Extreme Evangelical Atheism vs. Moderate Atheism and Traditional Christianity

Uh huh. I could say its not the same, and give tons of examples, however I know from experience it would not work, but thanks for your opinion. To be honest I will say that I agree somewhat, but the example I gave was only a soundbyte to show that Christians are persecuted all over the world. In the USA there are severe penalties for harming Christians so physical violence is not as bad as in the atheist nations such as north Korea, China (which is bad but not the worse offender). Also secular Africa, various South America countries are hotbeds for Christian persecution. However the horrors atrocities and lesser crimes perpetuated against Christians are not limited to the listed nations and countries, many other countries allow an 'open season' on Christians.

I agree, and would be the first to say that atheists have their own problems being the most hated minority in the USA according to one study. Nevertheless the distain that some atheists suffer to the magnitude and severity (in number) of the physical violence that Christians endure.

Rev A.

 

By the way, it's just as insulting to philosophers all over the world, theological and non-theological philosophers alike, to call Harun Yahya a philosopher as it is insulting to scientists to call Michael Behe a scientist.

Though of course understandable of the Judaism Online author to do so.

 

The same ugliness occurs on forums that are Christian and one posts that God is dead. It is not love and Christian concern that comes back, it is vitriolic abuse. We see it in these forums as well, which in terms of religion are more general interest.
No difference.
Self righteousness knows no denomination or lack of one.
What you are pointing out is true, but only half the equation. What you're seeing is the desperate need for people to be right. It doesn't matter what they believe, so long as they can perceive themselves as the one's with the goods.
If you think you are making a point about atheists, unfortunately you're not. You're just making one about people.

 

I'll try.


God exists.

 

What???¿¿ *foams at mouth*

Don't be ridiculous!!1!!one!! *shakes fist*

 

If I understand your answer correctly*, I somewhat agree. I have always questioned those that I debate who demand links with sources to support common history and subject matter that both parties should know by rote. However a sly disingenuous party could easily corrupt any information on the web. Information A book is a bit more difficult and far more expensive corrupt.

* With all due respect even when you are not attempting to be sarcastic and witty you have a difficult (kind of cryptic?) to understand writing style similar to what some English authors present. However, I shouldn’t complain, I too have the same problem but more pronounced because English is my second language, French is my first.

The links contain the kind of article Danct and Reiver would enjoy. It’s a study in prob. and stats, tests etc. I skimmed it, it makes a few good points, but I agree with you. That said I feel that organized religion will become less and less popular for the foreseeable future, perhaps Islam will overtake Christianity, unless something big happens, like Jesus coming back, then all bets are off!

Again if I understand what you mean by diversity of information correctly, I am not so sure the diversity of information vs centralized information is a good thing. Taken to extremes all our information will be like a giant wikipedia! I would rather have a giant encyclopedia Britannica even if the information is a bit dated compared to wiki. The drawback of early central information was that a smaller number of people possessed or could access it. By early I mean before the printing press, some might argue that early could mean ‘before the internet’.

Everyone knows the drawbacks of wiki so I will not elaborate on decentralized diverse information. If I am mistaken of what you mean by diverse information please clarify?

I think I know where you are going with this, however you may be mistaking a ‘mantra’ with ministering they are not one in the same. Oh yes I have only a hundred or so people from the web that said my unusual take i.e. my aggressiveness perked their interest etc which and ultimately led to their conversion.

I don't claim that, nor is it an official position of Christianity. What I think you mean is that most religious people are absolutists and that THEIR morals are derived from scripture ie the ten commandants

Yes, I believe that you are missing something. Everyone has an authority they use define morals. In most cases a secular humanists or atheist uses his self or the state or science to define right from wrong. I see no way that using ones own authority could harden the soil unless the person making the assessment is ignorant of the facts or holds a double standard. I have heard more times than I can count that my God is immoral, a murder or pedophile etc. So what’s the difference? I see hypocrisy if someone claims that choosing an authority to define morals is wrong.

I can't speak for every theist. However again I think your ideas are a bit off target. Atheism is no more underpinned by science than religion is. In fact I my doctrine is that atheism is less scientific than theism or metaphysics for it can not or does not share the burden of proof. I think what you mean is that theists are threatened by secular science, which is a more accurate statement even if it too is not accurate. It’s only when atheists or secular science or atheist philosophers directly claim or challenges the idea of Gods existence. Most religious belief is compatible with science. I am sure you are aware of the battle between the logical positivists and those scientists logicians etc that embraced metaphysics at the turn of the century and for two decades after that. Sadly the Logical Positivists won and we have the warty world today.

Well I don’t go for the ‘in the name of’ God' or in the name of atheism. Neither do I usually agree with every statement in a thread. However I do believe in biblical prophesy and satanic influence, that will give you and yours something to roll on after at after you fall off your stool.

Religious skepticism is ugly?

That is again a cryptic strangely written sentence. What exactly are you saying is “amoral inhumane or lunatic” It’s ok, you don’t have to be cryptic when you bash the Christian faith. If you were going to be banned for that, you would be long gone by now.

[/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

As I said I do not support every thing in every thread I post. I usually post an article for the enjoyment of the forum. If I approved of the article in its entirety I would say something like ; I approved of the article in its entirety….

Rev A

 

There are examples for both cases to be found, which is my point, but there is no point in us exchanging them. I will point out that the most hateful and agressive threads I've seen here aren't here but in the political sections between (so-called) left and right. We've got a hippy love-in going on by comparison.

I'm not convinced sound bytes are the best way to demonstrate anything, let alone something so large-scale.

Of course there are lots of examples where Christians are grossly attacked. The issue I have with the idea that there is something different about Christians being attacked compared to any other grouping.

Of course there will be a large number of examples - there is a vast number of Christians across the world, they're typically quite obviously identified and have strong support networks that (quite rightly) highlight abused whenever it happens. It's also worth noting that, while it in no way justifies any kind of abuse, prosthelytising can make some Christians a bigger target as does some of the related history that had led to the Christian minority groups in so many parts of the world in the first place.

I also think there is a factor, in both the most serious violence and also more domestic discrimination claims, that what is presented as being an attack on Christianity in fact has a basis in much more (often more complex) socio-political reasoning and it is only perception that Christians are being singled out simply because of their faith.

 

I agree, but I post in those threads too! Ha ha...

If I were an atheist I would surely agree with you. However as a theist I cannot! Ha ha. ~! We will probably have to agree to disagree. It’s very difficult for an theist discuss nearly any issue with an atheist. That is because a theist defines reality by metaphysics i.e. God and religion. An atheist uses other authorities, such as self (his senses) or science etc to define reality, and those authorities that are meaningless to theists for a variety or reasons, just as our authority is meaningless to atheists for many reasons depending on the beliefs of the atheist.

Yes, I can go so far as to agree that your example illustrate the worldly reasons that Christians are abused etc, but again as a Christian I feel there are supernatural reasons as well, i.e. a satanic influence as the world progresses towards the latter days. Again I understand why these ideas are irrational to an atheist and many secular people. We could discuss why I believe the supernatural aspect, but in the end I doubt that you could accept our reasons. You do seem more open and friendly than some atheists agonistics and I do not consider you a usual suspect if that means anything...

Again in some cases I agree. And in other cases its one religion against another, ie Muslim against Christian. Thanks so much for your refreshing & civil reply!

Rev A

 

In some cases it is Christian against Christian.
You have obviously signed on for the interpretation of Revelation as a prophecy about things to come. Other Christians read it as an example of apocalyptic literature that is metaphorical and a message of hope to the Jews being persecuted by the Romans at the time.
You think it is the metaphysical vs the physical, but it is just as much the metaphysical vs the metaphysical, as the metaphysical can not be confirmed by any consistent standard.

 

Any one source adds to the diversity of information but it is not diversity of information in itself. If a wikipedia article is all you have then the diversity of information is at the same level as the diversity you get from this kind of American homeschooling material.

If you have BOTH a wikipedia article AND the homeschooling series then you've doubled the potentials of your horizon. Therein lies the peril to preconception. Or, should I say, the benefits of scrutiny.

You don't paint a hundred or so people in a very good light.

It's not about 'choosing' an authority to define morals, it's about judging others amoral for not 'choosing' an authority to define morals.

It suffices to refer to the issue at hand, which is the article, not every theist.

Good for you. However, the author does and that's what I refer to.

No, the "frustration over religious skepticism" is.

The author of the article I'm referring to apparently finds atheism to be amoral, inhumane and lunatic. My assertion above is only that you and the author share the same faith. Ergo, if this assertion is true then atheism is, according to the author, the amoral, inhumane and lunatic absence of your faith.

Of course, if your complaint merely is that you and the author don't share the same faith then allow me to rephrase it: Atheism is, according to the author, the amoral, inhumane and lunatic absence of the author's faith.

 

That may well be your position but in my experience plenty of theists are capable of separating their religious beliefs from day-to-day temporal matters (such as these socio-political questions).

Almost certainly not, though I can't help being curious now.

Likewise regarding theists (here, at least - in the real world there is generally little difference IMO).

Those are rarely simply about religion though. Conflict is generally about the same things - money, land, power, silly-misunderstandings. Religion varies from tool to coincidence but is rarely a causal factor.

 

Very much so but not so much when it comes to physical violence. As I said here in the USA we have it very good for several reasons, all fairly obvious. A very good missionary magazine and one that I can endorse front page to back (unlike the causal links I post for general reading) is voice of the Martyrs. That groups magazine was an eye opener even to me. Here is a link ;
http://www.persecution.com/public/homepage.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51

Its very good reading and its truthful non-sensational non-AP stuff. I give it my highest rating for that type of web site and publication.

With all due respect that is what a lay-atheist or lay-agnostic often assumes. I would not expect them to. However even before seminary and grad school I as most Christians know that revelations is only one of the bibles prophetic books. Maybe not so well known is that Johns Revelations or simply Revelations very nearly never made it into our modern bible, it almost was condemned to the non canonized texts or the "apocrypha" which means "of questionable authenticity’ anyway here are the prophetic books ; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Hagaii, Zachariah, MalachI. Propsey must be cross referenced with more than one book to be considered valid.

Yes that is Preterism. The idea that Revelations and the other prophetic books were not speaking of current events is dispensationalism and is what I believe. So we have dispensationalist preteritsm and other sub groups such as Partial Preterism & Premillennialism etc. etc! I can make a case for dispensationalist , and its what I must believe because I feel considering the evidence and such that it’s the truth.

Neither can some science. I would be happy to expand on that idea if you wish or the following as well; Logical positivism is so entrenched in the western mind as to make normal conversation of metaphysicalism' difficult to impossible. Thanks for your civil and interesting post TBB.

Rev A

 

Sorry I did not mean we can not discuss the weather etc, I was speaking of philosophical questions etc.

I promise I will write a hopefully a brief abstract on the subject and past it here fair enough, or would you rather PM or email?

Thanks, that means a lot to me. I am kind of weird in the real world too, Christianity is my life and everything revolves around it. I even sold my somewhat successful small business so I could starve in a accidental self sacrificing sort of way (reminds me of someone much more infinitely more divine than I.. eh?) in the non profit world of missionary work (I own a couple of non profits, and an 'e church') all which nosedived when the economy nosedived even faster. The missions are dependent on donations and the occasional federal grant, I sold the business, a small testing lab just as the economy was rock and rolling riding high on the housing bubble, I thought how could I go wrong with a non profit? Everyone is flush with cash the government is uber’ generous, I can quit the ratrace and do something for God by helping my fellow man and following a dream I have always had, which would be the Church etc....but I digress..

Hmm’ I am going to have to stop agreeing with you or Mr Freeware may think conspiracy, or plant ! Yes, again I agree (ha ha) and isn’t the LOVE of money (i.e. 'greed' really) the root of all evil? Thanks again for your reply ~

Rev A

 

We can agree to disagree.

Its not I that am painting anyone, I was using those that converted to Christanity to demonstrate that your assumptions and claims were all wrong, at least as far as they are concerned. I must say that you paint yourself in a very bad light, and that paint rubs off on your paradigm as well.

You have it all wrong. Or you may be a hypocrite (maybe an unknowing hypocrite) if you really believe that. Why? Because those of your atheistic belief system, paradigm, or call it a world view judge religious folks in a defamatory manner as a default position, at least the malicious atheists do. We Christians have been defined as immoral, stupid, ignorant, ill rational or choose any euphuism you wish. On the other hand something you handily forget in your one sided (maybe hypocritical) assessment is that I am a Christian and have said at EVERY turn on this forum that moderate atheists are good moral and ethical people, so please get your facts right! I mean I even post DISCLAIMERS to communicate the idea that the majority of atheists are GOOD MORAL ETHICAL people. So what does that make you? Do you need me to spell it out for you? Please, get the log out of your eye before attempting to pick the splinter from mine and my peoples eyes.

Suffice away I suppose, but disagree.

Thank you however and again, I didn’t read the entire article as I have said numerous times now, I did suggest it may be interesting to others because I did speed read it and it seemed interesting. Also there were footnotes and other citations.

Precisely define in non cryptic non sarcastic non witty method 'religious skepticism' please?

If I knew all that was in there I would have read it word for word with popcorn! Awwwah’, I am just kidding FW. Truthfully, I didn’t see that but again I did not condone, approve or recommend the article, I just posted it because I thought some of our members might find it interesting.

Congrats you did make one true statement in that paragraph I am a Christian as is he seems to be.

I can not say if we share the same faith. We are both Christians just as you are an atheist and Pol Pot was an atheist eh?

As I said I do not condone the article, I thought it was a interesting read. I also find articles that cast Christianity or organized religion in a bad light as interesting, so I do not see what the big deal is. If I said I agree that the article is spot on well you may have something to get excited about, however you might as well fade away from non excitement....ha ha...Sometimes I do not understand you because you seize the most inconsequential meaningless nit and blow it up to a large gorilla size all for naught. Why is that?

Rev A

 

Your riff on prophecy literature was completely unnecessary, unless you were trying to impress others with very elementary information. The condescending reference to the little "lay" people fell on deaf ears, as I am an ordained minister. When you do preach on the subject, please leave the "s" off the end of "Revelation". It does not appear in that book, which is called "The Revelation of John". Many make this mistake.

Dispensationalism was unheard of before Darby invented it in the 19th century. Before that Revelation was understood to be apocalyptic literature that was a Hebrew literary form, also seen in Daniel. It's common elements were well known.

What is different about science is it is based on evidence that can be reproduced. Discoveries become part of the scientific "canon" when they are able to be demonstrated repeatedly in a controlled scenario. Not all science follows this pattern, but it is a fundamental element to scientific research. Metaphysics can provide no such evidence. It is outside the ability to experiment and confirm.

 

Did I say 'little lay people?' Hmm' you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder for some reason. I often fill in pertinent information for guests etc that may not know general information about the bibles indexed books to subject timeline etc. I do this so they can make sense of the conversation. (*)(*)(*)(*) I sure wish PhDs and others learned in various subjects we discuss around here would do a little write for me when discussing advanced subjects. It would save a lot of google time!

Also, I am wondering why you take offense to the term lay person? I made the assessment that you were an average guy, an atheist really that probably had average knowledge about the bible. You made a couple of inaccurate statement about my belief etc so what was I supposed to think? How was I supposed to know that you were an rev? Not last but maybe least; I said 'lay person' not 'an incredible grossly dumb person'. Relax! I said layperson, I could as easily have said a average Joe, both are equally suitable IMO.

I am surprised you are an ordained minister, as I said I though you an atheist or agnostic etc. May I ask who your sponsor was, no specifics I mean was it a church or? Additinally, I must correct you again, I do not preach, I inform, and the information was for you as well as guests and others that may be reading this exchange, you aren’t the only member here eh? You are correct about Revelations it’s a habit of mine. To make matters worse the word processer changes it to a plural, horrifically I do the same thing when I type Stephen Hawking(s). Again I might add that English is my second language I wont offend you with information of how difficult it is for someone that has learned French as a first language to grasp English grammar.

I would be happy to debate the finer points of Dispensationalism etc with you in another thread if you wish this thread is derailed like a train wreck already. Even if I agreed with you, it makes no difference when a system emerges, only the accuracy of the claim is important. Lastly as I said Revelation is important but only if its claims can be cross referenced etc.

The problem of attempting to use the same criteria to establish the credibility between science and religion are many. Just one is that science is at a disadvantage to religion because of methodological naturalism. I hope you do not take offense if I define that idea? It’s the concept that neither the information for a scientific inquiry or a scientific theory can correctly refer to supernatural beings.

Therein is the fly in the soup. And there are not only flies in the soup but maggots** as well! The fly is that when you say ; “not all science follows that pattern“ Why does science get to pick and choose which theories etc can be testable and repeatable/falsifiable and allow those that do not meet the criteria, and the theist be forced to be confined to a rigid inflexible method? That reeks of a double standard IMO. It’s either or. By that I mean if all science can not be verified by the same criteria then metaphysical/religious phenomena should enjoy the same conditions.

A good example is abiogenesis which is no more science that is any form of ID or creation science if we were to use the same criteria of repeatability, falsifiable etc. Speaking or repeatability, what of the Big Bang ? The BB is not repeatable eh? So according to many in the science world we must we say that it can't be studied scientifically going by your (science method) laws! I could go on; think about the claim that science by definition concerns itself with only what is governed by law, natural law in fact. Some logical positivists such as Fraassen argue that there aren't any natural laws (only positive law). If they are correct that would mean that science has nothing to comment on and that metaphysics would define our world.

So science is at best a fleeting guess, a temporary definition of reality for the day. Its meaningless theoretically when the time spans are vast. Yes that is not practical, but it IS TRUTHFUL. Do you see where I am going with this? Science fills the need it provides the story often the myth that allows us to understand our universe according to the available evidence and information of the day. However, again in a thousand years our current science will be quaint myth. Those that base their reality on science and usually atheism are pawns in that myth. So its obvious that science can provide no true answers. However metaphysics do claim to answer those very questions truthfully.

Btw you said you are an ordained minister. May I ask what your beliefs are?

Rev A

 

Indeed we can. Though it saddens me to see that you don't agree with the simplest nuts and bolts of informed decision making.

You have no idea how easy it is to attract people with aggressiveness rather than soundness of ideas.

Oh wait, it seems you do.

Good for you. However, the author of the article you linked to seems to disagree, and that's what I still refer to. Not your person.

Now, if you want to discuss how morality comes about regardless of gods then we can do that. In the meanwhile, I will be referring to the article you suggested to me as an interesting read and not your personal opinions. Please try to observe context, RevAnarchist.

If I refer to the contents of an article - and I may have the nerve to do that regardless if you have read it or not - then please observe and respect this before starting to spill your bile as if I'm referring to your person.

Skepticism of claims of a religious nature.

 

Michael Behe is not a scientiest eh? This Michael Behe? ;

Michael J. Behe was graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. He did his graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and was awarded the Ph.D. in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978-1982 he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982-85 he was Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University where he is currently Professor of Biochemistry. In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and one book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.....

Hmmm not a scientist eh? That statement holds the same accuracy and credibility as most of your other statements etc. BTW, do you consider dawkins a scientist?

Rev A

 

You have no idea how easy it is to attract people with aggressiveness rather than soundness of ideas. Oh wait, it seems you do.

Thank you. Nevertheless you seem not to be able to confront your debate partner directly! Figure that cryptic message out for a change. Or it will be revealed below.

(I suppose its time for the reveal!)

Well that is your pejorative. Suggesting that an article may be interesting to you is not asking you to critique it. If you want to analyze it that great, however I do get the feeling that you are hoping to pull a response from me. Why is that? Could it be that you are replying me? Nah, couldnt be that! Anyway, it won’t happen. If I were going to pick an article to debate I certainly would have read the entire thing first. As for your comment on morals you would not get an argument on that either, I am in agreement! However, while morals can arise independent of God I choose absolutism instead of other secular authorities to define morals etc.

Please do it in a reply that has someone else’s name on it or while debating another, or talk to yourself. In that way I will not mistakenly think you are speaking indirectly to me. Do you understand? I sure hope so, its not a difficult concept.

Ahhh’ see how easy that was?

Rev A

 

So new information re: Revelation is good, but new information derived by science is "quaint".
Darby was a quack and found fertile ground for it in America, while Europe knew better.
Science has allowed for most of what surrounds you right now as you sit at your keyboard. It has tested information and proved it to be so. Metaphysics can never do this. Your experience of "God" can not be quantified against someone elses, and so can "stand the test of time" because there is no way to actually apply that test and come to verifiable conclusions. The bar for metaphysics is set incredibly low, and so there is room for incredible variations in vision of the supernatural with no necessity, or even possibility, of proof. Science does not share that luxury, though theoretical science does have an element of the metaphysical to it. But your health, your transportation, your daily communication with your electronic friends are all dependent on science and have been well documented and proven. The only things that metaphysics can come to conclusions on are those things that can not be verified, that are not yet understood in any other way. Much of what is concluded in the Bible is now known to be explainable through knowledge that was unavailable to a pre-science culture. You want to negate science because it continues to find greater and greater knowledge that requires adaptation to former constructs, but that simply lends itself to the honesty of the field, being willing to adapt when new discoveries require it. Metaphysics tends to do the opposite, holding fast regardless of the advances that impact it.
I am an agnostic. The more I studied the faith as a minister, the more I realized the true nature of ultimate truth was unknowable, and what was being sold from the pulpit was doing at least as much damage as good. Hope that satisfies your curiosity about me. Now let's stay with the issues.
As for not derailing the thread, the basic idea of the OP is that extremism is the enemy, regardless of which end of the spectrum it stems from. With that premise I have no problem. As an agnostic, I embrace the unknown and the unknowable.

 

Michael Behe did indeed work as a real biochemist in the early 80's and got published a couple of times on his work on polynucleotides. After that, and especially at time that Philip E. Johnsons book "Darwin on Trial" came out, he seems to have experienced the same melt-down that all creationists suffer from. He officially committed professional suicide in 1991 with a letter in Science (vol. 253).

So if you will allow me to rephrase, I certainly don't mind doing so: "By the way, it's just as insulting to philosophers all over the world, theological and non-theological philosophers alike, to call Harun Yahya a philosopher as it is insulting to scientists to call Michael Behe a scientist after at least 1991."

 

I'm not in the business of attracting people.

Even if the following is off tangent, I will admit, though, that when I attended discussion fora only to respond to creationist nutjobs, I did have two people thanking me for adding a diversity of information that being brought up as biblical literalists had seen impossible for them to achieve. I don't think they lost their respective faith, though, but they gained some much welcomed information.

Of course I'd like a response from you (it's a discussion forum) but, unless you state otherwise, only about what is being posted, not about some preconceived situation that exists in your imagination only.

In the second part of my reply to your post, in which you suggested that I read an article, I expressedly said that I would take a look at some of the mantras used by the author (meaning: by the author, not by you). So I did. That you imagine it to be a personal attack of you is what I've had to reply to ever since (including now, even). So regrettably I have no option but to assume that it is apparently a difficult concept to you; I will certainly think twice before commenting on any link you may provide in the future. So you should know that if I reject an article beforehand, it's not necessarily because I judge it without reading it, it's only to avoid to traumatize posters with paranoid urges to become victimized.

 

Atheism and Islam are the two belief systems that I think need reform.

This is a good documentary.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i20vLIgBt4M"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i20vLIgBt4M[/ame]

 

Shocking.

And I'm sure the video is even more shocking.