I'm discombobulated.

 

Why be discombobulated? If you were to spend as much time studying other aspects of life as you do in attempting to stand against God and the followers of God, you would have found that publishing of kmisho to be ordinary in the sense of government operations and what actually takes place in government in contrast to the language of the Constitution(s).

The answer to your question is simple. The government of Texas does not need the consent of the People to do anything that it desires to do. The so-called constitution is just an illusion to keep people pacified ... making the people think that they have rights when in fact, the people are ignored as far as having any rights. What rights do SLAVES have?

 

Yes and I am happy that Christians like yourself understands the seriousness and implications of Christian persecution in the modern age. Btw a year or so ago I met a missionary on the shooting range of all places (he was a pacifist) hence my surprise at seeing him at the outdoor unregulated range where all manner of weapons are unleashed.

He said he was going to somewhere in South America (I forgot the name of the area) where Christians were being murdered by terrorists rebels because Christians were supposedly making it difficult to recruit soldiers. What floored me was that he said he usually went unarmed and he was taking his wife and infant child! I mentioned to him that I hoped he was reconsidering the unarmed bit by being on the range. But as soon as the world came out of my mouth I felt as if I was saying something dirty or repulsive. He countered with if I and my family is killed doing the work of God its his will. Now that is incredible faith and a kind of pacifism that I can admire. Still I fear for his and his young family’s life.

Rev A

 

That’s correct. One of my mantras is that all governments are evil by default. They have to be. Governments must control people. Its popular to bash the USA (and Christians) these days but I would rather live here than nearly anywhere else. Even considering the fairly ‘neutral’ federal government of the USA, I have been working to divest myself from all things government and hope to become as invisible as possible in the next ten years. However by that time I will have to surrender and move to the VA nursing home!

Hmm’ I am not so opposed to atheists not being able to hold government jobs…ha ha just kidding! I like most moderate atheists and a supporter of ‘natural’ human rights and ‘natural‘ law meaning that I feel natural law supersedes positive law in some instances. That means I support equal treatment.

Rev A

 

Yes, by thoughts like these I can see how the contradiction can occur in the first place. But, still, how the heck can a legal document that contradicts itself pass any kind of ratification process, unless, of course, there are no one involved in that process that are capable of behaving more rational than demonstrated by the thoughts in your post?

 

Your dim witted jokes are ...well dim witted. Where is the Smilie of a dim bulb? I need one to illustrate the intellect expressed in your malicious replies.

Rev A

 

FreeWare; you're going to have to get up pretty darn early to get the better of RevA ...

RevA ,,, he's clearly out of your league . . . you ain't even making a good show out of it , quite disappointed in you , in fact ... please , try and do better ,,, take a lil' nappy , have some herbal tea , enjoy the pool , read another comic book , smell some flowers, have another toke ,

at least that way your posts will remain consistent , and valued as such .

 

Huh? Ok I misread the reply thanks Hillbilly!

Rev A

 

Personally, I think I've seen the best of RevAnarchist already. Not impressed. But he knows that.

 

And no one is impressed by snide remarks or your thoughts that they get the better of anyone.

 

Last week , when I posted this , I inadvertently used unclear pronunciation and the post appeared to be me chastising Rev A , which is NOT what I intended..

Here is what I should have said ... >> FreeWare , , , RevA is clearly out of your league . . . you ain't even making a good show out of it , quite disappointed in you , in fact ... please , try and do better ,,, take a lil' nappy , have some herbal tea , enjoy the pool , read another comic book , smell some flowers, have another toke.

at least that way your posts will remain consistent , and valued as such . [/QUOTE]

I have gotten a few WTF messages , and wanted to clear this up and appologise to my good friend RevA for the confusion..

 

FreeWare , you've been on PF a long time , and expressed your views very well.

I may not agree with them , and don't most times , especially concerning God.

RevA is one of the very few people on PF that have the education and standing to discuss these matters with you & others on your own atheist turf , and I for one am impressed by him ...

You say you are not , and that is your right to state that , but I believe on a personal level that RevA has browbeat you with your own argument ...

My opinion , RevA has spanked you smartly , and you just don't want to admit that RevA is right ... or moreover , maybe you just can't admit it when you're wrong ...

 

Hey what is the best of me? Ha ha. I judge people by their heart more than their god given talents. In this scale I have to say that people such as youself do not impress me either Freeware. I have to say that most people with your world view (that employs MA* and misdirected human secularism as the ultimate personal authority) have average ethics, along with average intellect. As a Christian I even accept the commonly below average morals displayed. However like most evangelical atheist activists those gifts of God are abused and projected to your fellow man in a predictable malicious manner. And as always God loves you and I am trying my best to.

* MA; MA is a 'word' that I coined meaning Malicious Atheism. Further definition on request.

Rev A

 

I would like to say ‘Thank you’ to my friends for defending my forum creds, ha ha. I attempted to be nice to FW despite his personal attacks, and have succeeded at times, however my last post to him was a bit abrasive. The people I really admire are the Christians that withstands personal attacks chooses to turn the other cheek time and time again. Freeware’s “snide” comment was the first thing I read when rolled out of bed this morning and I am NOT a morning person, so I did not turn my cheek even once. Personally speaking, turning the other cheek (in perpetually in some situations) is the last and most difficult Christian lesson I have to learn. But we are all works in progress, even Freeware.

Rev A


PS....This thread is about well done eh? I remain convinced that if an atheist can not or will not defend his paradigm he not being honest to himself or anyone else. The current crop of learned PhD Christian apologists* have accomplished much in 'calling out' those atheists that will not share the burden of proof by logical arguments etc. They fairly disarm those atheists and expose the dishonesty and such in clear detail. I predict a paradigm shift in the way atheists are defined in the next ten years. In other words atheist will revert to its original ‘pure’ logical and precise meaning before the fallacy of “presumption of atheism” was created. Its my opinion that ‘the presumption of atheism’ was created simply to relieve atheist of a valid request to defend their paradigm due to the increasing pressure leveraged by professional philosophers and educated Christian apologists to force atheists share the burden of proof.

William Lane Craig is eminent PhD enabled Christian apologist. His views on the subject of the dishonest type of atheism mirrors mine. I have cut and pasted an excerpt of an article posted on his web site ‘Reasonable Faith’ that is very relevant to this discussion. We join the discussion already in progress;


There’s a history behind this (of the new crop of atheists default position of not having to present a burden of proof….mine). Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.



Read more at;

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5631