"Dear Lord, I am a good person and an Atheist . . ."

[Tergle]

And how do you deserve to be treated?

Like a roaring lamb. One that knows the difference between an enemy and a friend.

 

[JustMeSee]

That is what it sounds like to me when I hear an atheist argue about heaven and hell.

Is that a bad thing?

Unless that is what the atheist is saying or writing, yes, there is a problem.

It is best to hear people's words without placing a personal bias on the meaning. Through extended communication, you may be able to gleam unspoken detail, but it is not always accurate.

 

[Tergle]

Unless that is what the atheist is saying or writing, yes, there is a problem.

When it comes to interactions between atheists and Christians, there is only one thing an atheist is saying.

It is best to hear people's words without placing a personal bias on the meaning.

That has been shown to be impossible for every human being on earth. And it seems that expecting someone to rise above their bias is impossible too.

Through extended communication, you may be able to gleam unspoken detail, but it is not always accurate.

You mean glean don't you? I see nothing of light to an anti-God position. Anyway, no matter how long the conversation between an atheist and a Christian, there is a chasm between them that can never be crossed.

 

[SithDoughnut]

When it comes to interactions between atheists and Christians, there is only one thing an atheist is saying.

All people, no matter what they believe, say plenty of things. Christian-atheist interaction covers all sorts of topics. If you choose to ignore it, then so be it. It's probably safest because if you expose yourself to meaningful conversation with other people, you might find out how wrong you are.

 

[Tergle]

All people, no matter what they believe, say plenty of things. Christian-atheist interaction covers all sorts of topics. If you choose to ignore it, then so be it. It's probably safest because if you expose yourself to meaningful conversation with other people, you might find out how wrong you are.

When it comes to atheism, babies being born blind, there are more than two dying saviors in world religions, we're almost the same genetically as chimps and God is mean, pretty much sums it all up in the atheist argument.

See how much I don't ignore?

 

[SithDoughnut]

When it comes to atheism, babies being born blind

Something I've never seen talked about on this forum.

there are more than two dying saviors in world religions

Vaguely related to some discussions that have been had on here, but why "more than two"? Surely you only need more than one. Again, something I haven't seen.

Of course, perhaps these two have been discussed, but certainly not commonly. Apologetics isn't actually all that common here.

we're almost the same genetically as chimps

Not related to atheism. The fact that you think it is says a lot about how confused you are.

God is mean

One out of four isn't that bad, I suppose, although really I shouldn't give you this one either, as it's not an argument for atheism.

See how much I don't ignore?

There is only one atheist argument, and you appear to have missed it. Impressive, considering that it's just one sentence. Not only that, but you've managed to make up two arguments and falsely attribute two more to atheism.

Of course, an atheist argument and atheist-Christian interaction are completely different, so I'm not sure why you went off on this tangent. Perhaps it was your way of conceding that you were wrong?

In case it isn't, I submit the entirety of the non-Christians-allowed section of CF as evidence to the number of topics that form atheist-Christian interaction on this forum alone. In real life, obviously there is a lot more to discuss (if you include friendships and work-relations, the number rises enormously).

 

[JustMeSee]

Psychology is now a cult.

Psychology is the new religion of the secular.

Really?
Who told you these things?
Do you have a website or publication that discusses this reasoning in depth?
Are there Biblical passage support?

 

[Tergle]

Something I've never seen talked about on this forum.

Vaguely related to some discussions that have been had on here, but why "more than two"? Surely you only need more than one. Again, something I haven't seen.

Of course, perhaps these two have been discussed, but certainly not commonly. Apologetics isn't actually all that common here.

Not related to atheism. The fact that you think it is says a lot about how confused you are.

One out of four isn't that bad, I suppose, although really I shouldn't give you this one either, as it's not an argument for atheism.

There is only one atheist argument, and you appear to have missed it. Impressive, considering that it's just one sentence. Not only that, but you've managed to make up two arguments and falsely attribute two more to atheism.

Of course, an atheist argument and atheist-Christian interaction are completely different, so I'm not sure why you went off on this tangent. Perhaps it was your way of conceding that you were wrong?

In case it isn't, I submit the entirety of the non-Christians-allowed section of CF as evidence to the number of topics that form atheist-Christian interaction on this forum alone. In real life, obviously there is a lot more to discuss (if you include friendships and work-relations, the number rises enormously).

Mr. Doughnut, a person chooses atheism from a standard list of cliches to do so.

 

[JustMeSee]

You mean glean don't you?

Yes, thank you for the correction. That word is not in my normal vocabulary. I will try to remember glean, not gleam.

----
This is an interesting thread. I noticed that some of your responses totally misrepresented what you quoted. Is English your primary language?

 

[Tergle]

Yes, thank you for the correction. That word is not in my normal vocabulary. I will try to remember glean, not gleam.

No problem. When dealing with a Christian, gleam is appropriate. Heck, it's mandatory per Jesus.

This is an interesting thread. I noticed that some of your responses totally misrepresented what you quoted.

Judgmental a bit are ya? Couldn't stay away from the bashfest huh?

Is English your primary language?

Si

 

[JustMeSee]

Judgmental a bit are ya? Couldn't stay away from the bashfest huh?

If that is the way you want to take it. It was not my intention to bash you. Your OP stated that you had problems understanding what atheists said and wrote. I was just kind of agreeing with you. Everyone has a different perspective on things. It is sometimes difficult to see things from other people's perspective.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Mr. Doughnut, a person chooses atheism from a standard list of cliches to do so.

That's a long list. Of course, if you think like that, every belief comes from a standard list of cliches.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There are many "cliches" around supporting atheism and supporting Christianity. However, there are sophisticated arguments around supporting atheism and supporting Christianity.

It is just being cynical to think that either group enters into their respective worlds based on "cliches" alone.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JustMeSee]

Psychology is now a cult.

Psychology is the new religion of the secular.

Really?
Who told you these things?
Do you have a website or publication that discusses this reasoning in depth?
Are there Biblical passage support?

Waiting for an answer.

 

[Tergle]

That's a long list. Of course, if you think like that, every belief comes from a standard list of cliches.

And a handshake to you sir.

 

[Tergle]

Waiting for an answer.

Should I apologize for expecting people that are as literate as most are here to be able to figure out the obvious?

 

[Tergle]

There are many "cliches" around supporting atheism and supporting Christianity. However, there are sophisticated arguments around supporting atheism and supporting Christianity.

Yet it is the freethinkers that sling around the ignorant charge at Christians as common as sneezing. As if Christian living was a natural phenomenom. Yet, in my experience in life, it is the anti God positions that come from natural knee-jerkism.

It is just being cynical to think that either group enters into their respective worlds based on "cliches" alone.

Christians must make a choice to become a Christian based on reason and logic and to discard the easy answer for the complex one. The history of Christian thinkers is one of great men and women using total experience from every angle to take their stand. The Gospel of John is a perfect example.

Atheism is based on some very elemental emotionalism. You all want to make a big deal of hellfire and damnation, and good people getting cancer, apes almost being genetically like us, and some Christians commiting crimes . . . but that is not the convincing point to Christian academics and theologians and a healthy body of laity for believing Jesus the Christ is God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yet it is the freethinkers that sling around the ignorant charge at Christians as common as sneezing.

And there are freethinkers who recognize that theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas exist.

Yet, in my experience in life, it is the anti God positions that come from natural knee-jerkism.

In my experience in life, you are limited in what you have experienced with respect to atheists. I don't know if you haven't met the right atheists, or you are "selective" in what you choose to notice.

Christians must make a choice to become a Christian based on reason and logic and to discard the easy answer for the complex one.

I have no doubt that some Christians do precisely that.

There are also people who make precisely that sort of judgment and become atheists.

Atheism is based on some very elemental emotionalism.

Not all atheism. Just as not all Christianity is due to very elemental emotionalism.

You all want to make a big deal of hellfire and damnation, and good people getting cancer, apes almost being genetically like us, and some Christians commiting crimes . . . but that is not the convincing point to Christian academics and theologians and a healthy body of laity for believing Jesus the Christ is God.

Fine, so it doesn't convince them. So what? That doesn't make atheism based in emotionalism.

Please don't tell me what I personally make a big deal about. I'll tell you that.

I personally make nothing at all out of Christians committing crimes, or good people getting cancer. Hellfire and damnation at best support the idea that God would be evil, not that God doesn't exist.

Evolution, while it does not "prove" atheism correct, as part of a naturalistic worldview it is no mere emotionalism. It is making a careful judgment discarding easy answers in favor of complex ones.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tergle]

If that is the way you want to take it. It was not my intention to bash you.

OK thanks. It's hard to tell when you are down here.

Your OP stated that you had problems understanding what atheists said and wrote. I was just kind of agreeing with you.

OK

Everyone has a different perspective on things. It is sometimes difficult to see things from other people's perspective.

I'd like to see a pro life, anti-gay rights, republican conservative atheist, that holds that believing in God is not based on ignorance but academic pursuit as well . . . pop their head up once in awhile. All that ever appears is the standard permissive liberal deomcrat version time and time and time after time.

It's pretty easy to see a gazelle among a herd of cattle. But the standard reaction from the self-labeled freethinkers to the statement pointing out the gazelle is seen as hatred and bigotry.

I work as an investigator for a nationwide firm that handles workplace issues. Commonality jumps out at me when dealing with people. It never impresses me, or shall I say makes an impression on me, until I see a pattern of following a herd mentality. Then there is usually a problem with the milieu and the people running it. Or as in the case with societal anti-God secularism, there is cause and effect that shows what is good and what is bad.

So far (and it's the 21st century), it looks like deity worship is well founded in rational thought and brings order to unruly humans while politically implemented atheism does the exact opposite when not kept in check by severe legal legislation that always has to undo some bad effect of unchecked secularism.

Take for example, cell phone usage. It rapidly became a deadly behavior that needed the supposed bright secularist legislators to solve "immediately." While religion, and especially Christianity, uses logic and rationality to know what's coming at society from unfettered human rights and to deal with it before the carnage begins. AIDS is another no brainer that seems to escape the brains of the unrestrianed secularist. It is wiped out easier than any other disease in history but it's still around because morality is relative to the anti-God secularist. Secularism based on atheism breeds an amnesia of history into its proponents in a shockingly common occurence. How many college students are promiscuous in an age where that behavior should have been done away with decades ago. But you see their teachers ignoring and in some cases encouraging the actions. That defies logic, reason and rationality, but it is the case where the three are touted as the cause of all choices. That being the secular higher education system.

And etc., etc., etc..

 

[Skavau]

I'd like to see a pro life, anti-gay rights, republican conservative atheist, that holds that believing in God is not based on ignorance but academic pursuit as well . . . pop their head up once in awhile. All that ever appears is the standard permissive liberal deomcrat version time and time and time after time.

I know many atheists that are 'pro life'. If you're after a well known atheist, then Christopher Hitchens can be referenced and has been seen in more recent years to be identify closer with the Republican party than any other (though to characterise him as adhering to party would be a grave error).

I don't personally know any anti-homosexual rights atheists - but then why I? There's effectively no reason to disregard homosexual rights as an atheist. There is certainly no supernatural reason.

Your assertion though that there is only the "permissive liberal democrat" atheist is complete nonsense. I've debated with Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Libertarian and Conservative atheists not referencing their subtle differences and adherence to subsets of the above mentioned political ideologies.