My disappointment, disagreement and disgust with the militant atheist movement

His case is based on faith because it is based on 'assumption'. The Christians faith is not assumption. The Christians faith is reality because they have been given the spirit to see and know.

That is not hypocrisy. Get a dictionary.

Quantrill

 

Yes, it is,

Who gave them the spirit?

It is hypocrisy. You are a hypocrite.

 

The faith of the Christian is knowing and seeing. God gave them the spirit to see.

Get a dictionary.

Quantrill

 

How does he give them the spirit?

 

Moral relativism definition(s) fr wiki

Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions. Each of them is concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures:

Descriptive relativism describes the way things are, without suggesting a way they ought to be. It seeks only to point out that people frequently disagree over what is the most 'moral' course of action.

Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[1] The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".[2]

Normative relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that, because there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others - even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.[3] Most philosophers find that this position is incoherent, or at least that it is unclear how meta-ethical relativism can lead to 'ought' statements.[3]

While Hawkins may be considered as militant, I don't know that there is any other recourse. He must thrust his position at a lecture that he is being paid for and can't really go with "people who believe in an old bearded guy in the sky are nuts"....I'm playing all week in Oregon w/e, thanks for the dough.

Also, his monolog argument themes on moral relativism, into an existence of deities(albeit his blunder of religion doesn't necessarily equal deities) spun further with freedom of expression issues.

He would have had to use other examples, as mentioned by you, and made them as mundane as gum and backward ball caps...yet, would the percieved militancy then be there if he did so?

 

Yes, I think he would still be a militant. I think you identified why - his main argument is 'you're nuts and irrational and thus not worthy of an opinion or self expression etc'. In that sense, I dont think its possible for him to change his examples because they need to be religious - whether mundane or not, whether contradictory to the notion of freedom of expression or not, as long as they are 'illogically religious' they support his contention. I think his position is intrinsically hypocritical, in terms of action.

 

John 3:3-8

" Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God....Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into thekingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh;and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit. "

Quantrill

 

LOL.

Really LOL. The spirit doesn't exist with the spiritual world that you mention. And if it exists show the proofs. If not, that is pure mad fantasy.

If God is real, because there are so many religions. Explain me that. God is a creation of the people, and only exists in our imaginery. But the worst is that there are people that believe that is real.

THe faith of the Christian, the faith of the Hindus, the faith of the Muslim.... Christianism is not the only religion.

And you remember me the Talibans, you are a Taliban, but of the Christianism.

 

I think that you should go to a doctor. Specifically a psychiatrist. You have a dellusional problem.

That is fiction, fiction. You know.

 

Again, an assumption. You don't know. If your looking for proof then you don't and can't know.

Indeed, so many do believe there is a God.

I didn't say Christianity is the only religion. But, it is the only way to be right with God. There is salvation in no other but Jesus Christ.

Quantrill

 

This is not quite true. There is salvation in other religions as well (as conveyed by for instance this excellent article). Also, people of all other monotheistic religions claim that their ways are the only ways to be right with their gods.

Of course, you're talking about yourself here and not other people and in that sense I trust that you are absolutely right.

 

No, it is absolutely true. There is salvation in no other than Jesus Christ. That extends to all religions, and every person who ever existed in the world.

Quantrill

 

Well, you got me there. Can't argue with that. Literally.

 

Yeah, the yours is the right. And the rest are false. It is what would say to you a muslim.

And, I am not doing an assumption. I am saying that you must prove the existence of what you're afirming. How you can't prove that. I can only take that as fantasy like are the mythos of Cthulu. Myths that are very well elaborated and can be considered true, according to the faith.

And Cthulu is stronger than your God, and long time ago killed your god.

 

Everyone goes to heaven, God intrinsically must allow this.

 

But followers of all other theistic religions feel the same way about their god. What determines that your god/beliefs are correct and theirs are not?

And just to save some back and forth time, an answer of "because the Bible says so" doesn't count. Not only is it fallaciously circular, but their holy books/writings say the same thing, so we're just back to the original question again.


(Note: After typing this up but before posting it, I noticed that others have asked similar questions. However, you failed to actually address them, so I'm asking again.)

 

Yes, you are assuming because you can't know. Your method of knowing will not work with knowing God. You can only say you don't know. You cannot say God is not there.

Umm. Apparaently no one told God about it as He is still on His throne and alive and well.

Quantrill

 

No. The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. That is for all. That doesn't mean all go to heaven. They don't. In fact, most don't.

Quantrill

 

I doubt I failed to answer these questions. I have come across them many times. I have no reason not to answer them.

One is true and the others are false. The one that is true is the one which is the work of God. The Bible declares that there is only one way to be right with God. Jesus Christ. And God has established the remedy for sin and given the gift of eternal life. The only reason one is true is because it is the one which God is in.

Are there others which say the same? I doubt it. But they may say some religious things and some similar things.

Is that all your asking?

Quantrill

 

Nah, everyone goes to heaven eventually. I know, I've been there.

 

Agh, so when a Christian States that Jesus is the one true method as per his religious beliefs ...

An atheist will mock and deride.

Too lazy to ask why a Christian would think that. Curious.

 

I would also like to ask a question to the atheists here:

How many of you have actually read the authors you are now various agreeing and disagreeing with?

And I ask this question for a couple of reason.

#1 - Many of the atheists in this thread, indeed the OP, often claim to be veritiable experts on the Bible, but, when confronted with the reality of the Bible - we find that at best they have conducted a proximity search.

Conclusion: Most atheists, despite their claims, have not read the Bible.

#2 - I have long criticized the lot of atheist analysis, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. and regulary site their works to demonstrate the flaws in the arguementation.

Every atheist on this forum has previously assured me that NO atheist but them could speak for them, and disparaged me for pointing out that these guys are selling thousands of books to someone? But not them.

Now, I find that the same atheists are offering commentary about the intellectualism of Harris vs. Dawkins? Totally avoiding the actual arguementation and its strengths and weaknesses in what appears to be an atheist popularity context?

Conclusion: Very doubtful that many of the atheists offering up commentary have actually read this stuff.

 

I know this may be a bit of an ask for everyone here, but could we get back to the issue of this thread which I made?

 

Why is reading them necessary? Their flawed arguments are consistently used, hence I cited that video as an example. Do you agree with the points I made in the OP?

I have read it. I have also read the Quran, and the other religious texts.

What do you mean?

See the first point I made in this comment.

 

It's called an arguement from ignorance. See if you can figure out why its listed as a logical fallacy.

You will forgive me for questioning the sudden turn of tounge from those who have repeatedly bashed my faith and sworn up and down that atheism is ONLY defineable by individuals ... suddenly come out saying that Dawkins and co. are bad and should be rejected.

That is doubly so when a you tube video is listed as the source of it - parcing you tube for inflammatory videos is no different than parsing the Bible for non-contextual quotes.

More importantly, the pattern remains the same: bashing someone else to make oneself feel better.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et. al. can all be discussed without prejorative terms like 'digust' tossed in there.

As simply as I can state this, when one who persecutes you suddenly turns on his hithereto friends .... well, I somehow doubt very seriously that you met Jesus on the road to Damascus.