Extreme Evangelical Atheism vs. Moderate Atheism and Traditional Christianity

I usually get about 5 hours of sleep each day... and that sleep is very sound and peaceful. So, it can be surmised that whatever my activities are and however my behavior is perceived, that behavior and activity is enough to cause me to get plenty of peaceful and restful sleep. Thank you anyway.

What is more amazing, is that you still have not presented any intelligent response as a rebuttal.

 

As are the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews. That shouldn't come as any surprise as you're effectively describing a form of fundamentalism. Green apples are green.

The fact remains that the vast majority of atheists, Christians, Muslims or Jews as a whole are not fundamentalists.

What you are doing is treating the fundamentalists of some groups as a small, extreme wing yet using exactly the same feature in other groups to paint them as violent and intolerant as a whole.

 

I hope you are just misunderstanding my point. First a minor point. In theology revelation usually used in context with God or in a religious usage. You may mean that emergence is good? Or maybe you were being sarcastic.

Where did I say new information is good? If you are speaking of Darby that is far different than a scientific information. It’s philosophy etc not science. Anyway, what I meant by the ‘quaint statement’ is that science describes/defines reality with the ‘information/evidences of the day’ So if one is an atheist/agnostic/etc* that holds science as the purveyor of truth and their builder of what they perceive as reality that reality is could very well and often is not true. That is because of course of the method of science. Much of The science of two hundred years ago, much less a thousand years is not true. So I made the supposition that in a thousand years much of what we consider cutting edge science** will be (not is) quaint myth, if history is a guide.

*(the reason I did not include religious and most deity dependent spiritual folks is that world view is defined by God, God is their default /highest authority)

** Math and most scientific laws etc are immune to my ‘quaint’ statement. If and when they change its much slower and not as drastically.

If Darby had not of noticed the correlations and the emerging history and the fulfillment of prophesy someone else would have. Of course as I said I like general prophesy, picking one book (revelation etc) to base ones doctrine on isn’t wise, I certainly don’t do it. However if the events of history are obviously falling into place and agreeing with a certain book there is nothing wrong with speculating on the implications of such a marriage of current events and scripture. Where people get into trouble is trying to assign dates etc. That is contrary to scripture. Lastly I would not say that Europe is immune to believing various theologies credible or incredible.

Sigh…I wish oh I wish I had a tenth of a penny for every time I heard that! I would never have to write a grant request again!

Not so fast! Ha ha. Science can test some things. I love science, in fact I hope to buy a new Dob this weekend, however science is not so good at explaining what metaphysics can. For example science can only tell us what happens to a few fractions of a second after the big bang. I use ontological/cosmological arguments which are logical arguments for the existence of God that use science, logic, and other honorable credible items to go where science can not. All the way to t-0 and ‘before’ the BB. So I do not want to eliminate science just put secular science in its place and use it for the tool that it is. Additionally, science is compatible with religion or metaphysics in some cases.

I don’t know if that is a fully true statement. You are correct when you say that even I 'know' God is real I can't project that to someone else. However thats why we have the bible. Faith is not easy for me. I came to religon via science which is a strange way to God. What I am saying is that if one is an unbleiver but has an open mind there are specific methods on how to know/learn God is real in the bible.

As for the rest of your reply; Didn’t the late not so great Nietzscheback say God is dead back in the 70’s? Science could possibly 'prove' God is dead (if that was a truism). For example if science advances enough to give an infallible account of how the universe was created (without god did it) how life began again by unflappable repeatable falsiable mehods and theories/axioms or laws that may emerge etc, that would pretty much be the true death of God at least as far as a Christian is concerned. Even if Jesus was shown to never had existed etc would be another way to disprove the Christian relgion VIA science. So no I can not agree with that claim.

Maybe that is true in some areas and claims of metaphysics, but not all. There can be proof AGAINST God (see above) which would be a wonderful collaborator of anti God claims of science. That said its disengenious to demand scientific for some metaphyical calims for obvious reasons.

too long see next post! >>>

 

Again I can not agree. I look at it as " your (my) health, your transportation, your daily communication with your electronic friends are all dependent on science" that is enabled by God. And there are other reasons that statement is weak. Take the cosmological arguments for example. If the logic does not agree then the argument is invalid. Cosmological arguments which are valid logical arguments many forming a logical syllogism by their initial premises are good evidences for the existence of God, so that is something other than blind faith eh? BTW the best and the faith that I envy is ‘blind‘. I say that science has it much easier than metaphysics because by its very method science allows full blown mistakes, it simply adjusts the theory and keeps going until the next bit of evidence emerges that shows the current theories to be false on and on for ever.

Lastly when we build say a chip in a computer using scientific technology etc we are using the entire theory without precisely explaining the particulars in many cases. We simply know it works. However the theories that say support virtual particles are pure theory in the strictest sense, in other words we agree that even though virtual particles and other subatomic particles are pure theological constructs that may or may not exist, we build circuts with the theory that does not fully describe them. So the verification is based on false pretenses even if the machine built from the theory works.

A few examples please? Even if you can come up with that, we must remember the bible is no science text book! Its a manual of how to get to know God and how to save you soul from sheol, and much more, while there is some pratical science in the bible.'

Yes however the fact remains that if you base your reality on scientific truths of the day you are almost certinally living a 'lie'. Even though that lie or honest falsehood may be corrected after your death ha ha....

The same thing could be said of science. For example in the middle of this century scientists were embarrassed to find that it was wrong, the universe is not eternal and static as Einstein postulated, its dynamic and has an age, exactly like theists had been claiming for thousands of years. Much of the bible has been verified by archeological discoveries as well. BTW I don’t want to negate science, I feel the more we learn the more science points to an GID (a word I coined and tried to copyright only to find I had to trademark it instead) It means God the Intelligent Designer, and typing GID is much easier than typing the latter. The Big Bang theory now despertally attempting to be discredited and changed by atheist theoretical physicists (to eliminate a starting point of the universe, long an staple of the Big Bang (hot) model is an excellent example. Additionally much of quantum physics will vindicate or at least help provide evidence for the existence of God/GID.

God wants us to know him, what were you attempting to find if not God?

No but it’s a good start, thank you. I happen to agree that current feel good preaching and other true false prophets and worse the evangelical send me a thousand dollar seed parasites do more evil than the devil could on his best day.

In science I too pine for discovery and always have. Most of my hobbies save for the MCs (motorcycles) are science or naturalist related, ie astronomy and photography, however science is limited and it should know and abide by those limitations. I have issues when secular science steps out of its space and stomps on my toes while alluding it’s the only way to discovery and when its taught in an exclusive manner in all public schools at the force of law. Exclusion is one of the best ways to be secure in the belief that ignorance is truth.

Rev A

 

Except that atheism isn't a religion, only a lack of a religion. The only thing it's "adherents" all have in common is they answer your question the same.

"Do you believe in god?"

"no, I don't"

Name 1 thing that all atheists have in common because of doctrine.

 

Sory no time to edit the mess below....deal with it...please?

"

Hmm’ all creationists suffer from a melt down eh? (what is a melt-down specifically? someone that had a bad encounter with a cheese melt?) So you are saying ALL creationists suffer a *cof* melt down? That 100% of creationists suffer a melt down? Umm’ are you referencing ALL types of creationists, which includes but is not limited to those that subscribe to Young Earth creationism, Gap creationism, Progressive creationism, Theistic evolution AND Intelligent design Proponents who are technically creationists? Additionally, if I were privy to what you meant (exactly and precisely, NO wiggle room!) by 'melt down' and ‘creationists’ I could disagree with you more fully.

You seem no different, perhaps a little nicer and less crude than many tightly wound atheists that become upset if anyone questions Darwin’s theory. I must admit I do enjoy telling a dyed in the wool Darwinist that Origin of the species etc is Just a THEORY! ha ha... it’s an default eye roll and a ‘dummy thinks it’s just a theory smirk' followed by much ranting. To witness a Darwinists reactions when a Christian PhD scientist is doing the questioning, well that is gravy. Really FW Behe has some fantastic ideas. I have only read one of his books though. There is a lot of lies concerning Behes books out there in cyberland, none very convincing. The lies include Darwinian theorists that claim Behes idea of irreducible complexity with respect to the bacterial flagellum have been refuted. Not so!

As far as Oktar goes, I haven’t read enough of Oktar’s work to comment about his abilities and credentials.

Rev A

 

Not buying this so far.

 

I did, but there was no sign of intelligent life to receive it.

 

Many years ago it used to upset me to see the results of the creationist mindset. Then as the years passed, I came to learn all (and I do mean ALL) the creationist polemics and with that the nature of the mindset. Having thus realized that debate does not cure anything but mostly only kindles the apologetical enthusiasm of the religious, I no longer engage in clearcut cases of creationist proselytization. Though I may of course still make more or less solitary comments, I reserve actual debate for the genuine interest.

So I could try to tell you, RevAnarchist, how irreducible complexity refutes itself. But I won't. It is simply not where your interest lies.

 

I have no argument with the idea that exclusion is simply indoctrination. Teaching metaphysics in the science department would be a huge disservice to kids, though. Comparative religion would be wonderful, but would need to be comprehensive in breadth, which would leave little time for depth.

 

The doctrines of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, even Islam are to show love, be gentle, caring, etc.. The Atheists aren't confined by such requirements of morality hence why their fundamentalists tend to preach their beliefs with vitriolic, hateful verbal sewage.

 

As opposed to the gentle loving nature that you present in all your postings?

 

I love you. Your trolling is noted.

Obviously 10 year olds even know I'm not preaching my faith. And that's not really my style but speaking for other people, all the religious people who have evangelized to me have been more or less nice. All the atheists who have evangelized have been at worst vitriolic and at best motivated by some deep seated depression or some kind of emotional disturbance.

 

Sure, non-agreeable logic (whatever that means other than something that is illogic) could be one way to invalidate an argument but it usually takes much less than that; only one premise needs to be invalid for the conclusion to be invalid as well. And as you well know, this is what invalidates the KCA. While its syllogistic form is valid, its premise is not.

 

It is a demonstratable fact that there is nothing confining the minority of theists who are aggressive fundamentalists - all people will either twist or ignore their principals if they really get in the way of what they want. Atheists in general are no more or less capable of extreme reactions.

Some people are nasty. Why not simply condemn the nasty people regardless, rather than only when they're associated with groups of people you don't agree with?

I notice that "even Islam" has slipped quietly from bad to good in your opinion, presumably so you can focus your vitriol on atheists. Would it have been the other way around if you'd been challenged by a Muslim instead I wonder?

 

Actually, preaching how the absence of your faith sucks is considered preaching your faith.

 

I've had the opposite experience.
Now what do we do?

 

Don't take my "even Islam" statement in a way I didn't intend, please. I have tolerance for people of all faiths, including Atheists. I want it to be clear that whatever reform needs to be made with Muslims, it starts and ends with Muslims and not Islam or the Quran themselves. This makes a Muslim Reformation considerably easier than an Atheistic one since they have something solid to fall back on and work with.

Atheists are bound by nothing (they could be as cold and blackhearted as humanly possible and won't be violating anything, easy peazy, the're "free" and have nothing to answer to), so for all intents and purposes their metaphorical soldiers of hate are virtually untouchable.

Oh. Thankfully I didn't do that. I'm just sharing my observations of how many fundamentalist Atheists' hate-preach (which their teachings could be best described as "preaching how the absence of EVERY persons faith who doesn't share their own, sucks") is pushing the boundaries of preaching their beliefs and downright verbal abuse. The reason 10 year olds know I'm not preaching my faith is because they can figure out that my observations could be made regardless of what faith I adhere to. And to further shove your assertion up the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) it originated from I'll note that many Atheists have taken it upon themselves to acknowledge the intolerance emanating from their fellow brothers and sisters of disbelief.

 

If your point is that extremism, wherever it rears it's ugly head, is a bad thing, I agree. Atheist, Muslim, Christian, whatever.
Most aren't, and that includes the Atheists. In my estimation, even less so in Atheists. But there are exceptions.

 

I've never had a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc spew hate and verbal abuse in the name of their beliefs. Muslim reformation comes in the form of promoting non-violence, which most of them do anyways. But violence is a serious issue where even if its a minority it ought to be taken seriously, as I believe it is.

 

I have had very ugly verbal attacks and lies thrown my way by devout "Christians" on a very regular basis. It is a recurrent theme on here for me.
Must be me.

 

I'm sorry to use your own words against you but the statement of yours I initially responded to was;

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

Now, if your issue is in fact with individuals and not Islam or atheism in general, I'm fully with you (but your initial statement was somewhat misleading). I would expect that to include all extremists and fundamentalists regardless of the faith (or lack thereof) it is based upon though. There is no justification in just picking out the Muslim and atheist ones.

Nobody is bound by anything - if someone really wants to do something, they will. Atheists generally hold the same social rules are everyone else in a given society though, the same ones that have both developed in to and from religious rules and laws over the centuries. Day to day, it seems to make very little difference to how people live their lives. As I keep pointing out most people, regardless of beliefs, are generally decent enough. I feel that's a feature of society, not faith.

Religious extremists are typically of the strongly held belief that their extremism is supported and justified by their religion, possibly even required of them. If anything, that is even harder to address than extremist non-believers, who are working on (albeit usually warped) logic. Religious extremists can (and often do) shut out any challenge with something along the lines of "You're an evil sinner who doesn't understand God.".

 

I got it the first time that you really don't like the absence of your faith.

 

Must be something defective with your perceptions... you did say that you saw the enemy sitting in the pews.

 

Nah, it's just that you only perceive it when it gets so ugly that you can't miss it. Such as when Fred Phelps puts on his show, a televangelist calls for hurricanes to hit Orlando or a religious group calls for beheadings of infidels.