When atheists go too far

Osgoodisgood

philologos wrote: »

How many Young Earth Creationists do you know? I know a few and I think that their thinking on Creation is misguided, but I know for a fact that in the vast majority of cases that they aren't idiots and that in the vast majority of cases they are civil about it.

Civil? Possibly. Idiots? Possibly. Delusional? Almost certainly. If any group other than a religious group claimed anything as barkingly mad as a 6000 year old earth they'd be whisked away in a rubber truck. It's incredible to think that not only do such people demand respect but they also want the right to double park outside their culthouse on a Sunday morning.

philologos

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

So when atheists air their views they've gone too far but when a christian does it it's considerate?

Can you see where this gets tough for me to follow?

Where did I say what's in bold? The intention between a Christian telling people about Jesus and an atheist telling believers that they are deluded / insane / idiots / etc clearly differs.

One is telling people in the hope that they might come to know God and put their relationship right with Him because it will change their lives for the better both here and in the hereafter.

The other is telling people for a variety of reasons in the best case in terms of airing their opinion in the very worst case the most obnoxious of superiority complexes.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

One is telling people in the hope that they might come to know God and put their relationship right with Him because it will change their lives for the better both here and in the hereafter.

The other is telling people for a variety of reasons in the best case in terms of airing their opinion in the very worst case the most obnoxious of superiority complexes.

One is telling them that if they don't accept God he will punish them for eternity in hell. That is obnoxious.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

One is telling them that if they don't accept God he will punish them for eternity in hell. That is obnoxious.

I don't see how it is if it is true that they need to accept that Jesus has died in their place to restore their relationship with Him. Even if it was obnoxious it couldn't be regarded as a claim to superiority in that Christians regard themselves like others in humanity to be sinners who need a Saviour.

Paparazzo

philologos wrote: »

How many Young Earth Creationists do you know? I know a few and I think that their thinking on Creation is misguided, but I know for a fact that in the vast majority of cases that they aren't idiots and that in the vast majority of cases they are civil about it.

I've news for you. They are idiots!

Osgoodisgood

philologos wrote: »

Where did I say what's in bold?

The thread title does.

The intention between a Christian telling people about Jesus and an atheist telling believers that they are deluded / insane / idiots / etc clearly differs.

If you're referring to my post calling YECs delusional then what's the problem?

One is telling people in the hope that they might come to know God and put their relationship right with Him because it will change their lives for the better both here and in the hereafter.

I'll bet that sounds generous to you. It sounds like pompous, mind numbing twaddle to someone who has no interest in your supernatural friend. It's particularly galling when the recipient of this sage counsel has already identified themself as a non-believer.

philologos

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

I'll bet that sounds generous to you. It sounds like pompous, mind numbing twaddle to someone who has no interest in your supernatural friend. It's particularly galling when the recipient of this sage counsel has already identified themself as a non-believer.

The thing is I don't see how it is pompous. It isn't saying anything about me, but everything about God. That's how I want to live my life, to glorify Him in everything that I do in my life.

The only thing I aim to boast in is Jesus Christ. If giving glory to God rather than to myself is pompous then I don't know what isn't. How does that make me self-important in any way?

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how it is if it is true that they need to accept that Jesus has died in their place to restore their relationship with Him. Even if it was obnoxious it couldn't be regarded as a claim to superiority in that Christians regard themselves like others in humanity to be sinners who need a Saviour.

If it was true it would be doubly obnoxious. God would be obnoxious for inflicting an eternity of hell on non believers and Christians would be obnoxious for accepting this as just.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

If it was true it would be doubly obnoxious. God would be obnoxious for inflicting an eternity of hell on non believers and Christians would be obnoxious for accepting this as just.

How would Christians be obnoxious for accepting that God's will is just? Although personally if you call God obnoxious you might as well call me obnoxious for agreeing that God is righteous and He is the living standard of what is good and evil.

There is truth and falsity. I'm claiming that God is true and everything which rejects Him is ultimately false. I'm willing to accept the consequences that that might bear in the case of those who disagree with me. I only aim to be gracious, but ultimately if they think I'm obnoxious that's the final call really isn't it?

Einhard

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well I'm not a scientist, so yeah, you're an idiot if you believe in fairies.

I think that's quite an ignorant approach to be honest, insofar as it relates to believer sin particular. If, for example, believing in fairies brought me great advantages, and few if any drawbacks, would I be an idiot for believing in them?

Something similar applies to faith. I don't believe in God myself, but I can appreciate the comfort that such belief brings to people, in terms of facing death, or the death of a loved one, or just in the sense of having something to turn to, whether in a crisis, or just in a quiet moment. Of course, there are significant societal drawbacks with religion, but in the main, there are no real individual disadvantages for regular Irish believers. So, they gain something that means a lot to them, and they lose relatively little- so can it really be said that they are idiots for believing?

squod

philologos wrote: »

How would Christians be obnoxious for accepting that God's will is just? Although personally if you call God obnoxious you might as well call me obnoxious for agreeing that God is righteous and He is the living standard of what is good and evil.

There is truth and falsity. I'm claiming that God is true and everything which rejects Him is ultimately false. I'm willing to accept the consequences that that might bear in the case of those who disagree with me. I only aim to be gracious, but ultimately if they think I'm obnoxious that's the final call really isn't it?

This is AH. What a lot of people here are passing off as atheism is veiled satanism. They just won't admit that. Pretty much wasting time on these. This debate has been covered many many times and the darwinian fanboys will put the same argument in front of you time and time again.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

Absolute tosh. You claim that God has no real impact, therefore He doesn't?

When something is unverifiable it has no real tangible impact on our world so it is as a good as nonexistant.

Not just your God. All supernatural (non)entities.

He clearly does have an impact in peoples lives whether you believe that God is just a mere concept or a living Saviour.

That's as real an impact as you're going to get.

Gibberish.

That's neither real nor an impact. An impact is what happens when a stone hits the ground from a drop. It's a measurable phenomenen.

I used to have all those feelings you speak of about Santa. Does that make Santa real?

Of course it doesn't.

Don't be absurd.

ShooterSF

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im a scientist myself and in response to claims made by people be they god or whatever the correct scientific standpoint is "we dont know" it is most certainly not to call people an idiot. You ask someone to explain their conviction at least.

What?! What about unverifiable mental illnesses like hearing voices? Science shouldn't just say unverifiable. It should make the sane assumption that insanity is much more likely and search for a cause and solution.
If you wan't to say "We don't know" you should really follow up with "but it's highly unlikely".

Einhard

squod wrote: »

This is AH. What a lot of people here are passing off as atheism is veiled satanism:eek:. They just won't admit that. Pretty much wasting time on these. This debate has been covered many many times and the darwinian fanboys will put the same argument in front of you time and time again.

Note to self: never attempt to engage squod in rational debate, or civil discourse for that manner, again.


EDIT:

...will put the same argument in front of you time and time again.

Yeah, as opposed to the religious with their millennia old book and millennia old arguments...

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When something is unverifiable it has no real tangible impact on our world so it is as a good as nonexistant.

Not sure this is true. First, whether God does or does not exist, "His" impact on the world has been massive.

Secondly, gravity was unverifiable until comparatively recently. Did it just come into being once Newton discovered it?

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

How would Christians be obnoxious for accepting that God's will is just? Although personally if you call God obnoxious you might as well call me obnoxious for agreeing that God is righteous and He is the living standard of what is good and evil.

There is truth and falsity. I'm claiming that God is true and everything which rejects Him is ultimately false. I'm willing to accept the consequences that that might bear in the case of those who disagree with me. I only aim to be gracious, but ultimately if they think I'm obnoxious that's the final call really isn't it?

If you think it is just that I should be subjected to an eternity of punishment in hell because I don't accept the existence of God, then that is an obnoxious view to take.

I find it ironic that in a thread started on the premise that some atheists go too far, we see a Christian openly and happily say that atheists should be punished for eternity in hell just for being atheists.

TheBlueHaze

................Peace to all earthlings

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

If you think it is just that I should be subjected to an eternity of punishment in hell because I don't accept the existence of God, then that is an obnoxious view to take.

I don't think you should. I think you should believe and trust in Jesus so that you can be saved. I don't think anyone should go to hell, but many ultimately choose to do so.

dvpower wrote: »

I find it ironic that in a thread started on the premise that some atheists go too far, we see a Christian openly and happily say that atheists should be punished for eternity in hell just for being atheists.

I don't think I would say I am happy at the prospect of anyone going to hell. I would prefer if people believed, were saved and lived for God in this life and in the next. The thought of people going to hell is something that I as a Christian wouldn't like to see happen to anyone.

TheBlueHaze wrote: »

Reading this thread makes me feel so freeeeeeeeeeeee*

*From the shackles of religion that is

It makes me feel free too, because I am.*

* Of the chains of sin and death. Of the chains of being trapped by mere human expectations.

starlit

hell bent no furry so...to be honest they do take things too far but ignorance is bliss! No point worrying about it whatever anyone believes or don't believe shouldn't be forced upon other people. Everyone is different they either believe in something like religion or spirituallity or not or whatever everyone has there own kind of thing going on.

TheBlueHaze

philologos wrote: »

It makes me feel free too, because I am.*

* Of the chains of sin and death. Of the chains of being trapped by mere human expectations.

Damn you for quoting my post which was edited to genuinely avoid offending you.

philologos

I'm not offended at what anyone has posted here really. They are entitled to their point of view even if I strongly disagree with them. That's called a free discussion. People sometimes need to stop being hyper-defensive about everything. I'm generally up for a good discussion on these type of things.

Freddie59

Newaglish wrote: »

Your Israel signature in this instance is incredibly ironic.

Whatever.:rolleyes:

TimeToShine

Sadly, every world religion claims that only its followers will go to heaven. The concept of hell being empty is completely alien to religious people. Surely that's a plausible concept? If God existed, would he send 70%+ of human beings to hell? Or is there a middle ground? Personally, I like to believe that if someone lives a virtuous life guided by his own sense of morality and does his/her best to adhere to this moral code then he/she will go to heaven. Religion is based 100% on what family you're born into. The more lenient your parents are about Religion, the more likely you are (in this day and age) to start questioning it. Seperating people because they were brought up by parents with a different religion is stupidity of the highest calibre IMO, and the idea of "you're not my religion therefore you're going to hell" should be abolished completely.

Assuming heaven and hell exist of course.

Freddie59

gbee wrote: »

I think you are entitled to an opinion, however, if you are saying the world is flat and it's not, and furthermore if you threaten Blasphemy if I try and point out to you that the world is in fact round ~ ?

I think stupid and wrong is only the start of it.

PSSST, I'll let you in on my little secret, I keep this to myself, but I don't believe than any sane man can believe in a divinity.

How so?

Chuck Stone

Einhard wrote: »

Not sure this is true. First, whether God does or does not exist, "His" impact on the world has been massive.

Not a measurable impact like that of a meteorite.

Secondly, gravity was unverifiable until comparatively recently. Did it just come into being once Newton discovered it?

True, but it was an observable phenomenenenenen - things fall.



.

gosuckonalemon

Philologos you are both entertaining and frightening in equal measures.

I think it's ok to live your live worshippin some fake being or "God" as you call him but take it easy on those who have enough sense to know that it's all a load of BS.

sandmanporto

As far as I'm concerned Dawkins is as bad as those religious fanatics but he's on the other side of the fence. He really should shut his mouth! He's a very annoying man and he's kinda robotic! he's not hte type of guy you'd have a bit of craic with at the bar so he's trying to make up for it criticizing religion lol

philologos

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Philologos you are both entertaining and frightening in equal measures.

At least what I am saying is having some form of an impact

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

I think it's ok to live your live worshippin some fake being or "God" as you call him but take it easy on those who have enough sense to know that it's all a load of BS.

You claim that God is "fake", and a "load of BS", and that I have no sense etc etc. This seems to be just a drive by ad-hominem much like the other insinuations that I'm not educated and so on.

Let me know when you actually have something substantial to say.

Tomtata

Its very simple folks this paragraph explains it all,

Challenging religious dogma starts early on. “The main obstacle to the spread of atheism in the modern world is the religious indoctrination of children,” he says. “The labelling of children is the key to religious ambition. Children are labelled with the religion of their parents. But there is no such thing as a Catholic child and people should not acknowledge this presumption - just a child of Catholic parents. In the same way we would think it bizarre to refer to a child as a ‘post modernist child’ or a ‘Marxist child’, we shouldn’t accept a religious label either.

Richard Dawkins and the many that will follow him are heroes of the modern world - Supporting the Catholic Church means supporting paedophile men sticking their penises in young boys. Or have you forgetting what child abuse actually is.

Does he challenge people's religious beliefs you're damn right he does and its about time we all take a page from his book.

philologos

Tomata - Christianity != RCC, RCC == Christianity, RCC != All religion.

That's the problem with much discussion about "religion" on boards. It takes this broad thing and assumes it only makes reference to Roman Catholicism.