Extreme Evangelical Atheism vs. Moderate Atheism and Traditional Christianity

I noticed you conveniently did not comment on the second sentence of my last post. Let me repeat it.

"Without replacing that emptiness with anything, then you still have NOTHING."


The graphic, irrespective of the view of a non-Atheist, is still NOTHING. In other words, even in your own mind, Atheism is NOTHING... You have no graphic representation of Atheism.... why??? Because it is NOTHING.

Show that blank empty space to some random person without offering any explanation, and ask them what they see, and you will get a variety of answers, but within all probability, the greater response will be 'NOTHING'.

BTW: I also noticed that you did not answer my questions.

 

You would think that I was conceding the issue by your eliminating the second sentence... but actually, I am not conceding. Atheism is NOTHING, by reason of the graphic which makes the representation of how atheists view atheism... which was NOTHING.

 

I had a feeling it was a mistake. Sorry Freeware, doesn't look like it's going to happen. *shrug*

 

The mistake was in the interpretation that you and FW perceived.

 

I got you the first time, Incorporeal. No need to repeat yourself. Atheism is indeed nothing with respect to theistic beliefs. We are still in agreement.

And yes, without replacing nothingness with something you're still left with nothingness, that is true. Redundant, needless to say, waste of time and all that - but true.

Context, my dear Watson. Context. If you're going to show a cartoon to someone then don't block out the dialog.

 

Well, I'm still in agreement with Incorporeal on this. He just doesn't seem to understand why. So yes, understanding is not going to happen. But we already know that.

 

Context, my dear comrade Boris. Context. I stated random person,,, that would imply the likelihood of Atheists also being included in the random selection of persons. An atheist in that random selection of persons would inevitably tell you what you expect to hear from an Atheist.. but remove the language and it is potentially a different story.

But hey... thanks anyway for the admission that what I said was true.

 

And that statement pretty much sums up everything we say to you atheists daily.



"Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

Funny how atheists seem to be finding fault with someone who simply rejects their position. And yet ...

 

Atheism is only a rejection of an idea. Some religious people can't deal with that or even admit it.

Some people think atheism is "Anti-God", but it is much less than that. The only standard is a denial of existence. Many atheists may take it farther than that, but there is no doctrine to tell them to do so.

 

Rejection of what idea?

 

I am late getting back to this. Ok so I reply to someone who spoke badly of the Bible to someone "The Bible is not stupid and you shouldn't use such harsh language about it" the reply-"f*** you the Bible is worthless piece of s***" ok I think you can see now why I was happy I got a good response.

 

The idea of religion.

 

Atheism is the belief that there is no God or Gods.

Its not the rejection of my faith, its the statement of yours.

Again, do you wonder why I often tell atheists that their faith is defined by ever changing standards that exist purely to disagree with and belittle other people?

Well, you should have a better understanding of that observation now.

 

God does not necessitate religion. People can, and indeed do, believe in God without religion.

You are still and atheist who rejects God.

 

Most atheists live lives of quiet disbelief, and don't talk much about it one way or the other.
You have made your judgment of atheists based on the few that you encounter that enjoy the back and forth. Most don't bother to "disagree or belittle" those they feel are following a myth. They let them enjoy it and they move forward with their lives without it.
I do have a better understanding of that observation now. It is based on an erroneous assumption.

 

What he said.

 

I have been doing this for about ten years, by that I mean correcting internet lies etc spread by those that hate Christianity. By forum rules I can not preach or attempt to convert, so I don't attempt to. However I have over a hundred e mails and a few snail mails as proof that your comments are baseless and false. In other words over that period God has worked through me to convert those 100+ that were either atheist or agnostics (only one former member of this forum though).

No the conversions did not happen entirely through the forums, usually we corresponded for some time by email where I can minister legally, at least for now. Even if only one person were converted from atheism in the ten years I have been posting, all the toxic tripe, the endless attacks and meaningless arguments, the insults and hate that is strewn about would be worth it.

So, seeing that I have a cue full of those that rejected atheism and religion at least in part because of my words (words influenced by Jesus Christ in reality) I must disagree that truth (seeds) do not work. I have to say that I too was converted from hard atheism to spirituality and ultimately to Christianity by those seeds. Seeds work, because truth works. Additionally I will tell you that your hate for Christianity is glaringly obvious, even though you attempt to cushion it by using covert and open sarcasm and by silly witless posts (silly etc when attempting to insult). There are some souls that have denied god for so long that they have very little chance of being saved as per scripture. If the shoe fits wear it, I find no joy in witnessing another brother* throw their soul into Sheol** i.e. the grave.

* We are all 'brothers and sisters' in blood if you believe in evolution, and in spirit if one holds Christianity as true.

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

I am sorry that I must sacrifice some of the usual suspects for those that have a better chance, call it spiritual triage. So I hope you will forgive me for I plan on continuing to correct gross falsehoods and deceptive lies by radical atheists and others that hate God and what God and religion represent. One hundred people plus saved by accident is a good thing! To see orders of magnitude more people than 100 saved come to church one Sunday, I beg that of you.

Rev A

 

Oh I noticed a somewhat needful statement of yours that I did not address. You commented on the decline of Christanity/religon etc. ie EXCERPT "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."


Yes I have read the studies that seem to show that religion will be downright extinct in a 100 years by some estimates. However in one article its stats are all mixed up claiming one thing in one paragraph and another in the next paragraph. Ah the perils of internet 'facts'.

Well again I must disagree with your assessment! I feel as the internet has helped religion nor harmed it. But that is just my hunch, although I may peruse it. However here is a study that you may find interesting (unless you reject it out of hand because it speaks of the demise of atheism or is commented on by an theologian .

God not so dead: Atheism in decline worldwide

Gurat, France – There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe that godlessness is in trouble. “Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide”, Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday. His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees."

Read more @ ;

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/atheism-in-decline-worldwide/

Your sarcasm is (again) noted, are you capable of making one post without such juvie' games?

Rev A

 

Ha~ ha!!! Well yes, as I have often said moderate atheists are good ethical people. I can not condone their committing spiritual suicide but in things temporal the majority of atheists are easy to like. However, and this is the point, if Mr Bruce thinks all atheists 'live lives of quiet disbelief, and don't talk much about it one way or the other should exclude radical or even worse malicious atheists (which some evangelical atheists would be included, but not all evang. atheists are malicious).

Go to any atheist site or even more enlightening go to an general interest site and post God exists and stand back for all sorts of insulting, belittling, abusive posts meant to harm or flame. Try it. Post just what I mentioned and wait a day or two then check back.

Rev A

 

There is that fundamental 'spiritual test' mentioned in 1 John and 1 Corinthians. I love it when I see others practicing it on their own.

 

True, though you could probably achieve a similar result by posting that God doesn't exist, that X-Factor should have been won by the runner-up or that you like olives on your pizza.

This is a function of human nature and the internet, not atheism ("evangelical" or otherwise) in particular.

 

Well from reading that paragraph, it is very obvious that his thoughts are concerning most atheists and not all atheists.

Ya know, the reason you left the word "all" out side the quote marks above... because he didn't say it.

If I speak my mind and tell you how I really feel, in your eyes, I am being abusive, insulting, and hurtful because I am saying horible things about what you hold sacred.

The religious incite that feeling of contempt in atheists.

Here is an experiment for you.

Go to a church of scientology. Ask them to try to convert you. Let us know if they were pushy or insulting towards you after you tell them you don't believe in Xenu.

Any religion that has a conversion clause where it's adherents are supposed to willfully spread the religion is going to have the same reaction when you tell them you think it's all a lie.

Go up to a group of muslims and tell them Allah is not god and mohammud was a child molester. See how far that gets you.

 

"Internet 'facts'" are no peril. It is the presence of information diverse enough for the individual to draw his own conclusion that does it. Diversity of information is the peril. As it has always been. Once you had knowledge of one solution, then came two solutions and your knowledge had to be reconsidered. It is solely the diversity that lies in two solutions rather than one that causes this to happen.

Anyhow, to this I'll say that I agree that any article claiming religion to go extinct is likely to be based on an insufficient diversity of information and much more on wishful thinking.

I don't think religion will become extinct as long as the cognitive mechanisms of the human brain work as they do now. Which for all practical purposes means never. However, where there is a causation there are also factors that can be adjusted and, as already stated, I will submit that one of the important factors is the availability of a diversity of information.

The article you link to make use of quite a few of the mantras that frequently appear on sites like this. Those are the very mantras that I see as hardening the soil. Make no mistake, though, they act as strong reaffirmation of beliefs that are already present (which is of course where you get your hundreds of so-called converts from) but, just as strongly, they act diametrically opposite when self-reaffirmation is not the issue. Let's take a look at a few of the mantras.

There's the old mantra that religion equals morality, which represents the absolutely most arrogant case of religious exclusivism. It basically means that if X doesn't share the faith of Y then X is amoral per definition. Which is of course preposteriously arrogant UNLESS you are on the receiving end of the reaffirmation (meaning that you identify with Y and therefore readily co-judge X to be amoral).

Then there's the old mantra that atheism is "underpinned" by science. This has always been a reflection of the opposite, namely, that godbeliefs are threatened.

And of course, in the cutest conviction that the author thinks the opposite, he even starts to use creationist arguments to support the allegement that godlessness is in trouble. If this doesn't make the readers ass fall completely off in a seizure of laughter, he actually throws in the usual allegements of inhumane and lunatic acts done in the NAME of atheism.

RevAnarchist, it is clear that this is written in the same frustation over religious skepticism that also rears its ugly head in this subforum. It has absolutely nothing to do with any decline in the amoral, inhumane and lunatic absence of your faith. It is quite contrary a reaction to the realization that it makes less and less of an uproar to criticize religion. So the author simply decides to roar himself.

 

Yes, my friend that is an amazing thing you have configured, well its there in the good word but you put two and two together to make it a verifiable, testable system. I should try it out on our usual suspects eh?

Rev A