Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

See how Jobar at #154 uses the term evidence as if it's synonymous with proof.
And how saying "I dont know" somehow grants you the right to presume nobody else does either.

The implication of this is that generations of theists, in their billions, have never experienced any evidence of divinity and that they willfully lie to themselves about what they think they know.

Yabut there's a dragon under my bed. I know because I've experienced it. That's my evidence.

Hey, wait a minute. That's the same kind of evidence theists say they have for their god. Funny that.

 

[Rhea]

Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?
No - we're grateful.

Matthew 10:14 refers to people who are willing to hear what we have to say.
1st Peter 3:15 tells us to give an answer to everyone who asks

I love what this exposes about a theist’s world view. “We don’t listen and learn, we only talk and teach. We’re grateful when you come to us ready to admit you’re wrong. We (Chhristians) are never wrong, of course.”

 

[Rhea]

An event today prompted me to rant, and this thread title seems exactly the place for it.

Christian1: Hawking was a jerk because he once told a little kid that he was an idiot for believing in god (note: No reference for this event was given, nor can I find one online, but...)
Christian2: Yeah, and it’s sad that he wasn’t Christian so he wasn’t a good guy.
Me: Wait, so when Christians say, it, it’s okay, but when Hawking says it, he’s a jerk?
Christians: FUCK YOU! DON’T YOU DARE ATTACK MY RELIGION, HOW DARE YOU!

Yeah, whatevs. Typical response pattern. I condemn you, my book condemns you, my whole religion condemns you for not being a believer. Also you’ll burn in hell for it. This atheist now? He’s a real jerk for condemning people on their beliefs (still no evidence that it even happened, btw). And don’t you dare attack my religion by pointing out the parallels!

Christianity is a snowflake.

 

[jab]

Blimey. This isn't exactly taking us to the heady heights of engaging discourse is it.
Remez, your response sounds a bit borrowed and slightly exasperated/desperate. Can't you come up with something better?

You really have issues with reading comprehension. Go find some school child to read and explain it to you. Anyone could see that I was thankful for his respect and returned the compliment within his context. I just added that there existed some on my side of the issue that are like you....CLUELESS. You're new here so understand this...... If you are going to follow me through these threads chastising me, you better pick up your game.

er, if you're trying to write litotes, you should avoid extra capping--otherwise you're like a bit, oh, I don't know, clueless?--no, not that: witless.

 

[jab]

there were certain phrases he used which stuck with me. His exact words from part of his talk included “How lacking in compassion would I be to go up to somebody who is a believer and rub their nose in their ignorance. Look how stupid you are. What a moron. What an idiot you are to believe in God....how stupid of you.” “I've never understood atheists who go around belittling people who believe in God.”

I don't go up to theists and confront them with unsolicited discourse, but should any of them lay their wares out for my comment, well I shall comment. If they come up to me and attempt to proselytize, I shall respond in kind.

 

[jab]

Finally, as for kids and Santa – do you have children? The video creator is discussing his 4 year old daughter. At that age, if they are abruptly informed that Santa is not real they are typically devastated and do not “get over it” easily. Once they get a little older and have developed some critical thinking skills they usually figure it out themselves – and tell their parents they know who Santa really is, and it is not a jolly fat man with a red suit. I agree with him 100% on this; no one should deliberately tell a young child that Santa is a fake. Whether or not it is wise for children to start believing in Santa is another thing altogether but usually parents don't have a great deal of control over what their child is learning from other people unless they lock them in the house and never let them watch tv or meet anyone from the outside world.

. . . .
Faith is believing without evidence – that is how faith in God is defined in the dictionary. Fascistic authoritarianism? True of men, but I wouldn't say that of God since if that was true of Him the world would be a lot smaller than it is as He would have destroyed most of the people currently existing.
. . . .
Nice quote, but not exactly correct or in context. The actual Martin Luther quote came from a book called “The Table Talk” written after his death by his students, from notes taken during his lectures and discussions. It is in the chapter titled “Of Baptism” and was intended to refute the Anabaptist stance against infant baptism. This is the full quote from the book:

“The anabaptists pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.”

So his intent with this was to justify his continued support of infant baptism. He considered the Anabaptists heretical for demanding that baptism only be done after a person was mature enough to have made an informed choice about faith.

My fundamentalist, anabaptist parents believe that inducing a child to believe that Santa Claus was really was an affront to religion and to faith, and they also believed unlike Martin Luther, that reason was congruent with, and a necessary contributor, to faith. Your contextualizing of Luther's quotation underlines how opposed his or his acolyte's version of Christianity to the idea that reason contributed anything at all to most fundamental part of a good Christian person , their faith and (possible) salvation. The idea that appeal of a whore is somehow rational seems particularly odd, given Luther's concept of non-marital sex. And on the other hand, Jesus associated with whores--non-sexually.

Interesting to find out that your God (Him) apparently has dick and balls. Like Luther and the Popes, a patriarch.
Oh, and can you refresh my memory--what did Lutherans back then think should be done with heretics? What would they have have done with my parents?

 

[jab]

I am an Atheist Hindu - that's confusing, right? Basically it means that I depend on my actions as my base - i want to be defined(not judged) by my actions(Karmas) & not my beliefs

And that is the world that we live in, right? You can't turn on the TV without coming across some star or ad telling us that we should not discriminate, that we are all equal. And that is the world we want to live in, correct? A world where there is no discrimination, that all people are treated equally?

So why don't religions preach that? Because religions are like Corrupt middle-men - if a job or a contract is given based on who is the best candidate, then the corrupt middle-man would be out of a job. The same way if we are all equal in God's eyes, that we are defined by our actions, then religion will lose its influence. The only way they retain their power is to enforce belief - that's the start, next comes what belief? Of course not all beliefs are deemed equal, only their belief is the right one that gets you to heaven

Your religion seems stuck in the past

Unfortunately, not everybody is "equal" to God.

The biblical god states that He will call "his sons" to the ones who love Him and obey Him", the rest won't count.

I would do the same, because it makes sense.

Why a dude committing crimes will demand of being family of God, or be treated the same than others in front of God?

Why? Such doesn't make sense even here between men and human's laws.

You and I are humans, but it won't mean we are "equal" in front of God.

This word "equal" was given for humans the way to say we are not different species between us, we are equal the way we are formed. We must receive equal treatment in base of what we are physically, as members of the same species. Main laws are made to protect our species.

God discriminates.

Sure He does it.

Why not?

Regardless of whatever you want to say, if a neighbor is a known child molester who just came out from jail, you won't invite him to your ten years old daughter's party.

Your preaching of "equality" dies right there.

And you will do it by your own, without the help of a God who discriminates.

Period.

The Christian God created the child molester and allowed him to molest some or a lot, to show how much God loves little children.
Question mark.

 

[Lion IRC]

...The Christian God created the child molester and allowed him to molest some or a lot, to show how much God loves little children.
Question mark.

The Christian God created jab too - right?

 

[Lion IRC]

An event today prompted me to rant, and this thread title seems exactly the place for it.

Christian1: Hawking was a jerk because he once told a little kid that he was an idiot for believing in god (note: No reference for this event was given, nor can I find one online, but...)
Christian2: Yeah, and it’s sad that he wasn’t Christian so he wasn’t a good guy.
Me: Wait, so when Christians say, it, it’s okay, but when Hawking says it, he’s a jerk?
Christians: FUCK YOU! DON’T YOU DARE ATTACK MY RELIGION, HOW DARE YOU!

Yeah, whatevs. Typical response pattern. I condemn you, my book condemns you, my whole religion condemns you for not being a believer. Also you’ll burn in hell for it. This atheist now? He’s a real jerk for condemning people on their beliefs (still no evidence that it even happened, btw). And don’t you dare attack my religion by pointing out the parallels!

Christianity is a snowflake.

I'll apply your own standard of disbelief.
No reference for this snowflake anecdote was given, nor can I find one online.
I just have to take your word for it that it happened as you claim.

 

[Rhea]

An event today prompted me to rant, and this thread title seems exactly the place for it.

Christian1: Hawking was a jerk because he once told a little kid that he was an idiot for believing in god (note: No reference for this event was given, nor can I find one online, but...)
Christian2: Yeah, and it’s sad that he wasn’t Christian so he wasn’t a good guy.
Me: Wait, so when Christians say, it, it’s okay, but when Hawking says it, he’s a jerk?
Christians: FUCK YOU! DON’T YOU DARE ATTACK MY RELIGION, HOW DARE YOU!

Yeah, whatevs. Typical response pattern. I condemn you, my book condemns you, my whole religion condemns you for not being a believer. Also you’ll burn in hell for it. This atheist now? He’s a real jerk for condemning people on their beliefs (still no evidence that it even happened, btw). And don’t you dare attack my religion by pointing out the parallels!

Christianity is a snowflake.

I'll apply your own standard of disbelief.
No reference for this snowflake anecdote was given, nor can I find one online.
I just have to take your word for it that it happened as you claim.

Wut.

If she had said, “I claim this happened because I was there and saw it,” I would have stated that as evidence, and I would have probably believed her because she’s generally trustworthy.

So, applying my own standard, “I claim that anecdote happened because I was there and saw it.”

(That was obvious)

 

[jab]

Unfortunately, not everybody is "equal" to God.
The biblical god states that He will call "his sons" to the ones who love Him and obey Him", the rest won't count.
I would do the same, because it makes sense.
Why a dude committing crimes will demand of being family of God, or be treated the same than others in front of God?
Why? Such doesn't make sense even here between men and human's laws.
You and I are humans, but it won't mean we are "equal" in front of God.
This word "equal" was given for humans the way to say we are not different species between us, we are equal the way we are formed. We must receive equal treatment in base of what we are physically, as members of the same species. Main laws are made to protect our species.
God discriminates.
Sure He does it.
Why not?
Regardless of whatever you want to say, if a neighbor is a known child molester who just came out from jail, you won't invite him to your ten years old daughter's party.
Your preaching of "equality" dies right there.
And you will do it by your own, without the help of a God who discriminates.
Period.

Wow a person who calls himself a humble man and yet argues against equality. let me guess, you come out ahead in this unequal world?

God discriminating should be based on character, conduct not based on religion. That is what Hitler did - ISIS did - and when you find yourself living under the likes of ISIS, you get immediate enlightenment, now you spout how we are all human beings, all are equal - "if we are cut, do we not bleed the same?" etc

You "love" a being that you have never seen, have no knowledge of, don't know if he or she or it even exists - all you have are books telling you x or y is God?

As for obey - that is the key word. If you had read my entire post instead of skimming it you would see that i have addressed that idea - your religion was born when Kings ruled and your religion made God in his image. Kings rewarded obedience and loyalty - naturally always worried about coups, about who is after their crown - obedience and loyalty was foremost in their minds and it paid them to reward the most loyal and obedient. Democracy this is not, speak out against the King/Dictator/Strong man and you are looking at death in the face

You live in a democracy, you are fortunate that you live in i assume the US where you can make fun of the president and nothing happen will happen to you. Others are not so lucky - journalists are being killed all over the world - try Caruana Galizia - for speaking up & yet when it comes to religion you support a Dictator/Strong man God

Every problem contains its own solution - if you want a Master God, then you become a Slave/Servant - down on your knees ready to obey

Other faiths will teach their followers to be Children of God - remain at a Higher level.

It's a choice - Child of God or a Slave of God? You have chosen to be the latter

Your reply is full of ignorance.

Equality is just a dream, go outside and look, you will see homeless and people driving luxury cars... you will see a job opening and 200 people applying but the one who will get the job will be the one who knows a a friend a person inside the agency...

Reality destroys your message.

Hitler didn't persecute Jehovah Witness because religion but because the members of this religious denomination refused going to war. He didn't persecuted Jewish dudes because religion but because when Germany was in crisis after WW1 Jewish obtained richness based on loans and charging of interest, and while the majority was falling in debt the minority was getting rich at expenses of the needed. Here some words written by Hitler about German's reality in those years

""I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling 'as a man and a Christian' prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I say: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

"The political leader should not estimate the worth of a religion by taking some of its shortcomings into account, but he should ask himself whether there be any practical substitute in a view which is demonstrably better. Until such a substitute be available, only fools and criminals would think of abolishing existing religion."

You later challenges the fact that leaders and prophets call God as "man of war" and similar expressions giving Him the character of being identified as male., Even the son Jesus called Him "Father", still you have doubts that such a god is rightly considered as male, you want maliciously to introduce the idea the biblical god "may be" female. Why have you choosen the absurd to make your point? Do you really think that such wordplay from you part makes you "smarter" in front of the rest? Lol.

From my part it makes you look a complete fool.

When you say religion was born when kings ruled, well, were those kings "invisible" for the rest of people? Hello?

About "democracy compared with other government systems, go to some countries of Europe and write and tell the Holocaust is false, if you get caught you probably will face even jail time. Tell me about "democracy and freedom of speech".

So, about one's right of choosing religion, you love football and use your vacation days to travel and cheers for your team, you watch games all the time, you only talk with people who have the same interest than yours: football. You cry when you team loses,you drink and celebrate when your team wins. They have faith that their team is the greatest, they spend lots of money buying magazines, clothes and more related to their team.

Are you against that? I ask because I don't.

Everybody chooses their own religion. Everybody becomes "slave" of their beliefs. Look at relativists believing in a time that doesn't exist. They are happy and defend their doctrines.

Others believe in money money, and such is where they put their faith.

Any objection from your part?

Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews in Europe was based on racial identification. Jews who were Christians were also killed.
Your apparent support of Hitler in this post beggars belief.

 

[jab]

I am an Atheist Hindu - that's confusing, right? Basically it means that I depend on my actions as my base - i want to be defined(not judged) by my actions(Karmas) & not my beliefs

Okay, I have spent the past few days free time reading some of your posts, and doing a little research on the faith you claim.

And I have to say I am now more confused than I was upon first reading this. The first thing that struck me, of course, was the atheist claim. According to the dictionary, an atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. But in your previous posts you clearly stated that you believe in a God. You also stated in one post that atheists were "all about denying God" (the thread was titled Morality without God for those who want to know my source for this). I find myself at a point of experiencing cognitive dissonance given these two contradictory stances, and for the life of me I can't manage to reconcile them.

The second thing that I noticed is that your claimed faith allows - but does not require - a belief in God. This is once again contradictory to the name of your faith according to the dictionary definition of atheist. But it also allows for each person to decide what God's nature is, and what he is like. There is no standard on which to base your view. To me, this seems a little self serving as each person can decide what they want their God to be - or not to be, as it were.

I don't think there is any way I can have a productive conversation with you when I don't even understand how your faith works, or what your words mean to you. So at this point I am going to bow out gracefully from further discussions on your faith compared to mine, and wish you well.

Ruth

way to cope

 

[jab]

True enough. I should have explained better. Every other religion that I am familiar with has its scripture which contains a description of their understanding of God even if they cherry pick or ignore parts of it. This is not the case with the Atheist Hindu sect from what I can learn. There are no documents which attempt to explain how they should view God, therefore each person is free to create their own God.

What difference does that make in practical terms?

In practical terms? Well, my best explanation would be to point out that if there is no written basis for their idea of God, you might as well be trying to discuss music with a deaf person. They can simply say that their God is not like that, or they don't believe God would view something that way – and there is no solid reason for you to dispute that within their particular faith. At least the other religions have a text you can point to and ask where they are getting that interpretation. And yes, there are a million different interpretations by differing Christian denominations – but each one is based on studies done on the original scriptures so they at least have minimal validity and there is a basis for further discussion.

Ruth

What do you mean by texts? What about religions in preliterate societies--they didn't necessarily have booklength set down word for word texts.

 

[jab]

Dunno. Hicks looks to me (after Googling) as if he qualifies.

Personally, I might have suggested Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Russia, or Socialist Romania, among others.

I considered using your examples, but thought that someone currently in the news might be more relevant and acceptable. And as usual, I was wrong mainly because I neglected to explain my thought process for including him.

I don't think that only the theistically religious worldviews can be behind intolerance, violence, war and/or repression. An atheist worldview is also very capable, imo.

And that is precisely my point. This is not a religious failing; it is a human failing.

Thanks for jumping in and adding to the discussion.

Ruth

It's a human failing to which religion time and again has been immorally willing to give a Divine imprimatur, and make a blessed imperative.

 

[jab]

Hello Ruth! I just read your interesting post about how you became a Baptist. I found it interesting because I was raised in a Baptist home, but could no longer believe in Christianity once I reached the age of 18. Around the age of 19, I started investigating other religions then became an atheist at the age of 28. That was forty years ago. The belief in gods no longer makes any sense to me, but it's interesting to know how others came to very different conclusions.

I tend not to argue with theists unless they attack me due to my atheism. I try to judge people by their actions and not by their beliefs. Actually, I try not to judge anyone too harshly since I'm not a fan of free will either.

Hey Kathy! Good to talk to you again. Don't think we have had a conversation since Rev Joshua's forum went down.

I always find it interesting to know how others came to their positions on faith. There are a million different stories out there and each one is different.

And you might remember that I don't attack or argue. I will discuss something until the cows come home, but I feel like arguing is a waste of everyone's time and effort.

Ruth

Arguing is a way to encourage those meandering cows to get a clip in their gait.

 

[jab]

I don't have any problem with someone saying "I think you are wrong" or "Your beliefs are mistaken in my opinion". Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the free statement of it - but my position is that I will not continue to interact with someone who deliberately uses loaded terminology to denigrate me or wants nothing more than to argue that their opinion is the only one that matters. I have better things to do with my time than talk with someone who has no intention of listening back.

Just picking up on this piece of you post.....

If it's any .........easement or succour.....If I were to say that a certain belief is a delusion, it would not be as loaded or as pointed outwards as I fully understand it might seem. My view is that both delusions and illusions (I'm not even sure what the difference is) are part of the human condition. I believe that my sense of self and my sense of free will are both illusions, for instance. We can be deluded for and about all sorts of things, including our own motives. Don't even start me on love.

But I will take note of your understandable distaste and try my best not to use the term in relation to your beliefs.

Delusions are beliefs that are typically associated with mental illness in the primary definition - and I prefer to not be thought of as mentally ill

Illusions are usually considered to be sensory related in the main definition - like optical illusions. They can also be false beliefs. But the term illusion is not a loaded term when it comes to someone's personal beliefs so it is not usually considered to be derogatory to the believer. At least not to this believer.

A minor derail here - I would be very interested to know why you think your sense of self is an illusion. I realize that this is more of a philosophical question so mods if you think it best, you can split this off into the appropriate Philosophy forum.

Ruth

You insisted on giving priority to dictionary definitions of "Argument" earlier. So delusion--my hardcopy 1970s Webster's lists the mental illness meaning of delusion fourth, a 1800's edition ow Webseter's doesn't even list a psychologically centered meaning for the word, and Merriam Webster's online lists the definition thus: "a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated under the delusion that they will finish on schedule delusions of grandeur
b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary the delusion that someone was out to hurt him; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs"
Yeah, so when we say your God is a delusion we don't mean it's a symptom of mental illness, and that is in accordance with American usage.

 

[jab]

For me, it came down to one thing. Where did everything come from?

But a lack of explanation for where god came from does not cause you the same type of uncertainty? If not, then I am genuinely puzzled as to how you could say that not knowing where the universe came from was the one thing it came down to.

And you changed your question from when I received the email about a reply on this thread; you originally asked where God came from. But no problem - this is my original answer.

This is the question that every atheist asks - and here is my answer. We have been discussing where physical things (the singularity) came from. God is not a physical thing; He exists outside of our time and space boundaries, and has always existed. Einstein's special theory of relativity touches on this as it states that time and space are not absolute and the perception of time is relative based on the observer's point of view. There is nothing that prohibits the existence of God outside of our frame of reference.

I find it less problematic to believe in a non corporeal supreme being than in a physical object existing eternally outside of space and time. It is difficult for me to conceive of any way a physical object could have no beginning and I have yet to see any theory which explains this.

Ruth

Why do you persist in calling this non-corporeal thing "He"?

 

[jab]

...The Christian God created the child molester and allowed him to molest some or a lot, to show how much God loves little children.
Question mark.

The Christian God created jab too - right?

Wrong--'cause the Christian God doesn't exist.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes He does.

 

[jab]

Yes He does.

He? :