Extreme Evangelical Atheism vs. Moderate Atheism and Traditional Christianity

I can almost guarantee you a liberating sensation, should you someday try to get over yourself, Incorporeal. I'm not out to do anything to or with your faith. I merely respond to it. That's it.

 

No, it's not unique. If theism is something then atheism is nothing. If theism is nothing then atheism cannot even be defined. Take your pick.

 

Well, that is a good thing to know and to have on a public forum, where your statement becomes a matter of record to act either for or against any future declarations or exhibitions of conduct that you might display.

 

Judge as you may, - or as you may pretend not to.

 

Oh you can bank on it... I will continue to judge the behavior of people around me and even those that are not around me. I will always stand in judgment of the behavior of people and groups of people.

 

Yes, thank you not replying using overdone sarcasm and your idea of covert wit* as a medium!

*(although some semi covert underdone wit/sarcasm is evident)

The 'others' you refer to will hopefully allow the spiritual seed we have planted to grow resulting in a realization that truth and the good news may not be found in an atheistic paradigm. I am not here to convert anyone because its against the rules, if it were not a violation I would minister. I do lurk in religious threads because, well I am a Christian and its what I do for a living. But more important is correcting long held falsehoods and worse intentional lies about Christianity and spirituality/metaphysics. Lastly there is a flip side to the ‘others’ you mentioned, and that is those members that support us. There is always the other side of a story, even if you fail to mention it, eh?

Rev A

 

FreeWare If I'd said that about you , I would be infracted ,,,

but since you said that about your own-self , I can only agree with your own self-analysis ...

But RevA did not judge , he only showed you the error of your ways ...

Where you take that is up to you ...

 

Thanks brother hillbilly. If you were a woman I would marry you! You get it why can’t Freeware? Of course maybe he now knows what we were speaking of when we claimed we do not judge. Everyone and I mean everyone must make assessments of our environment! If we used Freeware’s ideas of what judging constitutes, making sense of our world would be impossible (if we should not judge). For example say I stroll into the kitchen and notice the stove element is glowing a bright red. Freeware would say I was judging the stove!

Rev A

 

That's a strange assumption. RevAnarchist didn't, so I don't see why on earth you should.

 

I have been "admitting" it to everyone for many posts in many threads since I have been a member. Trying to get you and other like you to understand this concept is the hard part.

Atheism is the absence of a belief, not a belief.

 

Nah. Now if said your stove had below average morals then, well ok, I think I'd just shake my head.

 

I wouldn't get my hopes up, RevAnarchist. It's my experience that all the religious person can do on Internet discussion fora is to reaffirm himself and others that ALREADY share his beliefs. What you may see as a sowing of seeds, I see as a hardening of the soil. In fact, if Internet discussion fora*) were the only means of inculcating religious dogma then we'd see a faster decline in religion than we do. The Internet is an extension of the Enlightment, NOT of the Inquisition.

If your hope is to continue to seed your faith - which, if I am judge you, it certainly is - then you should continue to work for the traditional means of religious indoctrination, which means things like church services, homeschooling and other missional work in as isolated and undisturbed environments as possible.


*) in the real sense of the Internet, i.e. a global network for free and open exchange of information.

 

The graphic representation that was provided says the whole story. Don't like the graphic and its message that has been delivered, then take it up with the person who presented it. Your argument would then be rightly directed. Your rhetoric will not alter my interpretation of the graphic.

 

What?? LOL I said nothing about the graphics (which I like and agree with). I replied to your statement that it was a unique expression of the poster's view of atheism. I simply pointed out that the view is not unique.

You try so hard, Incorporeal, that you're hardening the soil quicker than RevAnarchist can.

 

Which indirectly places you in the position of making a comment about the graphic display. As the graphic display was in fact the means of the poster to make show his view of atheism.

Yeah... like pre-stressed concrete. Almost impervious to normal non mechanical attack. But like I am sure Bishadi would agree with, it requires a lot of EM to cause that hardening else a small amount of EM applied consistently over a prolonged period of time.

 

Incorporeal, will you still not tell me what "EM" means?

 

I told you before to ask Bishadi about that one. That is his puppy[idea] and he is the one responsible for training that puppy[idea]. I wouldn't want to be accused of making a false representation regarding EM.

 

Yes it is. Like I said, the hard part is getting you and other like you to understand the idea.

The graphic suggest that Christians see Atheists as Anti-god.

In reality, Atheists just don't have any belief in any god.

 

The graphic display shows that atheists view atheism as a "blank screen", "empty", "void", "nothing". So, in spite of your rationalizations (excuses) regarding the graphic, the graphic speaks for itself and speaks against atheism as atheism being "nothing".

 

How can it be so hard to understand that atheism is an absence? If theism is something, then atheism is the absence of that something, which in the sole context of the something in question is of course nothing.

An important note on the latter: The concept of nothingness is most often used in particular contexts without any implication outside of that context. For example, if I don't speak then it's an absence of speaking, which is the same as saying nothing. It doesn't mean that the nothingness in question extends to or bleeds into any other matter than that of speaking. Likewise, atheism is nothing only in the context of theism. It does not mean that atheism is nothing in any other context.

Naturally, I'm saying this just so you don't dive unto the slope that it seems you're about to set off on.

 

It's hard to make someone understand something that they don't want to understand.

 

After viewing that graphic, it is not hard to understand at all. The graphic very clearly shows that Atheism is an absence.... an absence of anything, comparatively speaking.

OK, in context to the opposing graphic (the one allegedly depicting what theists view Atheism as), Atheism is still nothing. Without replacing that emptiness with anything, then you still have NOTHING.

What slope would that be... mr prognosticator? Are you Fortunetelling again? Making predictions (practicing the art of numerology)?

 

There ya go. Atheism is neither a denial or a faith in something, it is a nothing with respect to theistic god-beliefs. Well done, Incorporeal.

 

Unfortunately, I have a feeling his understanding was completely unintentional.

Though I hope I'm wrong - I'd love for at least one of the chronic "deniers" to finally get it.