I'm in favor of stunts like these even if I won't participate myself. It gets people thinking and talking. Some Christians might ask: "Why is it they think that about my Bible?" This in turn will cause some of them to investigate further.
What I found funny was that Fox News wanted to know what the Christians thought about it all (a little bias here maybe?). Why couldn't they get the opinions of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.?
I just noticed a defense of this campaign written by an officer of the Atheist agenda. I call on other atheist student groups to do the same exact thing.
I was just surprised that they didn't focus more on the rape/rape-slaves/incest/pedophilia/etc aspects of the Bible and other "holy" texts to drive home the smut for smut message. From what I've read and their own descriptions on their blog they appear to generally avoid that and rest on other ugly and brutal aspects of it.
I'm glad they're having success with this, but wouldn't it have been great for that fox news blurb to have pointed out that the Bible is full of and/or endorses rape, incest, pedophilia, and other sexual acts that wouldn't even be legal in American porn!
Otherwise, I could see more college atheist groups pulling the same general idea with success: fiction for fiction (classics), smut for smut (porn), horror for horror (bloody horror movies), etc.
This whole stunt has xians in an uproar. Where is the compassion they are supposed to display? Most of the xians I know are pisst off not feeling compassion. What other religious group do you know who get's mad when the world challenges their holy book?
Apparently its ok for them to protest against gays and lesbians. Its ok for them to stand out front of my aunt's sex clothing store and pray for it to close down, its ok for the early church to root out pagans and cause holy wars, but when someone challenges their position they stomp their feet and tweek out!
Seeing how there is probably 1000 Christians to every Buddhist in Texas and seeing how there is probably 1,000 Bibles sold to every Koran in Texas, Gee I wonder?
Also, who do these people think they are? They not condoning pornography? Do they think it's wrong or something?
But no matter, I'm sure in a hundred years or so we can look back at this event and bookmark it as a great day in American history. And the world can thank the Atheists for their tireless efforts of trying to change the world for the better. Even tho FOX news was out to thwart this noble campaign with their biased interviews.
I'm sorry you guys can't sleep at night knowing all that scary stuff is in the Bible. Would it make you feel better if the writers would have left those parts out?
"I'm sorry you guys can't sleep at night knowing all that scary stuff is in the Bible. Would it make you feel better if the writers would have left those parts out?"
Oh puh-lease.
We bring it up because your supposedly "absolute morality" is based on a god that commits and orders genocide, rape, rape slaves, baby killing, etc... and now you guys act like it's all about peace, love and mushy wovey bwiss.
We're not scared of your mythology. We're baffled by your adherence to such anachronistic cultist myths and bronze age moral guidance.
Brad, it's not an either/or but a both/and approach following on the heels of the late Francis Schaeffer in his book, "The Christian Manifesto," where he called on Christians to be politically active. His call for action inspired such groups as Operation Rescue in the '80's.
Its not that we cant sleep at night because were scared feeno....were just down right disgusted about it, and about the fact that christains think the biblical atrocities are justified and righteous because God apparently says so!
Well, John, that may be your strategy (I'm not a fan of Christian electoral politics, BTW), but I think you've finally lost me. I don't think this site is about discussion anymore.
I'll still be interested to see how you do in your debates, though.
"I'm sorry you guys can't sleep at night knowing all that scary stuff is in the Bible. Would it make you feel better if the writers would have left those parts out?"
What keeps me up is there are people out there like you who think themselves "good" and "blessed" because they have an imaginary relationship with a character in said book.
It's frightening to know that mass delusion is considered piety.
I'm not scared of the book. I'm scared of you and the choices you will make with your representative vote.
you said, "(I'm not a fan of Christian electoral politics, BTW"
Then you are sticking your head in the sand and not seeing how your perpetuation of a superstition empowers people to use the ballot box to force the religion you defend in ways you wouldn't endorse.
My bad cuz. There are a lot of reasons not to like me, but by me saying "smell ya later" ain't one. Although I am an old dude I have been working with young people for 10 or so years. I think it has rubbed off on me? Around here that phrase is not meant as an insult. Anthony (who truly is one of my Homies) would not be offended by this remark. In the small chance he took it that way, I truly apologize.
Later bitches, sorry about that. I meant have a nice day, feeno
You remind me of all the middle-aged men I knew in the mega-churches I attended. They equate immature pseudo-familiarity with some sort of intellectually transparency. What do you get out of behaving like a 15-year-old boy? I do see this type of mental infantalization common among believers. It's one of the disturbing behavioral traits that assisted my de-conversion. Adults behaving like contrite or manic children is just odd.
One way to position yourself in marketing is to "re-position" the opposition. By making this kind of assertion between smut and the bible one exposes the book for the ancient and barbaric myth it is.
Very smart.
I wouldn't be behind the fiction for fiction unless the fiction was some sort of low-grade pulp fiction.
The works of the classic authors are much more valuable than the bullshit in the bible.
Give me Shakespearke, Faulkner, Voltaire, or even modern greats like David Foster Wallace any day over the clap-trap in that piece of shit known as the holy bible.
They should try and swap it for Mein Kampf. They both are the musings of control freak dictators who ultimately look to exterminate the jews.
I guess I am in the minority here but I don't think the smut for smut is a good move. I think it goes to further the stereotype that many people have about atheists, i.e., we are immoral. I think the fiction for fiction idea is good but not the smut for smut.
In addition, it takes away any moral high ground that atheists might have to stoop to this level.
I have missed Mr Loftus and this site and mostly you. I hope all is good in the Windy City.
But there are many Believers like Brad and myself who think the Church would be better off spreading the Gospel message of Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection then to get involved in politics. But the fact that many Christians combine the two is their business. Should we not be allowed to vote?
What's next, Dumb people can't vote? What should the IQ cut off be for voting? Peoples life, circumstances, experiences and attitudes will help them dictate their political ideology. Religion is just a part of that. I could be wrong? I really don't know. I just feel like talking today.
Ken, you know I respect your opinion and I see your point. As I said I wouldn't participate. The reason why is because I argue on a different level and I must stay on that level, as must you. But there are different strokes for different folks. Place yourself into a college student's life and ask yourself what he or she could do that would impact their campus filled with other students. It's after all, a student campaign to reach other students. It's not seeking to reach out to adults or scholars. It's a message that may resonate on their level and that's what I see them doing. And since that's the case I endorse what they do on the level it's intended. I don't expect we'll agree though. We don't have to. We're friends with the same goals.
It would take more then that to offended me, i was just a little confused and shocked, i never heard any youth pastors or anyone in the church i used to attend speak like that to non-believers when making a point.
I guess there's a first for everything!
Eitherway, i really dont think it helps your cause if people cant take you seriously, just a suggestion.
Here is something else I endorse but wouldn't participate in, Grassroots Atheism. There are others things I endorse on the level it's intended but wouldn't participate in.
I need to help Brad out a little. Brad is a way better Christian than I am. I'm not sure he would agree with me always. I only mentioned him because I also am not a fan of "Christian electoral politics".
You don't get it. In terms of real world morality and consequence saying something like, anybody "is a way better Christian than I am" is about the same as saying something like a person "is a way better Dungeons & Dragons player than I am." You and Brad willfully ignore the real world for your invisible relationship with a character in a book and expect people to respect you for it, like it is a signal of character. It isn't. It's make believe.
Feeno Anthony (who truly is one of my Homies) would not be offended by this remark.
No Feeno, I'm not offended at all so no apologies needed.
Seeing how there is probably 1000 Christians to every Buddhist in Texas and seeing how there is probably 1,000 Bibles sold to every Koran in Texas, Gee I wonder?
Although that may be true (it would have to be documented though), the point was that Christians are not the only religion in town, there are many others and Fox News could have a least checked with how others thought about it. Even though American is still predominately Christian that fact is slowly changing.
who do these people think they are? They not condoning pornography?
As it was said in the video clip, they were trying to make a point. Whether you agree or not isn't material.
I'm sure in a hundred years or so we can look back at this event and bookmark it as a great day in American history. And the world can thank the Atheists for their tireless efforts of trying to change the world for the better.
Sarcasm is not becoming of you Feeno. No one said anything about this being a pivotal event. Their efforts are to make a point and to make people think. I personally like John's idea of fiction for fiction or maybe myth for myth where copies of Babylonian creation myth, or Homer are exchanged for copies of the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.
I'm sorry you guys can't sleep at night knowing all that scary stuff is in the Bible.
Oh common on Feeno you know better than that. The only ones that scare me are the Pat Robertsons of the world. (And militant Islam)>
Later bitches
You crack me up.
Hey, and Feeno, the next time you and John hook up you guys better not forget me! :-)
Idiots like this come up with stunts because NOBODY listens to them to begin with...Atheism is bankrupt and a horrible faith proposition to begin with.
I agree with the future comment, all you do is associate yourself with smut by handing it out...Any fool can see the difference between what's contained within the bible and what the bible endorses, except for radical fools who want to make a square circle like some of these on this site.
I guess that's the atheist evangelism technique though...John calls all Christians and the religious brainwashed, then you take the book, whom even Robert Price says is beautifully written and trash it while saying you offer a better and more realistic worldview...Please! this further convinces me that the most vocal atheists are nothing but a bunch of whiners!
But Harvey you are among the people who are not convertible so naturally you think that. This strategy is not aimed at you.
I've argued with you for probably a couple of years and that's what I think about you. You are not unreachable. That is, not until some tragedy happens in your life at the wrong time (which I do not wish upon you my friend).
All you do is come on here and tell us how much you hate being in our company.
So why?
If you got a straight shot to the creator of the universe aren't you just wasting your time coming on here? That time could be spent playing tag with Jesus or something.
Why Harvey?
Why?
Because all I see is a desperate and defensive man, fearful that if he can't control the ideas of everyone then his ideas may not be valid.
You aren't convincing me and I think you need to take a time out and go play with your imaginary friend.
Chuck, Harvey is probably the most cocksure believer who regularly visits here. He is unreachable.
I see you seem to be getting more and more frustrated with believers. I love your sarcastic humor, of course. But I've been at this for over four years. I have been repeating some of the same arguments over and over and over and...well, you get my point.
Do as you wish. But if you continue here don't let yourself burn out by getting too frustrated. There are many people who regularly read DC who never comment. Then out of the blue I'll get an email or a comment here from someone who says he or she has been lurking for a month or two or more and has finally decided not to believe.
Harvey will not be one of them. Keep in mind he's not our target audience. He's fodder, and so are some of the other Christians who post here. If they weren't here then our readers would not see how lame Christian arguments really are. Harvey keeps coming back but doesn't realize this, until now.
But I've grown to like him and some others. I was there once. I admire his tenacity. He too gets frustrated with us. But he's not our audience. Check the hits we get everyday. They are reading.
Damn I meant to say earlier that Havery was NOT reachable and later that he is unreachable. Perhaps that was conveyed even though I said the exact opposite a couple of times.
You kindness was received and your accuracy in recognizing my burn-out.
I am only two weeks into officially "coming out" as an atheist after 20 painful months and when guys like Harvey start spouting off it pisses me off because they just don't understand the investment I've made in honestly trying to believe but, also honestly trying to be honest. It's just superficial on his part and the fact that he acts like his well-worn and easily accepted beliefs somehow take moral courage really burn me up.
In my opinion Harvey Burnett is in faith mostly for the money and fame. -->District supt ,what a hero.
Harvey says he follows Jesus,one wonders what good that does?....Harvey is the type who would call those people accused as witches and burned at the stake etc, as being "nothing but a bunch of whiners!"
Kids caught up in christian faiths that refuse blood to their children,or family of folks who died in johnstown type cults ..."nothing but a bunch of whiners!" too
Harvey is a fraud and a complete utter sham! and over time i came to realize he`s little more than a nasty thoughtless prick also even if he reads a bible and is a pastor.If you dont follow the faith that pays his wages,he wouldnt really care less about ya.John Loftus treats him reasonably well,Harvard uses Johns continuing welcome on this blog, and yet joins a blog specially designed created and aimed by others only for the reason of personally attacking John.
Still at least it exposes Harvey for the type of person he honestly is.As the saying goes, ya give a person enough rope, and sooner or later they`ll hang themselves.
He dont like the atheist movement,quite likely he sees it as a future threat to lowering the amount of faithful followers which supply him a wage at church and steady supply of people he can sell his insurance policies too.
And maybe he`s even a little worried his kids and grandchildren will look back on grand daddy someday,and be ashamed that grand daddy was such a wally who wasnt so grand and promoted such ignorance and ancient barbaric teachings with psychological abuse of myths about unproven ideas of hell, even to little children.
Harvey has called me a "whiner" also, he didnt like me reminding him and his blog readers that the christian cult i was born into caused excommunication of many families and separation of husbands from wives and parent from children and much sadness and pain that even led to quite a number of suicides.
Harvey would rather not hear about it.
He much prefers to live in blissful thoughts,of how wonderful he and his faith is.Just like many so called caring folks of faith,who talk about love and caring yet who`s actions promote continued faith abuse.
Id like to see the movement of non believers first take the abuse of laws that allow for "faith freedoms" ,in large group protests directly outside the doors of liberal churches.Holding them to some accountability of this supposed suggestion that the bible and Jesus is about love,pushing them to put their money where their mouth is to (start standing beside non believers) outside fundamentalist churches and approaching governments to force some change around these abusive rights of "faith freedoms" that have always enabled and allowed faith the legal right to abuse and harm folks.
Thats the treatment the Harveys of this world really need, to help them quickly sort some of their shit out.
Is it possible that you could dialogue on this site without IMMEDIATELY resorting to name calling, bigotry and ad hominems? Yes there are times when such tactics may be inevitable (though not condoned), but I mean seriously, you left one comment on this post, and you've belittled every atheist that has ever lived into some reprehensible slimebag who is trying to destroy the world. Come back down to Earth man, and relax a little bit. Yikes...
As far as the Bible goes, there are certainly some absolutely beautiful parts of the Bible, and this should be expected, since it was written by over 40 different people for nearly 40 different audiences. There are some beautiful parts of the Illiad, and there are some parts, were we to accept them as absolute truth, that would shock and appall us. This is the nature of ancient fiction.
You say there are things in the Bible that are recorded, but not necessarily condoned. Very true. There are also things that God not only condones, but orders. God hardened Pharaoh's heart, all the while destroying Egypt with plagues, killing firstborn children and livestock, and then eventually wiping out the entire Egyptian army. This didn't have to be, but God made it so. This is despicable, and there's no spin that you can put on this Jewish folk lore that's going to make me change my mind. Exodus is unapologetic about God hardening Pharaoh's heart, and sending 10 plagues upon Egypt, just so he could show his power. That God is digusting and a terrible moral guide.
And, please don't call atheism a faith position. What you are saying is that it takes faith not to have faith. This is a simply an invalid assertion. This is like saying that if I don't love my neighbor, I must love not loving my neighbor. You are setting up a false dichotomy.
Are there things that atheists take on faith? Certainly. But, if I may speak for myself, I'd venture that none of those force us to believer that our family member and friends who don't believe likewise are going to roast for eternity. None of them causes us to stand in the public square and tell people how to live their lives. None of those beliefs is going to cause me to fly a plane into a building or fear monger my child into belief.
Religion is on a whole different plane than things that atheists take on faith. It is a different monster between accepting the laws of physics and chemistry that we have all encountered numerous times in our lives, and accepting the claims of religion. And you know this, and I know you know this because you are a pastor. You realize that it takes a little extra something to peddle your product, and that's why you've devoted your life to it.
Anyways, do try to be civilized from now on. Otherwise, what's the point in reading you? If I wanted to read how shitty and worthless someone thinks I am, I would frequent militant Islamic sites. I come here to whet my appetite for intellectual discussion.
You said:"That is, not until some tragedy happens in your life at the wrong time (which I do not wish upon you my friend)."
And I know you don't wish tragedy upon me and neither do I upon you my friend...with that said let me deal with what you're saying for a second...
Now, you claim that I'm unreachable and "cocksure". Now, is this because I have, on my own, exposed myself to anti-Christian dogma such as yours, Ehrman, Price, and the lazy list goes one...and STILL have not found anything that you have said or that I have read to be any kind of threat to Christianity??? Is it because I can look at the problem of evil, which all of you admit is your BEST anti-God argument, and don't see or find and inconsistency with the nature and mercy of God???
I mean, I am sure of what I believe John. What I believe shapes my life not in some sort of hokey-poky way as I believe you may have expected, but in a tangible way that allows me to get involved in lifting burdens, exposing myself to being uncomfortable in order to help humanity, and actually DOING something to better humanity.
Not, that you don't contribute my friend, that's not what I infer. What I suggest is that Christ is more of a solid reason and foundation for all that I do. In fact if God doesn't exist everything you and I do is only a temporary illusion with no great cause meaning or effect in reality other than the temporal time frame in which we exist.
You believe in ultimate purposelessness. You "believe" and that's what it is ...a belief, that nothing has any more meaning than what you ascribe to it in the here and now...anything that you exhibit beyond that is FAITH plain and simple. That other atheists will follow your lead in the future and somehow the world will be better with atheism, is a FAITH proposition...and don't say you don't care. You, Dawkins and Hitchens and the lot care immensely about your FAITH growing.
If you're not "cocksure" about what you believe then why the HECK should I or anyone listen to you? I can hear and read any number of mindless idiots such as Chuck O or Gandy all day long and get a laugh...but you, being the illustrious leader should be every bit as "cocksure" as you say that I am...if not, then why do you do what you do?
If you're not "cocksure", then you've obviously subdued and brainwashed the minds of many of your readers into believing that you hold out some great life truth that they should be aware of...
So tell them that you're "cocksure" of your atheism! Last I knew you were arguing 'probabilities' and that wasn't too convincing either. Your "cock-sureness" should eagerly and readily render a definitive statement that 'there IS no God!' in all your materialistic glory...You see, I don't have room to be wrong, and the more I see only affirms it more. Do you?
I liked the old anti-Christ advocates you used to have on the board. they did actually 'teach" and research their positions. They also weren't a bunch of whiners like some of the new ones...but anyway...the beat goes on...
Is it because I can look at the problem of evil, which all of you admit is your BEST anti-God argument, and don't see or find and inconsistency with the nature and mercy of God???
All this really tells me is that you have a twisted sense of morality on this issue--it doesn't say anything about the existence or nonexistence of a God.
When you're in heaven do you plan on spending the first trillion years having God regale you with stories of how he drowned kids? Maybe he can take you back in time and show you what the kids looked like as they gasped for air--their lungs filling with water.
I only ask, because I assume you want to experience the FULLNESS of God, and since drowning kids is part of his fullness, you'll probably want to experience that glorious undertaking.
' little more than a nasty thoughtless prick also even if he reads a bible and is a pastor'
Chuck O Connor said
"Okay little boy"
John, you are obviously a thoughtful and genuine guy. I thought your book was honest and written from the heart, and I support you in promoting debate and providing a forum for interaction between people of faith and atheists. But I'm struck with this post and several others like it at how infantile many of the posters on this site are. This porn stunt is pathetic stuff. A two to two thousand five hundred year old assorted collection of sacred texts is in no way equivalent to the eploitative genre of contemporary pornography. This kind of thing reaches nobody except the purile and inane. The likes of O'Connor and Gandalf and their ilk have obviously been so badly burned by fundamentalist strains of Christian thinking that they have migrated to the opposing pole of atheist certainty and are standing by it calling names. An unwillingness to acknowledge the good that religion can do, and the fact that we share a common humanity capable of good and evil regardless of our 'faith' convictions, is most characteristic of the new atheism. It is a hectoring and childish clarion call in the dark for the disillusioned and lost. In search of certainty they grasp at the straws you offer. But the certainty of Loftus, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett , Price et al is a chimera. Ultimately ALL is mystery. None of us has the answer. Science for all it's majestic sweep of knowledge acquisition in the past 200 hundred years is still not close to answering why are we here, how did something come from nothing and where are we going, and what is the purpose of this life? And whilst these questions are still up for grabs there will always be room for competing understandings of the universe, and no amount of name-calling or childish certainty (On either side) will change that.
Agnostic Chrisitan, I appreciate your post and your honesty. Loftus does not promote certainty. In fact, he has a post not too far back that says that agnosticism should be the default position for EVERYONE, atheist and believer alike.
We don't claim certainty, we just want Christians to admit that they don't have anything close to certainty. I hope you can understand that. That's the purpose of the new Atheist movement. For me, my deconversion started the day I admitted I might be wrong, than after months of study and probably years of thought, I realized that I really had NO good reasons to continue believing what I did.
"Science for all it's majestic sweep of knowledge acquisition in the past 200 hundred years is still not close to answering why are we here, how did something come from nothing and where are we going, and what is the purpose of this life?"
The only real question you have in there for science is "How" did something come from nothing? That is a question that science, in theory, is equipped to study and answer. But the "why" questions are, like I said before, question begging questions. They assume a purpose and ambition beyond the natural; in short, they assume the supernatural. If there is no supernatural, then those questions are literally meaningless. Where we are "going" today, may not be where we are "going" 200 years from now, and it certainly isn't where we were "going" 200 years before. I have no problem admitting that life is inherently purposeless, in the sense that I didn't have a purpose imbued into me.
Answering these questions doesn't prove anything, nor is their lack of answers evidence for either side of the argument, mostly because are so highly subjective and speculative in nature, and may actually be nonsensical.
Oh, Agnostic Christian, as far as Harvey is concerned (at whom those comments you quoted were directed), we should probably play nicer, but Harvey is really one of the more throughtless, crass, and hypocritical commenters on this site. Though his choice of words isn't quite as obvious, his undertone of spite, arrogance and lack of compassion for the struggles that many ex-Christians have gone through (I had a first hand encounter with this) shows you that non-believers are nothing to him but slime under his feet that he MUST wade through to get his treasure in the sky.
It's not only not a very good Christian attitude. It's not a good attitude for anyone to have.
Harvey, yes you do read our works and visit here. But most of the time when you comment you blast people. Only about 15% of the time do I see you discuss something with someone in a learning mode. A discussion means you think you can learn from someone else. But you seem to blast away most of the time. I admit I can learn from you, and many others. I try to carry on a discussion because of that. Only rarely do I blast people. And that's one difference between us.
And I don't yet think you understand the difference between affirming a claim and denying one, especially extra-ordinary ones. Let me take the example of who killed Jon Bene Ramsay, that decade or two long ago tragic murder. There are several scenarios and suspects. But to act with certainty that you know who did it is different, much different, than someone who says I just don't know, or someone who denies your claim. Either position seems much more defensible than to know with certainty who did it. Let's say that there are 5 suspects (I don't know if there are). If I deny that one of them is the killer then I may have an 80% chance of being right in my denial, you see. I say "may" because it depends on the evidence. But when we talk about an extraordinary claim coming from an ancient set of documents this problem is magnified a hundred fold, for there is no evidence of such things as a talking serpent, am axe head that floated, or a talking ass. The probability that theses things did not happen is on my side.
you said, "The likes of O'Connor and Gandalf and their ilk have obviously been so badly burned by fundamentalist strains of Christian thinking that they have migrated to the opposing pole of atheist certainty and are standing by it calling names."
Yes, I have been and if you read Harvey's comments about me specifically and atheists generally you will see his use of bullying tactics to assert his morality.
Now, if you are too steeped in christian culture to identify the psychological bullying of things like the doctrine of depravity, I can't help you with that but, I am not going to practice passivity in the face of bullies any longer.
I'll let John be MLK, I am going to be Malcolm X.
It seems that you still have the sado-masochistic aspect of christianity within your world-view and feel it is important to allow bullies to assert themselves without standing up for yourself.
I allowed them to hit me long enough. I am going to hit back.
You said, "It is a hectoring and childish clarion call in the dark for the disillusioned and lost. In search of certainty they grasp at the straws you offer. But the certainty of Loftus, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett , Price et al is a chimera."
Present your "chimera" to my homosexual friends whose 14th amendment due process rights are denied because of your adherence to "mystery".
A bad idea is a bad idea and no amount of appeal to mystery will turn the accumulated bad ideas of christianity into something resembling a worthwhile notion.
To me it is more noble to call a bad idea what it is.
You?
It seems you'd prefer co-dependent half-measures that enable institutional thinking to feel moral in denying equal rights for the sake of superstition.
What would you have done when the leaders of the Southern Baptist Conference stood on the christian tradition to assert their right to own human beings? Would you have called slavery an unfortunate externality of that wonderful "chimera" known as christianity? I doubt it.
Become aware of how homosexuals in america are treated as sub-human individuals backed by the authority of law driven by self-righteous christians and, then you can shame me for my anger.
You said:"Oh, Agnostic Christian, as far as Harvey is concerned (at whom those comments you quoted were directed), we should probably play nicer,"
Well at least you do have some sort of sense until your MPD kicks in and directs you to your next statement:
You said:"but Harvey is really ione of the more throughtless, crass, and hypocritical commenters on this site.
Now, how is that...you offer weak arguments and I point them out. how is that thoughtless and hypocritical? In fact what the HECK are you talking about???
You said:"Though his choice of words isn't quite as obvious, his undertone of spite, arrogance and lack of compassion for the struggles that many ex-Christians have gone through (I had a first hand encounter with this) shows you that non-believers are nothing to him but slime under his feet that he MUST wade through to get his treasure in the sky."
Now, you ARE self described product of primordial slime, is that not correct? List one place where I've called YOU slime...In addition, I don't take the blame for your rejection of God and all that you've had to go through subsequently...last I knew this was a blog and not psychotherapy. Now, stand behind your own decisions to not believe and accept the package that comes along with it. I accept the package and burden of belief and a life of faith readily...I DON'T CARE what you think of me...thing is I wouldn't have cared BEFORE I met Christ and I certainly don't now...I have no debt to you especially on this blog. You are what you are and have experienced what you experience because of you...NOT God!
You said:"It's not only not a very good Christian attitude. It's not a good attitude for anyone to have."
Now, what type of authority do you have for telling me any kind of "Christian behavior"? I mean you are just out of the water all together...on one hand Christianity is bad for the world, on the other people who don't act up to a certain standard to you aren't "Christian" enough...this is the PERVERSION and confusion of atheism...Then who holds the moral standard for your disagreement with me and my action? What authority do I have to answer to under your rubric? You say my 'attitude' just isn't a good one to have...ACCORDING TO WHO? Why should I act in accordance with your needs or moral standard? Yours is no greater than mine and millions of others and in fact, I say that no human should act like YOU and that's the law!
What is there to make my conclusion of you and your actions any less valid than yours of me?
This is atheism at is finest, New or Old, it's the same senseless cry in the midst of white noise.
You said:"But most of the time when you comment you blast people. Only about 15% of the time do I see you discuss something with someone in a learning mode."
John, I'll take that from you because you've been good and nice and have respected me, and we've had excellent conversations at times. So thanks for the criticism and I will dial it back a notch.
I'll only say this that learning, even though you've rejected God, shouldn't be a one way street...this is the difference.
I've learned how to sharpen my argument and also study some valid concerns of critics through this site. Some of which I don't have as good of an answer as I would like, but those are peripherial and certainly NOTHING that shakes my faith in any way...For instance, Dr. Avolos on Sargon and the resultant lessons surrounding it is a GREAT study and one that I have not heard many Christians address other than by minimizing the issue...Does it shake my faith ...HECK NO! Should Christians be better informed? ABSOLUTELY YES!
With that said, you should be yet in the school of learning about Christianity also. Like you, my opinion is that your lack of true understanding led you to atheism. you say the same thing about me being a Christians and that's a fundamental difference. For me more knowledge only confirms my faith the more. Your premise requires that more knowledge drives one from Christianity and religion and for the hundreds of years that people have said that...NOTHING has been further from the truth in real time.
To be fair, I can't say that you pingenhole as much as the others, but if you want Christians to learn, then you should reciprocate the favor.
BTW, your analogy of "possibility" doesn't consider all the 'possibilities". The problem is that you eliminate certain 'possibilities" based on what you have experienced historically. That's the breakdown and the fallacy of your argument.
Secondly, every claim has a different set of proof burden. The burden of proof for criminal and civil courts are generally two different sets of burden. You CONFUSE and BLUR the issues claiming the same standard of proof for historical evidences and you would for other events etc...In other words, when it comes to the bible you make a special pleading to "extraordinary" evidences like many of your predecessors, when that burden is not fair or balanced. In fact that's not the way ANY historical research is done...In other words we have some roman emperor saying some great thing (whatever that is) and all of a sudden we change the standard??? This is disingenuous and further takes credibility away from your premise.
For you, your probabilities are shaped by your worldview and your preconditioned expectation. NOT by full investigation of the fact.
As I have always held, you like most atheists, EXCLUDE from the stack of evidence certain criteria that you do not wish to consider from the beginning. Then you cross the burden of proof to create some bogus standard...like the NUT that says he won't believe anything about Jesus without VIDEO evidence...while he believes things about Alexander The Great based on historical records...totally foolish and inconsistent...(Now this has been argued on THIS site by one of your readers)
The miraculous claims of the biblical record DOES NOT out of hand make the record incredulous. You think so, I don't!
I honestly respect your right to believe what you want to believe in the privacy of your home and community. That's fine.
What isn't is when it becomes the properly basic truth which defines public policy yet, the institutions that are looking to drive this public policy seek tax exemption.
If you want the religious privilege I am willing to grant you then don't abuse it in seeking unquestioned authority. If religion wants to be part of the public square in terms of regulated science and individual choice (e.g. homosexual marriage) then it should have the consistency to rescind their tax priveleges.
Harvey, you have one set of rules for the world and another for yourself and that to me is the source of tyranny.
It is why I treat you with disrespect.
Rescind your tax priveleges and step into the limitations of the world you condemn and I might give your exclusive (and willfully untested) ideas some respect.
Christian Agnostic expects that if everyone followed Christian Agnostic law like good little faithful following the messiah,this world would be fine.
Was he really under the impression that all atheist blogs should be run like some church?.Places where nobodies allowed to speak their mind,and it takes thousands of years for things to change.And every ones expected to act the same.
Why should i be expected to cave in to his laws of right conduct,quite likely he would even try to suggest the slaves and those under apartheid should all have been peaceful protesters.In keeping with the laws of the opinion messiah Christian Agnostic.
Maybe he thinks those protesting the continued slaughter of whales,should all be ashamed of themselves because they dont happen to meet the standard of the great messiah Christian Agnostic.Most likely he cant understand what reason there might be, for protest boats to need be causing some havoc at sea, sticking it right up the Japanese whalers.
Who knows what Christian Agnostics church experiences were like,but it dont matter because according to the law of the great messiah Christian Agnostic he dont care, nobody has the right to act any different to his dictation even if they happen to have experienced situations a whole lot worse than he has.
Christian Agnostic feels everyone should have to agree we ALL should feel we have all the time in the world,to pussy foot around always being pleasant about everything like some English toffy nosed twit.Because "HE" is quite happy if it takes another thousand years for matters to change.
He says..."The likes of O'Connor and Gandalf and their ilk have obviously been so badly burned by fundamentalist strains of Christian thinking"
Yet even though obviously his brain tells him people have different experiences,his nose is shoved so far up his own arse he still expects everyone should be acting exactly the same.According to CA, laws of right conduct.
Christian Agnostic ive had quite a large number of friends suicide because of abusive faith,they tend to quietly hang themselves or take overdose etc .What happens? ..people like you might say oh how sad something needs to change these abusive faiths are not christian faiths like my faith is...blah blah
Then they walk off to continue discussing matters NICELY for another few hundred years.
While many folks elsewhere still continue on suffering on, in abusive faiths.
What a waste of life i see it as,the world is full of ACs who hardly even bat a eyelid at these deaths because of faith abuse.Folks like you wouldnt bother to care that much, unless these folks who suffer,instead walked into your liberal church with explosives strapped around their body,and that way (shared their pain) with you and your family more in a personal way.
Not that im suggesting this type of action,im just trying to explain that dormant folks like you possibly wont really learn much, until you personally experience some of the heat involved with abusive faith yourself.
While the Christian Harveys of this world keep telling non faithful folks, we have no possibility of ever being moral without input from gods,while they falsely abuse us with such rubbish.Why the hell should we be expected to be always so polite?.
Specially when some of these bible bashers continue to promote and allow faithful folks to drive some of our family and friends through faith abuse which causes stress and pain that at times still ends in excommunication and even death through suicide.
Why? should i have respect for faithful folks accusing non faithful of lacking ability of being moral,when its so obvious the presence of their gods and use of their bibles makes them no better ...And seems often even makes them even worse
Most of the Bibles that got turned in for porn were probably stolen to begin with. A bunch of atheists went down to Motel 666 and stole the Gideon Bibles to turn in for free porn. No real Christians participated.
Just to be clear I support the right of homosexual people to marry as do many progressive Christians, and I think it is a terrible discredit to the church that they have spent so much time fighting gay rights when there are more pressing issues
73 comments:
I'm in favor of stunts like these even if I won't participate myself. It gets people thinking and talking. Some Christians might ask: "Why is it they think that about my Bible?" This in turn will cause some of them to investigate further.
What I found funny was that Fox News wanted to know what the Christians thought about it all (a little bias here maybe?). Why couldn't they get the opinions of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.?
I just noticed a defense of this campaign written by an officer of the Atheist agenda. I call on other atheist student groups to do the same exact thing.
Looks like I'm getting up to speed on this but another alternative is called the "Fiction for Fiction" campaign. It's the same concept.
Good old Fox News, one comment from the atheists, three from the Christians. Fair and Balanced FTW!
I was just surprised that they didn't focus more on the rape/rape-slaves/incest/pedophilia/etc aspects of the Bible and other "holy" texts to drive home the smut for smut message. From what I've read and their own descriptions on their blog they appear to generally avoid that and rest on other ugly and brutal aspects of it.
I'm glad they're having success with this, but wouldn't it have been great for that fox news blurb to have pointed out that the Bible is full of and/or endorses rape, incest, pedophilia, and other sexual acts that wouldn't even be legal in American porn!
Otherwise, I could see more college atheist groups pulling the same general idea with success: fiction for fiction (classics), smut for smut (porn), horror for horror (bloody horror movies), etc.
Hey, they could pass out the Christian man's porn in exchange for Bibles. They could pass out old issues of the National Geographic Magazine. LOL
This whole stunt has xians in an uproar. Where is the compassion they are supposed to display? Most of the xians I know are pisst off not feeling compassion. What other religious group do you know who get's mad when the world challenges their holy book?
What other religious group do you know who get's mad when the world challenges their holy book?
Islam.
What a bunch of hypocracy! they are in an uproar.
Apparently its ok for them to protest against gays and lesbians. Its ok for them to stand out front of my aunt's sex clothing store and pray for it to close down, its ok for the early church to root out pagans and cause holy wars, but when someone challenges their position they stomp their feet and tweek out!
Anthony
Seeing how there is probably 1000 Christians to every Buddhist in Texas and seeing how there is probably 1,000 Bibles sold to every Koran in Texas, Gee I wonder?
Also, who do these people think they are? They not condoning pornography? Do they think it's wrong or something?
But no matter, I'm sure in a hundred years or so we can look back at this event and bookmark it as a great day in American history. And the world can thank the Atheists for their tireless efforts of trying to change the world for the better. Even tho FOX news was out to thwart this noble campaign with their biased interviews.
I'm sorry you guys can't sleep at night knowing all that scary stuff is in the Bible. Would it make you feel better if the writers would have left those parts out?
Smell ya later Holmes, feeno
"I'm sorry you guys can't sleep at night knowing all that scary stuff is in the Bible. Would it make you feel better if the writers would have left those parts out?"
Oh puh-lease.
We bring it up because your supposedly "absolute morality" is based on a god that commits and orders genocide, rape, rape slaves, baby killing, etc... and now you guys act like it's all about peace, love and mushy wovey bwiss.
We're not scared of your mythology. We're baffled by your adherence to such anachronistic cultist myths and bronze age moral guidance.
John, I guess you've given up on scholarly interaction?
Smell you later holmes...?What a childish and unchristian remark.
Besides, the way feeno gave his argument, it seems like he lacks the intelligence or understanding of what his bible actually gets into!
Brad, it's not an either/or but a both/and approach following on the heels of the late Francis Schaeffer in his book, "The Christian Manifesto," where he called on Christians to be politically active. His call for action inspired such groups as Operation Rescue in the '80's.
Its not that we cant sleep at night because were scared feeno....were just down right disgusted about it, and about the fact that christains think the biblical atrocities are justified and righteous because God apparently says so!
Common human morals testify against that fact!
Well, John, that may be your strategy (I'm not a fan of Christian electoral politics, BTW), but I think you've finally lost me. I don't think this site is about discussion anymore.
I'll still be interested to see how you do in your debates, though.
Feeno you said,
"I'm sorry you guys can't sleep at night knowing all that scary stuff is in the Bible. Would it make you feel better if the writers would have left those parts out?"
What keeps me up is there are people out there like you who think themselves "good" and "blessed" because they have an imaginary relationship with a character in said book.
It's frightening to know that mass delusion is considered piety.
I'm not scared of the book. I'm scared of you and the choices you will make with your representative vote.
Brad,
you said, "(I'm not a fan of Christian electoral politics, BTW"
Then you are sticking your head in the sand and not seeing how your perpetuation of a superstition empowers people to use the ballot box to force the religion you defend in ways you wouldn't endorse.
Shane
My bad cuz. There are a lot of reasons not to like me, but by me saying "smell ya later" ain't one. Although I am an old dude I have been working with young people for 10 or so years. I think it has rubbed off on me? Around here that phrase is not meant as an insult. Anthony (who truly is one of my Homies) would not be offended by this remark. In the small chance he took it that way, I truly apologize.
Later bitches, sorry about that.
I meant have a nice day, feeno
Feeno,
You remind me of all the middle-aged men I knew in the mega-churches I attended. They equate immature pseudo-familiarity with some sort of intellectually transparency. What do you get out of behaving like a 15-year-old boy? I do see this type of mental infantalization common among believers. It's one of the disturbing behavioral traits that assisted my de-conversion. Adults behaving like contrite or manic children is just odd.
This is a brilliant communications strategy.
One way to position yourself in marketing is to "re-position" the opposition. By making this kind of assertion between smut and the bible one exposes the book for the ancient and barbaric myth it is.
Very smart.
I wouldn't be behind the fiction for fiction unless the fiction was some sort of low-grade pulp fiction.
The works of the classic authors are much more valuable than the bullshit in the bible.
Give me Shakespearke, Faulkner, Voltaire, or even modern greats like David Foster Wallace any day over the clap-trap in that piece of shit known as the holy bible.
They should try and swap it for Mein Kampf. They both are the musings of control freak dictators who ultimately look to exterminate the jews.
In Feeno's defense he means no harm. I believe him when he says so. He treated me to lunch once at Applebee's so he's bought my silence. ;-)
As an aside, he said we'd do it again and I haven't heard from him.
Oh, he's listening in. Hi!
I guess I am in the minority here but I don't think the smut for smut is a good move. I think it goes to further the stereotype that many people have about atheists, i.e., we are immoral. I think the fiction for fiction idea is good but not the smut for smut.
In addition, it takes away any moral high ground that atheists might have to stoop to this level.
Sir Charles
I have missed Mr Loftus and this site and mostly you. I hope all is good in the Windy City.
But there are many Believers like Brad and myself who think the Church would be better off spreading the Gospel message of Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection then to get involved in politics. But the fact that many Christians combine the two is their business. Should we not be allowed to vote?
What's next, Dumb people can't vote? What should the IQ cut off be for voting? Peoples life, circumstances, experiences and attitudes will help them dictate their political ideology. Religion is just a part of that. I could be wrong? I really don't know. I just feel like talking today.
Late, feeno
Ken, you know I respect your opinion and I see your point. As I said I wouldn't participate. The reason why is because I argue on a different level and I must stay on that level, as must you. But there are different strokes for different folks. Place yourself into a college student's life and ask yourself what he or she could do that would impact their campus filled with other students. It's after all, a student campaign to reach other students. It's not seeking to reach out to adults or scholars. It's a message that may resonate on their level and that's what I see them doing. And since that's the case I endorse what they do on the level it's intended. I don't expect we'll agree though. We don't have to. We're friends with the same goals.
Feeno.
It would take more then that to offended me, i was just a little confused and shocked, i never heard any youth pastors or anyone in the church i used to attend speak like that to non-believers when making a point.
I guess there's a first for everything!
Eitherway, i really dont think it helps your cause if people cant take you seriously, just a suggestion.
Thanks for having my back John. And for that next time I'll let you get an appetizer? Hopefully soon.
Sir Charles,
Those Churches you mentioned sounded pretty cool, I can't believe you left?
later, feeno
Here is something else I endorse but wouldn't participate in, Grassroots Atheism. There are others things I endorse on the level it's intended but wouldn't participate in.
Feeno
You remind me of all the guys who thought giving each other wedgies and lighting their farts were funny.
Yep, that's feeno! He's a hoot.
Hoot connotes owl. I'd say he's more like an ostrich.
That too.
Yep.
He and brad playing theology and ignoring how the real world works.
Well, at least the teenagers think they are cool.
I need to help Brad out a little. Brad is a way better Christian than I am. I'm not sure he would agree with me always. I only mentioned him because I also am not a fan of "Christian electoral politics".
Sorry Brad for any bad press.
Peace be with you all, feeno
Feeno,
You don't get it. In terms of real world morality and consequence saying something like, anybody "is a way better Christian than I am" is about the same as saying something like a person "is a way better Dungeons & Dragons player than I am." You and Brad willfully ignore the real world for your invisible relationship with a character in a book and expect people to respect you for it, like it is a signal of character. It isn't. It's make believe.
Feeno Anthony (who truly is one of my Homies) would not be offended by this remark.
No Feeno, I'm not offended at all so no apologies needed.
Seeing how there is probably 1000 Christians to every Buddhist in Texas and seeing how there is probably 1,000 Bibles sold to every Koran in Texas, Gee I wonder?
Although that may be true (it would have to be documented though), the point was that Christians are not the only religion in town, there are many others and Fox News could have a least checked with how others thought about it. Even though American is still predominately Christian that fact is slowly changing.
who do these people think they are? They not condoning pornography?
As it was said in the video clip, they were trying to make a point. Whether you agree or not isn't material.
I'm sure in a hundred years or so we can look back at this event and bookmark it as a great day in American history. And the world can thank the Atheists for their tireless efforts of trying to change the world for the better.
Sarcasm is not becoming of you Feeno. No one said anything about this being a pivotal event. Their efforts are to make a point and to make people think. I personally like John's idea of fiction for fiction or maybe myth for myth where copies of Babylonian creation myth, or Homer are exchanged for copies of the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.
I'm sorry you guys can't sleep at night knowing all that scary stuff is in the Bible.
Oh common on Feeno you know better than that. The only ones that scare me are the Pat Robertsons of the world. (And militant Islam)>
Later bitches
You crack me up.
Hey, and Feeno, the next time you and John hook up you guys better not forget me! :-)
Anthony
Count on it. you da man!
Thanks, feeno
Idiots like this come up with stunts because NOBODY listens to them to begin with...Atheism is bankrupt and a horrible faith proposition to begin with.
I agree with the future comment, all you do is associate yourself with smut by handing it out...Any fool can see the difference between what's contained within the bible and what the bible endorses, except for radical fools who want to make a square circle like some of these on this site.
I guess that's the atheist evangelism technique though...John calls all Christians and the religious brainwashed, then you take the book, whom even Robert Price says is beautifully written and trash it while saying you offer a better and more realistic worldview...Please! this further convinces me that the most vocal atheists are nothing but a bunch of whiners!
But Harvey you are among the people who are not convertible so naturally you think that. This strategy is not aimed at you.
I've argued with you for probably a couple of years and that's what I think about you. You are not unreachable. That is, not until some tragedy happens in your life at the wrong time (which I do not wish upon you my friend).
Harvey,
Honest question.
Why are you here?
All you do is come on here and tell us how much you hate being in our company.
So why?
If you got a straight shot to the creator of the universe aren't you just wasting your time coming on here? That time could be spent playing tag with Jesus or something.
Why Harvey?
Why?
Because all I see is a desperate and defensive man, fearful that if he can't control the ideas of everyone then his ideas may not be valid.
You aren't convincing me and I think you need to take a time out and go play with your imaginary friend.
Okay little boy.
Chuck, Harvey is probably the most cocksure believer who regularly visits here. He is unreachable.
I see you seem to be getting more and more frustrated with believers. I love your sarcastic humor, of course. But I've been at this for over four years. I have been repeating some of the same arguments over and over and over and...well, you get my point.
Do as you wish. But if you continue here don't let yourself burn out by getting too frustrated. There are many people who regularly read DC who never comment. Then out of the blue I'll get an email or a comment here from someone who says he or she has been lurking for a month or two or more and has finally decided not to believe.
Harvey will not be one of them. Keep in mind he's not our target audience. He's fodder, and so are some of the other Christians who post here. If they weren't here then our readers would not see how lame Christian arguments really are. Harvey keeps coming back but doesn't realize this, until now.
But I've grown to like him and some others. I was there once. I admire his tenacity. He too gets frustrated with us. But he's not our audience. Check the hits we get everyday. They are reading.
Thanks John.
Good advice.
Damn I meant to say earlier that Havery was NOT reachable and later that he is unreachable. Perhaps that was conveyed even though I said the exact opposite a couple of times.
You kindness was received and your accuracy in recognizing my burn-out.
I am only two weeks into officially "coming out" as an atheist after 20 painful months and when guys like Harvey start spouting off it pisses me off because they just don't understand the investment I've made in honestly trying to believe but, also honestly trying to be honest. It's just superficial on his part and the fact that he acts like his well-worn and easily accepted beliefs somehow take moral courage really burn me up.
In my opinion Harvey Burnett is in faith mostly for the money and fame. -->District supt ,what a hero.
Harvey says he follows Jesus,one wonders what good that does?....Harvey is the type who would call those people accused as witches and burned at the stake etc, as being "nothing but a bunch of whiners!"
Kids caught up in christian faiths that refuse blood to their children,or family of folks who died in johnstown type cults ..."nothing but a bunch of whiners!" too
Harvey is a fraud and a complete utter sham! and over time i came to realize he`s little more than a nasty thoughtless prick also even if he reads a bible and is a pastor.If you dont follow the faith that pays his wages,he wouldnt really care less about ya.John Loftus treats him reasonably well,Harvard uses Johns continuing welcome on this blog, and yet joins a blog specially designed created and aimed by others only for the reason of personally attacking John.
Still at least it exposes Harvey for the type of person he honestly is.As the saying goes, ya give a person enough rope, and sooner or later they`ll hang themselves.
He dont like the atheist movement,quite likely he sees it as a future threat to lowering the amount of faithful followers which supply him a wage at church and steady supply of people he can sell his insurance policies too.
And maybe he`s even a little worried his kids and grandchildren will look back on grand daddy someday,and be ashamed that grand daddy was such a wally who wasnt so grand and promoted such ignorance and ancient barbaric teachings with psychological abuse of myths about unproven ideas of hell, even to little children.
Harvey has called me a "whiner" also, he didnt like me reminding him and his blog readers that the christian cult i was born into caused excommunication of many families and separation of husbands from wives and parent from children and much sadness and pain that even led to quite a number of suicides.
Harvey would rather not hear about it.
He much prefers to live in blissful thoughts,of how wonderful he and his faith is.Just like many so called caring folks of faith,who talk about love and caring yet who`s actions promote continued faith abuse.
Id like to see the movement of non believers first take the abuse of laws that allow for "faith freedoms" ,in large group protests directly outside the doors of liberal churches.Holding them to some accountability of this supposed suggestion that the bible and Jesus is about love,pushing them to put their money where their mouth is to (start standing beside non believers) outside fundamentalist churches and approaching governments to force some change around these abusive rights of "faith freedoms" that have always enabled and allowed faith the legal right to abuse and harm folks.
Thats the treatment the Harveys of this world really need, to help them quickly sort some of their shit out.
The Bible has a considerable feel of "snuff porn" with a side of bondage/torture thrown in--so I see this exchange as porn for porn.
---
Oh, Harvey, Harvey, Harvey....
Is it possible that you could dialogue on this site without IMMEDIATELY resorting to name calling, bigotry and ad hominems? Yes there are times when such tactics may be inevitable (though not condoned), but I mean seriously, you left one comment on this post, and you've belittled every atheist that has ever lived into some reprehensible slimebag who is trying to destroy the world. Come back down to Earth man, and relax a little bit. Yikes...
As far as the Bible goes, there are certainly some absolutely beautiful parts of the Bible, and this should be expected, since it was written by over 40 different people for nearly 40 different audiences. There are some beautiful parts of the Illiad, and there are some parts, were we to accept them as absolute truth, that would shock and appall us. This is the nature of ancient fiction.
You say there are things in the Bible that are recorded, but not necessarily condoned. Very true. There are also things that God not only condones, but orders. God hardened Pharaoh's heart, all the while destroying Egypt with plagues, killing firstborn children and livestock, and then eventually wiping out the entire Egyptian army. This didn't have to be, but God made it so. This is despicable, and there's no spin that you can put on this Jewish folk lore that's going to make me change my mind. Exodus is unapologetic about God hardening Pharaoh's heart, and sending 10 plagues upon Egypt, just so he could show his power. That God is digusting and a terrible moral guide.
And, please don't call atheism a faith position. What you are saying is that it takes faith not to have faith. This is a simply an invalid assertion. This is like saying that if I don't love my neighbor, I must love not loving my neighbor. You are setting up a false dichotomy.
Are there things that atheists take on faith? Certainly. But, if I may speak for myself, I'd venture that none of those force us to believer that our family member and friends who don't believe likewise are going to roast for eternity. None of them causes us to stand in the public square and tell people how to live their lives. None of those beliefs is going to cause me to fly a plane into a building or fear monger my child into belief.
Religion is on a whole different plane than things that atheists take on faith. It is a different monster between accepting the laws of physics and chemistry that we have all encountered numerous times in our lives, and accepting the claims of religion. And you know this, and I know you know this because you are a pastor. You realize that it takes a little extra something to peddle your product, and that's why you've devoted your life to it.
Anyways, do try to be civilized from now on. Otherwise, what's the point in reading you? If I wanted to read how shitty and worthless someone thinks I am, I would frequent militant Islamic sites. I come here to whet my appetite for intellectual discussion.
John,
You said:"That is, not until some tragedy happens in your life at the wrong time (which I do not wish upon you my friend)."
And I know you don't wish tragedy upon me and neither do I upon you my friend...with that said let me deal with what you're saying for a second...
Now, you claim that I'm unreachable and "cocksure". Now, is this because I have, on my own, exposed myself to anti-Christian dogma such as yours, Ehrman, Price, and the lazy list goes one...and STILL have not found anything that you have said or that I have read to be any kind of threat to Christianity??? Is it because I can look at the problem of evil, which all of you admit is your BEST anti-God argument, and don't see or find and inconsistency with the nature and mercy of God???
I mean, I am sure of what I believe John. What I believe shapes my life not in some sort of hokey-poky way as I believe you may have expected, but in a tangible way that allows me to get involved in lifting burdens, exposing myself to being uncomfortable in order to help humanity, and actually DOING something to better humanity.
Not, that you don't contribute my friend, that's not what I infer. What I suggest is that Christ is more of a solid reason and foundation for all that I do. In fact if God doesn't exist everything you and I do is only a temporary illusion with no great cause meaning or effect in reality other than the temporal time frame in which we exist.
You believe in ultimate purposelessness. You "believe" and that's what it is ...a belief, that nothing has any more meaning than what you ascribe to it in the here and now...anything that you exhibit beyond that is FAITH plain and simple. That other atheists will follow your lead in the future and somehow the world will be better with atheism, is a FAITH proposition...and don't say you don't care. You, Dawkins and Hitchens and the lot care immensely about your FAITH growing.
If you're not "cocksure" about what you believe then why the HECK should I or anyone listen to you? I can hear and read any number of mindless idiots such as Chuck O or Gandy all day long and get a laugh...but you, being the illustrious leader should be every bit as "cocksure" as you say that I am...if not, then why do you do what you do?
If you're not "cocksure", then you've obviously subdued and brainwashed the minds of many of your readers into believing that you hold out some great life truth that they should be aware of...
So tell them that you're "cocksure" of your atheism! Last I knew you were arguing 'probabilities' and that wasn't too convincing either. Your "cock-sureness" should eagerly and readily render a definitive statement that 'there IS no God!' in all your materialistic glory...You see, I don't have room to be wrong, and the more I see only affirms it more. Do you?
I liked the old anti-Christ advocates you used to have on the board. they did actually 'teach" and research their positions. They also weren't a bunch of whiners like some of the new ones...but anyway...the beat goes on...
Harvey,
Is it because I can look at the problem of evil, which all of you admit is your BEST anti-God argument, and don't see or find and inconsistency with the nature and mercy of God???
All this really tells me is that you have a twisted sense of morality on this issue--it doesn't say anything about the existence or nonexistence of a God.
When you're in heaven do you plan on spending the first trillion years having God regale you with stories of how he drowned kids? Maybe he can take you back in time and show you what the kids looked like as they gasped for air--their lungs filling with water.
I only ask, because I assume you want to experience the FULLNESS of God, and since drowning kids is part of his fullness, you'll probably want to experience that glorious undertaking.
That'll make you feel like a man!
Harv
Care to list all the Jesus-inspired deeds you've done to inspire humanity this week?
I'll then pit mine against yours.
Otherwise, your whole post sounds like the whining self-rightesousness of a fearful man looking to seize false authority.
Gandalf said
' little more than a nasty thoughtless prick also even if he reads a bible and is a pastor'
Chuck O Connor said
"Okay little boy"
John, you are obviously a thoughtful and genuine guy. I thought your book was honest and written from the heart, and I support you in promoting debate and providing a forum for interaction between people of faith and atheists. But I'm struck with this post and several others like it at how infantile many of the posters on this site are. This porn stunt is pathetic stuff. A two to two thousand five hundred year old assorted collection of sacred texts is in no way equivalent to the eploitative genre of contemporary pornography. This kind of thing reaches nobody except the purile and inane.
The likes of O'Connor and Gandalf and their ilk have obviously been so badly burned by fundamentalist strains of Christian thinking that they have migrated to the opposing pole of atheist certainty and are standing by it calling names. An unwillingness to acknowledge the good that religion can do, and the fact that we share a common humanity capable of good and evil regardless of our 'faith' convictions, is most characteristic of the new atheism. It is a hectoring and childish clarion call in the dark for the disillusioned and lost. In search of certainty they grasp at the straws you offer. But the certainty of Loftus, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett
, Price et al is a chimera. Ultimately ALL is mystery. None of us has the answer. Science for all it's majestic sweep of knowledge acquisition in the past 200 hundred years is still not close to answering why are we here, how did something come from nothing and where are we going, and what is the purpose of this life? And whilst these questions are still up for grabs there will always be room for competing understandings of the universe, and no amount of name-calling or childish certainty (On either side) will change that.
---
Agnostic Chrisitan, I appreciate your post and your honesty. Loftus does not promote certainty. In fact, he has a post not too far back that says that agnosticism should be the default position for EVERYONE, atheist and believer alike.
We don't claim certainty, we just want Christians to admit that they don't have anything close to certainty. I hope you can understand that. That's the purpose of the new Atheist movement. For me, my deconversion started the day I admitted I might be wrong, than after months of study and probably years of thought, I realized that I really had NO good reasons to continue believing what I did.
"Science for all it's majestic sweep of knowledge acquisition in the past 200 hundred years is still not close to answering why are we here, how did something come from nothing and where are we going, and what is the purpose of this life?"
The only real question you have in there for science is "How" did something come from nothing? That is a question that science, in theory, is equipped to study and answer. But the "why" questions are, like I said before, question begging questions. They assume a purpose and ambition beyond the natural; in short, they assume the supernatural. If there is no supernatural, then those questions are literally meaningless. Where we are "going" today, may not be where we are "going" 200 years from now, and it certainly isn't where we were "going" 200 years before. I have no problem admitting that life is inherently purposeless, in the sense that I didn't have a purpose imbued into me.
Answering these questions doesn't prove anything, nor is their lack of answers evidence for either side of the argument, mostly because are so highly subjective and speculative in nature, and may actually be nonsensical.
---
Oh, Agnostic Christian, as far as Harvey is concerned (at whom those comments you quoted were directed), we should probably play nicer, but Harvey is really one of the more throughtless, crass, and hypocritical commenters on this site. Though his choice of words isn't quite as obvious, his undertone of spite, arrogance and lack of compassion for the struggles that many ex-Christians have gone through (I had a first hand encounter with this) shows you that non-believers are nothing to him but slime under his feet that he MUST wade through to get his treasure in the sky.
It's not only not a very good Christian attitude. It's not a good attitude for anyone to have.
Harvey, yes you do read our works and visit here. But most of the time when you comment you blast people. Only about 15% of the time do I see you discuss something with someone in a learning mode. A discussion means you think you can learn from someone else. But you seem to blast away most of the time. I admit I can learn from you, and many others. I try to carry on a discussion because of that. Only rarely do I blast people. And that's one difference between us.
And I don't yet think you understand the difference between affirming a claim and denying one, especially extra-ordinary ones. Let me take the example of who killed Jon Bene Ramsay, that decade or two long ago tragic murder. There are several scenarios and suspects. But to act with certainty that you know who did it is different, much different, than someone who says I just don't know, or someone who denies your claim. Either position seems much more defensible than to know with certainty who did it. Let's say that there are 5 suspects (I don't know if there are). If I deny that one of them is the killer then I may have an 80% chance of being right in my denial, you see. I say "may" because it depends on the evidence. But when we talk about an extraordinary claim coming from an ancient set of documents this problem is magnified a hundred fold, for there is no evidence of such things as a talking serpent, am axe head that floated, or a talking ass. The probability that theses things did not happen is on my side.
Christian Agnostic,
you said, "The likes of O'Connor and Gandalf and their ilk have obviously been so badly burned by fundamentalist strains of Christian thinking that they have migrated to the opposing pole of atheist certainty and are standing by it calling names."
Yes, I have been and if you read Harvey's comments about me specifically and atheists generally you will see his use of bullying tactics to assert his morality.
Now, if you are too steeped in christian culture to identify the psychological bullying of things like the doctrine of depravity, I can't help you with that but, I am not going to practice passivity in the face of bullies any longer.
I'll let John be MLK, I am going to be Malcolm X.
It seems that you still have the sado-masochistic aspect of christianity within your world-view and feel it is important to allow bullies to assert themselves without standing up for yourself.
I allowed them to hit me long enough. I am going to hit back.
AC,
You said, "It is a hectoring and childish clarion call in the dark for the disillusioned and lost. In search of certainty they grasp at the straws you offer. But the certainty of Loftus, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett
, Price et al is a chimera."
Present your "chimera" to my homosexual friends whose 14th amendment due process rights are denied because of your adherence to "mystery".
A bad idea is a bad idea and no amount of appeal to mystery will turn the accumulated bad ideas of christianity into something resembling a worthwhile notion.
To me it is more noble to call a bad idea what it is.
You?
It seems you'd prefer co-dependent half-measures that enable institutional thinking to feel moral in denying equal rights for the sake of superstition.
What would you have done when the leaders of the Southern Baptist Conference stood on the christian tradition to assert their right to own human beings? Would you have called slavery an unfortunate externality of that wonderful "chimera" known as christianity? I doubt it.
Become aware of how homosexuals in america are treated as sub-human individuals backed by the authority of law driven by self-righteous christians and, then you can shame me for my anger.
Anthony,
You said:"Oh, Agnostic Christian, as far as Harvey is concerned (at whom those comments you quoted were directed), we should probably play nicer,"
Well at least you do have some sort of sense until your MPD kicks in and directs you to your next statement:
You said:"but Harvey is really ione of the more throughtless, crass, and hypocritical commenters on this site.
Now, how is that...you offer weak arguments and I point them out. how is that thoughtless and hypocritical? In fact what the HECK are you talking about???
You said:"Though his choice of words isn't quite as obvious, his undertone of spite, arrogance and lack of compassion for the struggles that many ex-Christians have gone through (I had a first hand encounter with this) shows you that non-believers are nothing to him but slime under his feet that he MUST wade through to get his treasure in the sky."
Now, you ARE self described product of primordial slime, is that not correct? List one place where I've called YOU slime...In addition, I don't take the blame for your rejection of God and all that you've had to go through subsequently...last I knew this was a blog and not psychotherapy. Now, stand behind your own decisions to not believe and accept the package that comes along with it. I accept the package and burden of belief and a life of faith readily...I DON'T CARE what you think of me...thing is I wouldn't have cared BEFORE I met Christ and I certainly don't now...I have no debt to you especially on this blog. You are what you are and have experienced what you experience because of you...NOT God!
You said:"It's not only not a very good Christian attitude. It's not a good attitude for anyone to have."
Now, what type of authority do you have for telling me any kind of "Christian behavior"? I mean you are just out of the water all together...on one hand Christianity is bad for the world, on the other people who don't act up to a certain standard to you aren't "Christian" enough...this is the PERVERSION and confusion of atheism...Then who holds the moral standard for your disagreement with me and my action? What authority do I have to answer to under your rubric? You say my 'attitude' just isn't a good one to have...ACCORDING TO WHO? Why should I act in accordance with your needs or moral standard? Yours is no greater than mine and millions of others and in fact, I say that no human should act like YOU and that's the law!
What is there to make my conclusion of you and your actions any less valid than yours of me?
This is atheism at is finest, New or Old, it's the same senseless cry in the midst of white noise.
John,
You said:"But most of the time when you comment you blast people. Only about 15% of the time do I see you discuss something with someone in a learning mode."
John, I'll take that from you because you've been good and nice and have respected me, and we've had excellent conversations at times. So thanks for the criticism and I will dial it back a notch.
I'll only say this that learning, even though you've rejected God, shouldn't be a one way street...this is the difference.
I've learned how to sharpen my argument and also study some valid concerns of critics through this site. Some of which I don't have as good of an answer as I would like, but those are peripherial and certainly NOTHING that shakes my faith in any way...For instance, Dr. Avolos on Sargon and the resultant lessons surrounding it is a GREAT study and one that I have not heard many Christians address other than by minimizing the issue...Does it shake my faith ...HECK NO! Should Christians be better informed? ABSOLUTELY YES!
With that said, you should be yet in the school of learning about Christianity also. Like you, my opinion is that your lack of true understanding led you to atheism. you say the same thing about me being a Christians and that's a fundamental difference. For me more knowledge only confirms my faith the more. Your premise requires that more knowledge drives one from Christianity and religion and for the hundreds of years that people have said that...NOTHING has been further from the truth in real time.
To be fair, I can't say that you pingenhole as much as the others, but if you want Christians to learn, then you should reciprocate the favor.
John,
BTW, your analogy of "possibility" doesn't consider all the 'possibilities". The problem is that you eliminate certain 'possibilities" based on what you have experienced historically. That's the breakdown and the fallacy of your argument.
Secondly, every claim has a different set of proof burden. The burden of proof for criminal and civil courts are generally two different sets of burden. You CONFUSE and BLUR the issues claiming the same standard of proof for historical evidences and you would for other events etc...In other words, when it comes to the bible you make a special pleading to "extraordinary" evidences like many of your predecessors, when that burden is not fair or balanced. In fact that's not the way ANY historical research is done...In other words we have some roman emperor saying some great thing (whatever that is) and all of a sudden we change the standard??? This is disingenuous and further takes credibility away from your premise.
For you, your probabilities are shaped by your worldview and your preconditioned expectation. NOT by full investigation of the fact.
As I have always held, you like most atheists, EXCLUDE from the stack of evidence certain criteria that you do not wish to consider from the beginning. Then you cross the burden of proof to create some bogus standard...like the NUT that says he won't believe anything about Jesus without VIDEO evidence...while he believes things about Alexander The Great based on historical records...totally foolish and inconsistent...(Now this has been argued on THIS site by one of your readers)
The miraculous claims of the biblical record DOES NOT out of hand make the record incredulous. You think so, I don't!
Harvey,
Do you know anyone with MPD?
It is a real condition.
Unlike sin.
"List one place where I've called YOU slime"
Didn't you compare him to a crack and heroin addict and someone suffering from a mental illness?
How is that an example of christianity?
You might think you have strong arguments against our atheism but, your behavior is the strongest argument against the truth claims of christianity.
Harvey,
"on one hand Christianity is bad for the world, on the other people who don't act up to a certain standard to you aren't "Christian" enough"
The fact that christians don't live up to the moral standard they claim is the reason why christian superstition is bad for the world.
Harvey,
I honestly respect your right to believe what you want to believe in the privacy of your home and community. That's fine.
What isn't is when it becomes the properly basic truth which defines public policy yet, the institutions that are looking to drive this public policy seek tax exemption.
If you want the religious privilege I am willing to grant you then don't abuse it in seeking unquestioned authority. If religion wants to be part of the public square in terms of regulated science and individual choice (e.g. homosexual marriage) then it should have the consistency to rescind their tax priveleges.
Harvey, you have one set of rules for the world and another for yourself and that to me is the source of tyranny.
It is why I treat you with disrespect.
Rescind your tax priveleges and step into the limitations of the world you condemn and I might give your exclusive (and willfully untested) ideas some respect.
Havey,
Do you know the concept of Bayesian inference?
Because your description of "possibility" seems to indicate you don't.
Christian Agnostic expects that if everyone followed Christian Agnostic law like good little faithful following the messiah,this world would be fine.
Was he really under the impression that all atheist blogs should be run like some church?.Places where nobodies allowed to speak their mind,and it takes thousands of years for things to change.And every ones expected to act the same.
Why should i be expected to cave in to his laws of right conduct,quite likely he would even try to suggest the slaves and those under apartheid should all have been peaceful protesters.In keeping with the laws of the opinion messiah Christian Agnostic.
Maybe he thinks those protesting the continued slaughter of whales,should all be ashamed of themselves because they dont happen to meet the standard of the great messiah Christian Agnostic.Most likely he cant understand what reason there might be, for protest boats to need be causing some havoc at sea, sticking it right up the Japanese whalers.
Who knows what Christian Agnostics church experiences were like,but it dont matter because according to the law of the great messiah Christian Agnostic he dont care, nobody has the right to act any different to his dictation even if they happen to have experienced situations a whole lot worse than he has.
Christian Agnostic feels everyone should have to agree we ALL should feel we have all the time in the world,to pussy foot around always being pleasant about everything like some English toffy nosed twit.Because "HE" is quite happy if it takes another thousand years for matters to change.
He says..."The likes of O'Connor and Gandalf and their ilk have obviously been so badly burned by fundamentalist strains of Christian thinking"
Yet even though obviously his brain tells him people have different experiences,his nose is shoved so far up his own arse he still expects everyone should be acting exactly the same.According to CA, laws of right conduct.
Christian Agnostic ive had quite a large number of friends suicide because of abusive faith,they tend to quietly hang themselves or take overdose etc .What happens? ..people like you might say oh how sad something needs to change these abusive faiths are not christian faiths like my faith is...blah blah
Then they walk off to continue discussing matters NICELY for another few hundred years.
While many folks elsewhere still continue on suffering on, in abusive faiths.
What a waste of life i see it as,the world is full of ACs who hardly even bat a eyelid at these deaths because of faith abuse.Folks like you wouldnt bother to care that much, unless these folks who suffer,instead walked into your liberal church with explosives strapped around their body,and that way (shared their pain) with you and your family more in a personal way.
Not that im suggesting this type of action,im just trying to explain that dormant folks like you possibly wont really learn much, until you personally experience some of the heat involved with abusive faith yourself.
While the Christian Harveys of this world keep telling non faithful folks, we have no possibility of ever being moral without input from gods,while they falsely abuse us with such rubbish.Why the hell should we be expected to be always so polite?.
Specially when some of these bible bashers continue to promote and allow faithful folks to drive some of our family and friends through faith abuse which causes stress and pain that at times still ends in excommunication and even death through suicide.
Why? should i have respect for faithful folks accusing non faithful of lacking ability of being moral,when its so obvious the presence of their gods and use of their bibles makes them no better ...And seems often even makes them even worse
What a great way to bring people in need to Christ! Smut for Spiritual Miracle Ultimate Truth S.M.U.T!
What a great way to bring people in need to Christ! Smut for
Spiritual
Miracle
Ultimate
Truth
What a great way to bring people in need to Christ! Smut for
Spiritual
Miracle
Ultimate
Truth
Come on fellow Christ followers bring a new friend to this both with their old porn and let them receive their first bible!
I think this "Atheist Agenda" may need to rethink their Agenda because I think their Agenda may just lead people to Christ!
AMEN! :)
Most of the Bibles that got turned in for porn were probably stolen to begin with. A bunch of atheists went down to Motel 666 and stole the Gideon Bibles to turn in for free porn. No real Christians participated.
jesus.
I think your wrong on your meaning for smut.
Its probably more like
Science
Motivates
Us
To reject God
Just to be clear I support the right of homosexual people to marry as do many progressive Christians, and I think it is a terrible discredit to the church that they have spent so much time fighting gay rights when there are more pressing issues
Post a Comment