Here’s the result of an atheism survey, as answered by Pedro Timoteo, operator of wayofthemind.org. It provides another interesting look into the atheist mindset.
My comments follow in bold type.
Without further ado…
Why do you not believe in God?
For exactly the same reason that you don’t believe in every other god than yours.
Hmmm, I seem to recall Mr. Timoteo claiming in his “16 Common Myths About Atheism” that religious believers were “brainwashed”. Is he now admitting that he’s brainwashed, too?
Where do your morals come from?
Empathy, mostly. And reason, and a sense of fairness and justice.
Yeah, but WHERE do those values originate? How about answering the question?
What is the meaning of life?
I could tell you mine, but I can’t tell you yours, or anybody else’s. What, you believe it should be dictated to us by some outside source?
Nice non-answer. Bad dodge.
Is atheism a religion?
No. Incidentally, that question implies that having a religion is something universal, even if it’s “atheism”. That is wrong; it’s like saying everyone has a car, even if yours is “feet”.
I’d like to know where the question implies that “having a religion is something universal.” Thanks for the circular answer. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?
Depends on the kind of trouble. If I can do something about it, I do it. If not, I deal with it in many different ways, which tend to include friends, family, getting slightly drunk, and listening to heavy metal music. Not all at the same time, of course.
It’s interesting that that an atheist considers religion some kind of crutch, but drinking isn’t.
Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?
Yes, in the same way we’d try to convince an alcoholic or drug addict to do something about their addiction.
So religion is some kind of addiction akin to drug and alcohol abuse, but I’d venture to guess that Mr. Timoteo’s use of alcohol to “cope” isn’t considered abuse, is it?
Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?
Hitler and Stalin had moustaches. So, having a moustache makes you a mass murderer! What, you’re saying that their moustaches didn’t inspire their actions? Neither did Stalin’s atheism (Hitler was a Catholic). The Inquisition, on the other hand, was caused by what, exactly…?
What a dumb analogy. The answer is, YES.
Now Mr. Timoteo claims to be able to get into the mind of Josef Stalin and assure us that his atheism didn’t have any bearing on his personal decisions? And we’re also expected to believe that same old tired claim that Hitler was a Christian, when anybody with half a brain knows that Hitler’s belief system was bogus and used to manipulate and control people.
How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?
See: flat earth, geocentrism, demonic posession as an explanation for diseases, slavery, and many other times when billions of people were wrong.
Hello... most of those beliefs were not from Christianity. And the belief in geocentrism didn’t invalidate the writings of the Greek philosophers, did it?
Science has been proven wrong numerous times, but we don’t dump it for that reason. It’s called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Why does the universe exist?
“Why” is the wrong question. “How” would be better. How, exactly? I don’t know, it’s not my field of expertise, sorry. But I don’t take the easy way out and say “Goddidit.”
But that lack of expertise doesn’t prevent Mr. Timoteo from pontificating, does it? Why does saying "goddidit" make it “the easy way out”, and why does that make the idea of God null and void?
How did life originate?
Again, I’m not a biologist, but I don’t see the need for a supernatural cause there.
Based on what? If he's not a biologist, does that just mean your his beliefs against God are based on personal prejudice alone?
Is all religion harmful?
Yes, because even the most “harmless” ones teach you to replace critical thinking and skepticism with wishful thinking.
Aren’t Darwinists also guilty of “wishful thinking”?
This is hilarious. Mr. Timoteo subscribes to one of the most bogus Urban Legends atheists cite against Christians: that Christians are incapable of critical thought or skepticism. I was just wondering then, if that’s true, why don’t Christians over the age of 5 believe in Santa Claus, and why haven’t Christians swallowed the whole Darwin thing hook, line, and sinker? Oh, that’s right… Christians are “brainwashed”!
So, back to the question: how does this belief of yours prove that religion is “harmful”, Mr. Timoteo?
What’s so bad about religious moderates?
They believe that any religious creed is above criticism, simply because it is a religious creed. So, they protect extremists, and prevent rational discussion of religion.
Excuse me, Mr. Timoteo, I think you just described what is known as dogmatism. Dogmatism is what extremists preach, not moderates. Your statement is incorrect.
Is there anything redeeming about religion?
People may feel better when, after a catastrophe, they somehow still feel that “someone above cares”. But that’s wishful thinking again… and it often keeps them from actually doing something about it. So, no.
Now that is an interesting portrait about the atheist, because Christopher Hitchens wasn’t able to answer a similar question any more honestly than Pedro Timoteo. The correct answer is: yes.
Religion has many redeeming qualities, whether or not you’re a believer. To say otherwise is a lie.
What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?
Which one? And what if you believe in the wrong one? Anyway, I believe a good god would prefer a decent unbeliever to a vicious believer… and, as for an evil god, only a coward would ever serve him.
Another non-answer and a poor attempt to dodge the question.
Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?
No. Something is either true, or it isn’t. Why such a fear of reality?
Then why should we respect atheism? Simply because atheists claim their beliefs are true?
Are atheists smarter than theists?
Technically, no, but statistically they probably are. For instance, the percentage of atheists among scientists is much greater than among the general populace.
The answer is, statistics suggest smarter people tend to be non-religious. There was a survey done in 1996 to see how many eminent scientists in the National Academy of the Sciences believed in God or an afterlife, and the results, when compared to a similar survey taken 80 years before, revealed that about 1/3 of scientists that are in the NAS have a strong belief in God or an afterlife. Another 15% are agnostic. About 40% are atheistic.
Also, a survey of belief based on IQ revealed that people with higher IQ’s had a greater tendency to be non-religious. The differences though, are more profound among people that have very high IQ’s, which is a very small part of the population.
But does that mean atheists and agnostics are smarter than believers? The studies don’t say anything about the respondents’ upbringing, which has a lot to do with shaping a person’s beliefs.
Also, keep in mind that most pastors are college educated. Pastors in medium to large churches often hold a Masters or a Doctorate.
The jury is still out on the intelligence argument.
Here are 2 links that deal with the intelligence issue:
http://www.doxa.ws/other/smarter2.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html#394313A0r003
How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?
If he existed — which isn’t certain — I’m almost sure that it was Paul, not Jesus, who invented the “he died for your sins; accept him as your savior and be saved” thing. In other words: the information we have about the historical Jesus is far from reliable.
The accounts of Jesus are as historically reliable as any other ancient texts. In the opinions of many historians, the accounts of Jesus are more reliable than other ancient historical sources because they can be dated so closely to the time of the original events. Mr. Timoteo doesn’t understand much about ancient history, either.
Perhaps Mr. Timoteo needs to review his Biblical history a bit more. What the Apostle Paul was quoting was what He was taught by Peter and the other Apostles, whom he had contact with. Oops, I forgot, the Bible isn’t a reliable source of history. My bad.
Would the world be better off without any religion?
Oh, yes. Without religion in the middle ages, we would be at Star Trek-like levels today — not just in terms of technology, but of society. Religion is the thing that’s holding humanity back the most, and always has been.
Golly Gee Willikers, Mr. Wizard, just think of how neat-o the world would be if those nasty old religious guys hadn’t slowed down human development! We’d be living on Mars right now!
This is another ignorant belief of the average atheist: that Christians have slowed down human progress (although they really can’t back up their claims with anything resembling facts).
The truth is, clerics from both the Church and from the Islamic faith were the preservers and protectors of the ancient works of Greek and Roman historians, philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. Very little of what we know about ancient history has managed to survive to this day. Without the help of both Christianity and Islam, we’d have next to nothing.
Also, there is no doubt that Christianity was absolutely vital in the development of western civilization and culture, the most technologically advanced culture in the world for most of the last 600 years.
What happens when we die?
It’s over for us, but we can leave memories and deeds, and can have made the world a better place for our children and their children.
That’s the first intellectually honest answer by Mr. Timoteo in the whole questionnaire. Real atheists don’t believe in an afterlife. But they sure do believe all other kinds of funny stuff!
Pedro Timotheo puts in his 2 cents worth by adding:
Now, I’d add a few ones:
Isn’t atheism just hatred of God?
Do you hate Thor? Or just don’t believe he exists or ever existed? Well, it’s the same thing here.
No, it’s not. Atheists love to mock the names of God and Jesus because they know it upsets religious believers. They also bash the teachings of the Bible by referring to God as “evil”. On top of that, they engage in all forms of blasphemy in their attacks against Christians. Whether they care to admit it or not, they do hate God, or at least the idea of a god, and it shows in what they post on the internet.
How can you be sure God doesn’t exist, if you’re not all-knowing?
I’m as much sure God doesn’t exist as I am about unicorns or werewolves, and for the same reason: there’s exactly zero evidence for all of them.
This is the ultimate expression of atheist intellectual dishonesty. There IS evidence for God, but atheists don’t accept it. That evidence is based on historical testimony and observations of nature and the Universe. Mr. Timoteo might want to read about Anthony Flew's change of heart (and YES, we know he's a non-religious "deist"... but there's still hope!).
An intellectually honest atheist says, “I’m not convinced that God exists, based on the evidence I’ve seen so far”, but to say that “There is no evidence” is nothing more than a prejudiced assumption.
Atheism, as exemplified by Pedro Timoteo, is presumptive, condescending, and intellectually dishonest. It’s no wonder that in a university opinion poll, people find atheists less trustworthy than religious believers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1601278/posts
17 comments:
"Hmmm, I seem to recall Mr. Timoteo claiming in his “16 Common Myths About Atheism” that religious believers were “brainwashed”. Is he now admitting that he’s brainwashed, too?"
Not at all. He's comparing his LACK of belief to yours; any statements about "brainwashing" are in reference to your belief, not your lack thereof.
"Yeah, but WHERE do those values originate? How about answering the question?"
He DID answer the question: Empathy and reason. Fairness and justice follow from those.
"Nice non-answer. Bad dodge."
It was a nonsensical question, assuming, without reason, that life must have an objective "meaning".
"It’s interesting that that an atheist considers religion some kind of crutch, but drinking isn’t."
He never said it wasn't; indeed, it is a common one, but unlike theism it doesn't rely on superstition. Also, it is rare for drinkers to threaten an afterlife of torture on those who don't indulge.
"So religion is some kind of addiction akin to drug and alcohol abuse, but I’d venture to guess that Mr. Timoteo’s use of alcohol to “cope” isn’t considered abuse, is it?"
Nice ad hominem; and you complain that HE dodges questions?
"Hello... most of those beliefs were not from Christianity."
Non-sequitor. The point was that people believing something doesn't make it true.
"And the belief in geocentrism didn’t invalidate the writings of the Greek philosophers, did it?"
See previous answer.
"Science has been proven wrong numerous times, but we don’t dump it for that reason. It’s called throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
Science, unlike religion, is not a fixed set of beliefs; it is a methodology that continually revises its outlook on the world as new evidence is gathered.
"Based on what? If he's not a biologist, does that just mean your his beliefs against God are based on personal prejudice alone?"
This barely even makes sense. Although I congratulate you for being able to simultaneously use a non-sequitor and an ad hominem in order to defend an argument from ignorance. That's got to be some kind of logical fallacy world record.
"Aren’t Darwinists also guilty of “wishful thinking”?"
This is both irrelevant and false.
"I was just wondering then, if that’s true, why don’t Christians over the age of 5 believe in Santa Claus..."
How is a belief in Santa Claus any different than a belief in YHWH?
"...and why haven’t Christians swallowed the whole Darwin thing hook, line, and sinker?"
Because they've been fooled into believing the dishonest pseudo-science of creationism because of their adherence to religious faith and their ignorance of evolutionary biology.
"Excuse me, Mr. Timoteo, I think you just described what is known as dogmatism."
No, he described something more akin to political correctness: the idea that religious beliefs, simply because they are religious, should be above criticism, questioning, or mockery.
"Religion has many redeeming qualities, whether or not you’re a believer. To say otherwise is a lie."
No, to say otherwise is to disagree on what can be considered "redeeming" (a subjective term if I ever heard one). I happen to agree that religion has redeeming qualities, but I don't feel the need to call people liars if they disagree, because I'm not so arrogant as to believe that my opinion is universal truth.
"Then why should we respect atheism?"
Nobody's asking you to. Question it. Criticize it. Mock it. Go ahead. It's a free country.
"This is another ignorant belief of the average atheist: that Christians have slowed down human progress (although they really can’t back up their claims with anything resembling facts)."
I happen to disagree with Mr. Timoteo on this issue, as well, but things like the religious opposition to stem cell research, and the continued existence of the nonsense of creationism. Also, Mr. Timoteo did not mention Christianity by name in this answer, so your paraphrasing of his response as an attack against Christians is not accurate.
"That’s the first intellectually honest answer by Mr. Timoteo in the whole questionnaire."
No, it's not. It's just the first that you couldn't find a logically fallacious way to attack.
"Atheists love to mock the names of God and Jesus because they know it upsets religious believers."
Yes, we do. And we can, because it's a free country. And you can make ignorant attacks against atheism all you like. Everyone wins, as long as they're tough enough to not let their feelings get hurt by someone else's blog.
"They also bash the teachings of the Bible by referring to God as “evil”."
Believing, as many do, that YHWH's mass murdering and demand for blood sacrifice are evil does not dismiss all of the Bible's teachings.
"On top of that, they engage in all forms of blasphemy in their attacks against Christians."
Once again, it's a free country. Deal with it.
"Whether they care to admit it or not, they do hate God, or at least the idea of a god, and it shows in what they post on the internet."
Whether you can accept it or not, there is a big difference between hating a god, hating the idea of a god, and hating people who believe in god. One can hate the idea of god or religion without hating either the hypothetical entity or the people who choose to believe in and worship it.
"This is the ultimate expression of atheist intellectual dishonesty. There IS evidence for God, but atheists don’t accept it."
Because atheists have a high standard for evidence: they won't accept arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity, or good old fashioned wishful thinking.
"An intellectually honest atheist says, “I’m not convinced that God exists, based on the evidence I’ve seen so far”, but to say that “There is no evidence” is nothing more than a prejudiced assumption."
Would saying there is "no compelling evidence" be an acceptable compromise?
"Atheism, as exemplified by Pedro Timoteo, is presumptive, condescending, and intellectually dishonest."
First of all, Mr. Timoteo doesn't speak for all atheists, and second of all, his remarks were none of these things, you have simply twisted around what he said because you hate the idea that people do not believe what you believe. While I don't agree with many of Mr. Timoteo's views, he has been no more condescending than you were in your remarks, and you are the only one who wrote anything I would consider dishonest (not to mention rude and childish).
"It’s no wonder that in a university opinion poll, people find atheists less trustworthy than religious believers."
That's probably more accurately attributed to the bigotry that you have demonstrated so capably in this post.
"Hmmm, I seem to recall Mr. Timoteo claiming in his "16 Common Myths About Atheism" that religious believers were "brainwashed". Is he now admitting that he's brainwashed, too?"
Not at all. He's comparing his LACK of belief to yours; any statements about "brainwashing" are in reference to your belief, not your lack thereof.
WRONG. Timoteo referred specifically to religious "brainwashing", which is a comman mantra of Village Atheism. He then stated he didn't believe in god for the same reasons we do believe in god. I just turned his own words against his faulty logic.
"Yeah, but WHERE do those values originate? How about answering the question?"
He DID answer the question: Empathy and reason. Fairness and justice follow from those.
And your answer is as circular as his. If you subscribe to the Naturalisic worldview, then humans are just meat robots responding to biological programming. There is no such thing as good, evil, fairness, etc.
"It's interesting that that an atheist considers religion some kind of crutch, but drinking isn't."
He never said it wasn't; indeed, it is a common one, but unlike theism it doesn't rely on superstition. Also, it is rare for drinkers to threaten an afterlife of torture on those who don't indulge.
Then Timoteo shouldn't bash religion and suggest that his "crutch" is superior. By the way, religion doesn't impair your driving ability, and cause you to kill other drivers in the process.
"So religion is some kind of addiction akin to drug and alcohol abuse, but I'd venture to guess that Mr. Timoteo's use of alcohol to "cope" isn't considered abuse, is it?"
Nice ad hominem; and you complain that HE dodges questions?
The point is valid. I DON'T consider religion to anything CLOSE to an addiction. People CAN be addicted to religion, in the same way people can be addicted to just about anything. Religion, of its own nature is NOT an addiction. Is that easy enough for you to understand now?
"Hello... most of those beliefs were not from Christianity."
Non-sequitor. The point was that people believing something doesn't make it true.
WRONG. He was accusing Christians of spreading certain false beliefs, when in fact, that is another Urban Legend spread by Vilage Atheists all over the Internet.
Remember that next time you and your Darwinist friends are discussing their views on Naturalism. Science has been proven wrong numerous times, but we don't dump it for that reason. It's called throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
Science, unlike religion, is not a fixed set of beliefs; it is a methodology that continually revises its outlook on the world as new evidence is gathered.
WRONG. Science DOES have a fixed set of beliefs, which is evident in their criticisms of Intelligent Design.
"Based on what? If he's not a biologist, does that just mean your his beliefs against God are based on personal prejudice alone?"
This barely even makes sense. Although I congratulate you for being able to simultaneously use a non-sequitor and an ad hominem in order to defend an argument from ignorance. That's got to be some kind of logical fallacy world record.
Timoteo said "I don't see a need for a supernatural cause". Since he's already written that off, his prejudices lie towards Naturalism. It made perfect sense to me.
"Aren't Darwinists also guilty of "wishful thinking"?"
This is both irrelevant and false.
BUNK. It's absolutely relevant, especially if you've seen any criticisms by atheist proponents like Richard Dawkins.
"I was just wondering then, if that's true, why don't Christians over the age of 5 believe in Santa Claus..."
How is a belief in Santa Claus any different than a belief in YHWH?
Remove your blinders and take a good look around you, Mr. Atheist. How many people died for their beliefs in Santa Claus? How many Santa Claus rescue missions will you find on Skid Row in any inner city? How many children in 3rd world countries are sponsored through Santa Claus International? Need I go on?
"...and why haven't Christians swallowed the whole Darwin thing hook, line, and sinker?"
Because they've been fooled into believing the dishonest pseudo-science of creationism because of their adherence to religious faith and their ignorance of evolutionary biology.
You should be ashamed of yourself for chanting another tired old atheist mantra. The God-believing scientists who are critical of Naturalism have been to the same Universities and hold the same qualifications as their non-believing counterparts. They are critical of the conclusions drawn by Naturalists based on the same evidence. You liberal atheists are proponents of 'critical thinking', except when that thinking is critical of Darwinist Dogma.
Excuse me, Mr. Timoteo, I think you just described what is known as dogmatism."
No, he described something more akin to political correctness: the idea that religious beliefs, simply because they are religious, should be above criticism, questioning, or mockery.
Like I said: DOGMATISM. My point is correct. MODERATES are willing to negotiate their beliefs. You AND Mr. Timoteo are both wrong.
"Religion has many redeeming qualities, whether or not you're a believer. To say otherwise is a lie."
No, to say otherwise is to disagree on what can be considered "redeeming" (a subjective term if I ever heard one). I happen to agree that religion has redeeming qualities, but I don't feel the need to call people liars if they disagree, because I'm not so arrogant as to believe that my opinion is universal truth.
Lousy dodge. Timoteo said NO. The fact is, there are many redeeming qualities about religion, even by your own admission. He is, at the least, being intellectually dishonest, which makes him a liar.
Then why should we respect atheism?"
Nobody's asking you to. Question it. Criticize it. Mock it. Go ahead. It's a free country.
Then why bother with this poor defense of Pedro Timoteo's comments?
"This is another ignorant belief of the average atheist: that Christians have slowed down human progress (although they really can't back up their claims with anything resembling facts)."
I happen to disagree with Mr. Timoteo on this issue, as well, but things like the religious opposition to stem cell research, and the continued existence of the
nonsense of creationism. Also, Mr. Timoteo did not mention Christianity by name in this answer, so your paraphrasing of his response as an attack against Christians is not accurate.
Another lame defense for an ignorant comment by Pedro Timoteo. Whether Timoteo was implying Christianity (as he does constantly), or attacking all
religion in general, it was a lunkheaded observation with no basis in fact.
Also, you're being intellectually dishonest. Christians are opposed to FETAL stem cell research, because, unlike you, Christians believe humans have an intrinsic value from conception. Also, there is a grave concern that abortion providers could become an underground source for human body parts that pharmaceutical companies could profit from.
"That's the first intellectually honest answer by Mr. Timoteo in the whole questionnaire."
No, it's not. It's just the first that you couldn't find a logically fallacious way to attack.
BUNK. I didn't argue his point because he gave a straight answer. Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?
"Atheists love to mock the names of God and Jesus because they know it upsets religious believers."
Yes, we do. And we can, because it's a free country. And you can make ignorant attacks against atheism all you like. Everyone wins, as long as they're tough enough to not let their feelings get hurt by someone else's blog.
Yes, but the point is, you atheists are the ones who claim to be more intelligent, mature, and tolerant than the "religious whackos" you love to bash. All you end up doing is focusing attention on the blatant immaturity of the typical Village Atheist when you engage in insulting and childish rhetoric. Also, my blog isn't a response because my "feelings are hurt". My blog is a response to the utter nonsense and falsehoods against Christinaity that Village Atheists try to pawn off as fact.
"They also bash the teachings of the Bible by referring to God as "evil"."
Believing, as many do, that YHWH's mass murdering and demand for blood sacrifice are evil does not dismiss all of the Bible's teachings.
I guess 'mass murder' is also in the eye of the beholder. Atheists bash YHWH for killing off human beings who basically thumbed their noses at Him and harassed His Chosen People, but think nothing of the 40-plus million human fetuses terminated for the sake of "convenience".
"On top of that, they engage in all forms of blasphemy in their attacks against Christians."
Once again, it's a free country. Deal with it.
And how does a silly justification for the use of blasphemy help the case for of atheism? Guess what? It doesn't.
"Whether they care to admit it or not, they do hate God, or at least the idea of a god, and it shows in what they post on the internet."
Whether you can accept it or not, there is a big difference between hating a god, hating the idea of a god, and hating people who believe in god. One can hate the idea of god or religion without hating either the hypothetical entity or the people who choose to believe in and worship it.
I agree, but the fact is, Village Atheists, especially on the internet, DO hate the people who practice religion, and they prove it constantly through their words and deeds.
"This is the ultimate expression of atheist intellectual dishonesty. There IS evidence for God, but atheists don't accept it."
Because atheists have a high standard for evidence: they won't accept arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity, or good old fashioned wishful thinking.
Are you suggesting Christians DON'T have a high standard for evidence? I guess then that the canonization of the Books of the Bible and Council at Nicea are
just meaningless points of history to the Village Atheist. I guess 1000 years of study by very intelligent, learned men is nothing to you folks. All the archaeoligical evidence that validates the historicity of the Bible... just pure baloney to you high-falootin' atheists. There's your biggest weakness: condescension.
"An intellectually honest atheist says, "I'm not convinced that God exists, based on the evidence I've seen so far", but to say that "There is no evidence" is nothing more than a prejudiced assumption."
Would saying there is "no compelling evidence" be an acceptable compromise?
Yes. At that point, we have someting to discuss.
"Atheism, as exemplified by Pedro Timoteo, is presumptive, condescending, and intellectually dishonest."
First of all, Mr. Timoteo doesn't speak for all atheists, and second of all, his remarks were none of these things, you have simply twisted around what he said because you hate the idea that people do not believe what you believe. While I don't agree with many of Mr. Timoteo's views, he has been no more condescending
than you were in your remarks, and you are the only one who wrote anything I would consider dishonest (not to mention rude and childish).
I agree that Pedro Timoteo doesn't speak for all atheists, which is why I began using the term "Village Atheism" since I posted that entry. But I didn't twist anything he wrote, I followed his pretzel logic to it's ridiculous conclusions and pointed out his factual errors. As far as being dishonest, I BELIEVE everything I write, and if I'm wrong on any point, I'll retract it. I verify whatever I post as fact. That's more than you'll get from a Village Atheist.
As far as being 'rude and childish' goes... log onto any number of atheist blogs or websites, sift through all the 4-letter words, scatological references, blashpemous remarks, anti-religious epithets, and then tell me who's being more "rude and childish'.
"It's no wonder that in a university opinion poll, people find atheists less trustworthy than religious believers."
That's probably more accurately attributed to the bigotry that you have demonstrated so capably in this post.
Boo hoo. This is America, remember? At least I admit I'm bigoted against atheists, especially the Village variety.
"WRONG. Timoteo referred specifically to religious "brainwashing", which is a comman mantra of Village Atheism. He then stated he didn't believe in god for the same reasons we do believe in god. I just turned his own words against his faulty logic."
Now you're just LYING. What he actually said was that he didn't believe for the same reasons you don't believe in any gods other than that of your chosen religion. It's a very different thing.
"And your answer is as circular as his. If you subscribe to the Naturalisic worldview, then humans are just meat robots responding to biological programming. There is no such thing as good, evil, fairness, etc."
That doesn't follow. Who's to say that empathy and reason can't be part of "biological programming"? Your statement rests upon the assumption that this is impossible, when you have no evidence to support this.
"Then Timoteo shouldn't bash religion and suggest that his "crutch" is superior. By the way, religion doesn't impair your driving ability, and cause you to kill other drivers in the process."
Drinking doesn't cause people to be judgmental of others, picket the funerals of soldiers, or fly airplanes into buildings. But I do agree that all humans have their crutches, so none of us are really in a position to criticize others'. The point remains, however, that your assertion that Mr. Timoteo claimed drinking wasn't a crutch was false.
"The point is valid. I DON'T consider religion to anything CLOSE to an addiction. People CAN be addicted to religion, in the same way people can be addicted to just about anything. Religion, of its own nature is NOT an addiction. Is that easy enough for you to understand now?"
I understood this then, and, indeed, I agree with you. I was just pointing out the unfairness in resorting to ad hominem attacks.
"WRONG. He was accusing Christians of spreading certain false beliefs, when in fact, that is another Urban Legend spread by Vilage Atheists all over the Internet."
Your question was about how billions could be wrong in a belief. He responded by pointing out other beliefs that were shared by many, many people, and turned out to be false. Hence his phrase: "...and many other times when billions of people were wrong." You either misunderstood his position, or deliberately misrepresented it. Also, he said nothing about Christianity: YOU were the one who inserted that specific religion into the question.
"WRONG. Science DOES have a fixed set of beliefs, which is evident in their criticisms of Intelligent Design."
Again, this is false. Science has a firm methodology. If you want to consider adherence to the scientific method to be a "belief" system, then that's your call.
"Timoteo said "I don't see a need for a supernatural cause". Since he's already written that off, his prejudices lie towards Naturalism. It made perfect sense to me."
Who said anything about writing anything off? If an explanation is unnecessary, why should it even be addressed?
"BUNK. It's absolutely relevant, especially if you've seen any criticisms by atheist proponents like Richard Dawkins."
OK, I'll concede that it's relevant. But it remains false.
"Remove your blinders and take a good look around you, Mr. Atheist. How many people died for their beliefs in Santa Claus? How many Santa Claus rescue missions will you find on Skid Row in any inner city? How many children in 3rd world countries are sponsored through Santa Claus International? Need I go on?"
If your point is that belief in gods has more powerful and beneficial results in modern society, then I agree with you. This, in and of itself, does not make that belief true.
"You should be ashamed of yourself for chanting another tired old atheist mantra. The God-believing scientists who are critical of Naturalism have been to the same Universities and hold the same qualifications as their non-believing counterparts. They are critical of the conclusions drawn by Naturalists based on the same evidence. You liberal atheists are proponents of 'critical thinking', except when that thinking is critical of Darwinist Dogma."
I'm extremely in favor of criticism of any science, including evolution. That's how science works. But the FACT is that all of the criticisms of evolution I've heard (and I've heard most of them) are either ignorant, dishonest, or both. I remain open to a legitimate criticism of evolution that adheres to the scientific method, as do all decent scientists.
"Like I said: DOGMATISM. My point is correct. MODERATES are willing to negotiate their beliefs. You AND Mr. Timoteo are both wrong."
Even moderates can subscribe to the politically correct notion that religious beliefs should be respected and not questioned or criticized. But if it makes you happy, sure, we're wrong on this one.
"Lousy dodge. Timoteo said NO. The fact is, there are many redeeming qualities about religion, even by your own admission. He is, at the least, being intellectually dishonest, which makes him a liar."
Mr. Timoteo disagrees with me on how beneficial the benefits of religion actually are. There IS variety of opinion within atheism. But the fact that he thinks that the benefits I see in religion are not actually helpful does not make him a liar.
"Then why bother with this poor defense of Pedro Timoteo's comments?"
Because in a free country, I'm free to respond to what I perceive as a dishonest and mean-spirited attack upon the opinions of another, whether I agree or not.
"Another lame defense for an ignorant comment by Pedro Timoteo. Whether Timoteo was implying Christianity (as he does constantly), or attacking all
religion in general, it was a lunkheaded observation with no basis in fact."
I've already given you probable examples of the facts Mr. Timoteo was basing his comments on. But I won't bother to continue defending a viewpoint I disagree with, so nevermind.
"BUNK. I didn't argue his point because he gave a straight answer. Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?"
No, I have trouble with the fact that you accused a lot of honest, straightforward answers of being dishonest.
"Yes, but the point is, you atheists are the ones who claim to be more intelligent, mature, and tolerant than the "religious whackos" you love to bash. All you end up doing is focusing attention on the blatant immaturity of the typical Village Atheist when you engage in insulting and childish rhetoric. Also, my blog isn't a response because my "feelings are hurt". My blog is a response to the utter nonsense and falsehoods against Christinaity that Village Atheists try to pawn off as fact."
Given the number of falsehoods in this very exchange, it hardly seems like you're qualified to pass judgments on the falsehoods of others. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc, etc.
"I guess 'mass murder' is also in the eye of the beholder. Atheists bash YHWH for killing off human beings who basically thumbed their noses at Him and harassed His Chosen People, but think nothing of the 40-plus million human fetuses terminated for the sake of "convenience"."
Because they do not share your personal belief that a newly-conceived fetus can be considered to be a human being.
"And how does a silly justification for the use of blasphemy help the case for of atheism? Guess what? It doesn't."
I'm not trying to help the case for atheism in this particular case. I'm trying to help the case for Freedom of Speech. Got a problem with that?
"I agree, but the fact is, Village Atheists, especially on the internet, DO hate the people who practice religion, and they prove it constantly through their words and deeds."
Some do. Some don't. I personally dislike the idea that there is a god (based only on the negative effect it has on many). I hate the character of YHWH as portrayed in the Bible. But I don't hate people simply because they believe in a god. Some atheists do, and I am appalled by that bigotry.
"Are you suggesting Christians DON'T have a high standard for evidence? I guess then that the canonization of the Books of the Bible and Council at Nicea are
just meaningless points of history to the Village Atheist. I guess 1000 years of study by very intelligent, learned men is nothing to you folks. All the archaeoligical evidence that validates the historicity of the Bible... just pure baloney to you high-falootin' atheists. There's your biggest weakness: condescension."
Mythology is not proven true by a council agreeing to canonize it, by learned men studying it, or by geographical landmarks being discovered.
"As far as being dishonest, I BELIEVE everything I write, and if I'm wrong on any point, I'll retract it. I verify whatever I post as fact. That's more than you'll get from a Village Atheist."
I'm not sure who qualifies as a "Village Atheist" and who doesn't. But if you believe everything you write, I encourage you to re-evaluate some of the ostensibly "factual" things you've said that I've pointed out in this post.
"As far as being 'rude and childish' goes... log onto any number of atheist blogs or websites, sift through all the 4-letter words, scatological references, blashpemous remarks, anti-religious epithets, and then tell me who's being more "rude and childish'."
The fact that your response amounts, essentially, to: "They started it!" only proves my point on how childish your comments are.
"Boo hoo. This is America, remember? At least I admit I'm bigoted against atheists, especially the Village variety."
I admire you for your open admission. While I don't understand exactly why you care whether someone else believes in mythology or not, I will reciprocate by admitting that I'm biased against rude, obnoxious, mean, lying theists. I think it's the hypocrisy that gets me: given all the stuff Jesus said about the Golden Rule and whatnot, I would expect the religious to hold themselves to a higher standard and try to be good people, rather than just spewing venom at those who disagree with them. But perhaps, for some, hating atheists is more important than actually following the teachings of their religion.
"WRONG. Timoteo referred specifically to religious "brainwashing", which is a comman mantra of Village Atheism. He then stated he didn't believe in god for the same reasons we do believe in god. I just turned his own words against his faulty logic."
Now you're just LYING. What he actually said was that he didn't believe for the same reasons you don't believe in any gods other than that of your chosen religion. It's a very different thing.
Let me explain it you simply. Timoteo made a previous comment on his blog about religious people being “brainwashed”. Later he said his reasons for his disbelief were the same as my reasons FOR belief. If you don’t like the parallel I drew between his comments, too bad.
"And your answer is as circular as his. If you subscribe to the Naturalisic worldview, then humans are just meat robots responding to biological programming. There is no such thing as good, evil, fairness, etc."
That doesn't follow. Who's to say that empathy and reason can't be part of "biological programming"? Your statement rests upon the assumption that this is impossible, when you have no evidence to support this.
Because in early man, there was no such thing as empathy, according to evolutionists. Timoteo gave a circular answer which really wasn’t an answer.
"Then Timoteo shouldn't bash religion and suggest that his "crutch" is superior. By the way, religion doesn't impair your driving ability, and cause you to kill other drivers in the process."
Drinking doesn't cause people to be judgmental of others, picket the funerals of soldiers, or fly airplanes into buildings. But I do agree that all humans have their crutches, so none of us are really in a position to criticize others'. The point remains, however, that your assertion that Mr. Timoteo claimed drinking wasn't a crutch was false.
Atheists are just as judgmental as Christians. Read their blogs. Liberal atheists picket for all kinds of reasons. And religion doesn’t cause people to fly planes into buildings, totalitarian maniacs who abuse religion DO. If you knew anything about Islam, you’d discover that Islamic terrorists are actually acting in violation of the rules of their faith.
Pedro Timoteo thinks that when people use religion to “cope”, it’s a “crutch”. But he thinks nothing of getting drunk as way of “coping”. It’s just plain silly.
"The point is valid. I DON'T consider religion to anything CLOSE to an addiction. People CAN be addicted to religion, in the same way people can be addicted to just about anything. Religion, of its own nature is NOT an addiction. Is that easy enough for you to understand now?"
I understood this then, and, indeed, I agree with you. I was just pointing out the unfairness in resorting to ad hominem attacks.
What’s unfair about pointing out the silliness behind such a dumb comment? Most atheists rely on ad hominem attacks to make their points. Go complain to them.
"WRONG. He was accusing Christians of spreading certain false beliefs, when in fact, that is another Urban Legend spread by Village Atheists all over the Internet."
Your question was about how billions could be wrong in a belief. He responded by pointing out other beliefs that were shared by many, many people, and turned out to be false. Hence his phrase: "...and many other times when billions of people were wrong." You either misunderstood his position, or deliberately misrepresented it. Also, he said nothing about Christianity: YOU were the one who inserted that specific religion into the question.
You bring up an interesting point, but I’m still convinced that Timoteo is playing the “guilt by association game” in his comment. And I’ve seen enough atheist websites and blogs to know that, even when Christianity isn’t directly mentioned, most of the comments atheists make are directed at Christians. The “flat earth” myth is one that is commonly blamed on Christians, when in fact, the Flat Earth Myth was actually a pagan invention, which was later popularized by Washington Irving in his account of the voyage of Christopher Columbus.
"WRONG. Science DOES have a fixed set of beliefs, which is evident in their criticisms of Intelligent Design."
Again, this is false. Science has a firm methodology. If you want to consider adherence to the scientific method to be a "belief" system, then that's your call.
Is the scientific community at large concerned with the discovery of an extradimensional being who created the Universe? No, because they don’t believe such a being exists, and they won’t bother with such a quest. Secular scientists only believe what their senses perceive. Whether or not you care to admit it, science has a belief system, which is evident in the scientific community’s adversity to Intelligent Design. That belief system is rooted in atheism.
"Timoteo said "I don't see a need for a supernatural cause". Since he's already written that off, his prejudices lie towards Naturalism. It made perfect sense to me."
Who said anything about writing anything off? If an explanation is unnecessary, why should it even be addressed?
Try looking at the question again: “How did life originate”? Timoteo admits he’s no biologist, but he’s ASSUMING the cause of life is natural anyway. He’s made it clear he won’t even consider a supernatural cause. His PREJUDICES are towards Naturalism even though he hasn’t really studied it all that hard.
"Remove your blinders and take a good look around you, Mr. Atheist. How many people died for their beliefs in Santa Claus? How many Santa Claus rescue missions will you find on Skid Row in any inner city? How many children in 3rd world countries are sponsored through Santa Claus International? Need I go on?"
If your point is that belief in gods has more powerful and beneficial results in modern society, then I agree with you. This, in and of itself, does not make that belief true.
Your comment was that there was no difference between believing in Santa Claus and believing in YHWH. I showed you a stark difference, based on the effects of such belief. Santa Claus hasn’t changed the world for the better. Jesus has.
"You should be ashamed of yourself for chanting another tired old atheist mantra. The God-believing scientists who are critical of Naturalism have been to the same Universities and hold the same qualifications as their non-believing counterparts. They are critical of the conclusions drawn by Naturalists based on the same evidence. You liberal atheists are proponents of 'critical thinking', except when that thinking is critical of Darwinist Dogma."
I'm extremely in favor of criticism of any science, including evolution. That's how science works. But the FACT is that all of the criticisms of evolution I've heard (and I've heard most of them) are either ignorant, dishonest, or both. I remain open to a legitimate criticism of evolution that adheres to the scientific method, as do all decent scientists.
I imagine you’ve already written off Michael Behe. Read Raymond Bohlin, for openers.
"Lousy dodge. Timoteo said NO. The fact is, there are many redeeming qualities about religion, even by your own admission. He is, at the least, being intellectually dishonest, which makes him a liar."
Mr. Timoteo disagrees with me on how beneficial the benefits of religion actually are. There IS variety of opinion within atheism. But the fact that he thinks that the benefits I see in religion are not actually helpful does not make him a liar.
When asked “Is there anything redeeming about religion?”, Timoteo said NO. What part of NO didn’t you understand?
"Then why bother with this poor defense of Pedro Timoteo's comments?"
Because in a free country, I'm free to respond to what I perceive as a dishonest and mean-spirited attack upon the opinions of another, whether I agree or not.
And I suppose Pedro Timoteo’s claims that Christians are brainwashed, and religion has no redeeming qualities, are made in kindness and respect?
I suggest you take a trip over to the American Atheists, God Is For Suckers, or Craigslist blogs and read up on the vulgar, blasphemous, obscenity-laden, anti-Christian rhetoric coming from the keyboards of atheists all over the inter-web, and then you come back here and complain to me about how mean-spirited I am.
"Another lame defense for an ignorant comment by Pedro Timoteo. Whether Timoteo was implying Christianity (as he does constantly), or attacking all religion in general, it was a lunkheaded observation with no basis in fact."
I've already given you probable examples of the facts Mr. Timoteo was basing his comments on. But I won't bother to continue defending a viewpoint I disagree with, so nevermind.
Pedro Timoteo STATED that religion is “the thing that’s holding humanity back the most”. How can you keep a straight face and try to defend such a bogus statement? He’s just chanting another atheist mantra. He’s WRONG.
"BUNK. I didn't argue his point because he gave a straight answer. Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?"
No, I have trouble with the fact that you accused a lot of honest, straightforward answers of being dishonest.
I concede that I may have accused him of dishonesty in some cases where he is just plain ignorant. It doesn’t help him much in either case.
"Yes, but the point is, you atheists are the ones who claim to be more intelligent, mature, and tolerant than the "religious whackos" you love to bash. All you end up doing is focusing attention on the blatant immaturity of the typical Village Atheist when you engage in insulting and childish rhetoric. Also, my blog isn't a response because my "feelings are hurt". My blog is a response to the utter nonsense and falsehoods against Christinaity that Village Atheists try to pawn off as fact."
Given the number of falsehoods in this very exchange, it hardly seems like you're qualified to pass judgments on the falsehoods of others. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc, etc.
”Falsehoods” are your opinion alone. The fact is, you have attempted and failed at defending some very lame-brained commentary.
"I guess 'mass murder' is also in the eye of the beholder. Atheists bash YHWH for killing off human beings who basically thumbed their noses at Him and harassed His Chosen People, but think nothing of the 40-plus million human fetuses terminated for the sake of "convenience"."
Because they do not share your personal belief that a newly-conceived fetus can be considered to be a human being.
Unfortunately for you atheists, geneticists do. That’s why liberals in government have redefined human fetuses as “non-persons”. Liberals have gone to great trouble to dehumanize the unborn, which is why they’re so upset at the double-murder conviction of Scott Peterson.
"And how does a silly justification for the use of blasphemy help the case for of atheism? Guess what? It doesn't."
I'm not trying to help the case for atheism in this particular case. I'm trying to help the case for Freedom of Speech. Got a problem with that?
Nope. Please remember about free speech rights next time a bunch of atheists consider dragging a pastor into court for speaking out against homosexuality.
"I agree, but the fact is, Village Atheists, especially on the internet, DO hate the people who practice religion, and they prove it constantly through their words and deeds."
Some do. Some don't. I personally dislike the idea that there is a god (based only on the negative effect it has on many). I hate the character of YHWH as portrayed in the Bible. But I don't hate people simply because they believe in a god. Some atheists do, and I am appalled by that bigotry.
Too bad you’re bigoted yourself. You hate the idea of a god based on the negative effect it has on some people, vs. the positive effect God has on millions. Capitalism has had negative effects on some people, but I don’t hate it for that reason. Anything can be abused.
"Are you suggesting Christians DON'T have a high standard for evidence? I guess then that the canonization of the Books of the Bible and Council at Nicea are just meaningless points of history to the Village Atheist. I guess 1000 years of study by very intelligent, learned men is nothing to you folks. All the archaeoligical evidence that validates the historicity of the Bible... just pure baloney to you high-falootin' atheists. There's your biggest weakness: condescension."
Mythology is not proven true by a council agreeing to canonize it, by learned men studying it, or by geographical landmarks being discovered.
But HISTORY is.
"As far as being dishonest, I BELIEVE everything I write, and if I'm wrong on any point, I'll retract it. I verify whatever I post as fact. That's more than you'll get from a Village Atheist."
I'm not sure who qualifies as a "Village Atheist" and who doesn't. But if you believe everything you write, I encourage you to re-evaluate some of the ostensibly "factual" things you've said that I've pointed out in this post.
I have and I stand by what I wrote.
"As far as being 'rude and childish' goes... log onto any number of atheist blogs or websites, sift through all the 4-letter words, scatological references, blashpemous remarks, anti-religious epithets, and then tell me who's being more "rude and childish'."
The fact that your response amounts, essentially, to: "They started it!" only proves my point on how childish your comments are.
And that’s how people like you justify giving a pass to militant atheists, who are obvious miscreants? Before you tell me how rude and childish I am, go to your fellow atheists on their blogs and tell them to clean up their backyards before they attempt to assume any intellectual high ground.
"Boo hoo. This is America, remember? At least I admit I'm bigoted against atheists, especially the Village variety."
I admire you for your open admission. While I don't understand exactly why you care whether someone else believes in mythology or not, I will reciprocate by admitting that I'm biased against rude, obnoxious, mean, lying theists. I think it's the hypocrisy that gets me: given all the stuff Jesus said about the Golden Rule and whatnot, I would expect the religious to hold themselves to a higher standard and try to be good people, rather than just spewing venom at those who disagree with them. But perhaps, for some, hating atheists is more important than actually following the teachings of their religion.
Your statement just proves how ignorant you are about Christians. You base your opinions and prejudice on what you see on the TV News and read on atheist blogs.
Believe it or, we really do try to hold ourselves to higher standards. That’s why you won’t see me using vulgar language or 4-letter words. Regardless, atheists refer to us as deluded idiots who are barely able to wipe our own bottoms.
As far as “following the teachings of my religion”, here’s a teaching you atheists don’t know about:
“Contend for the faith that was once and for all entrusted to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
The word “contend” in its original Greek refers to combat. The verse tells us to fight for our faith. Saint Paul was such a contender, a very learned man who battled on the floor of debate against the philosophers of his day.
So when a condescending or potty-mouthed atheist starts posting his or her brand of anti-religious garbage on the internet, I’m here to respond and point out the silliness and absolute BUNK that people like Pedro Timoteo spew against Christianity.
I was an atheist for a loooong time. And you know what they NEVER tell you? How it bloody sucks being one.
Seriously, nothing has meaning and everybody is just taking up space. The biggest con I would pull as an atheist is to the "atheist chant". You know what that is of course: Atheism provides its own morality so you dont need religion to do that. Christians are evil because they believe in God (of course we would steer clear of saying that about muslims because they would kill you like they did our hero theo van gogh). Atheists are the only ones who care about people and the earth. (hahaha thats like saying a loan shark cares about giving you the best bang for your buck!)
Yeah was I smart. Then I went to Africa. The only people helping the poor and the downtrodden? Christians. Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox.
It opened my selfish eyes. When I went back home I hanged out with my atheist buddies. All the ever cared about was how to scam people in work, in business, in life to get more money or more stuff or more (well... you know Im trying to keep this family rated) to live it up because life was a meaningless cruel joke. You would huddle up in your apartment at night staring out at the stars and say "yes man is destined to reach there a la Star trek" but in your heart (in the atheist heart) there was nothign but fear and loathing. In your heart you are thinking (so F---ing what **I** wont be here Im just a speck of dust on a mudball and life has no meaning since we all evolved out of cosmic garbage for no reason at all.)
Atheism is the biggest scam this since pet rocks.
I stumbled on this site because I wanted to start a blog called "Atheist Watch" and wanted to see if there was another one out there. I see there is . So I will call mine: "Scum of the Earth Watch" but any ideas would be welcome.
NeoCon you are my hero.
hitchens, dawkns timoteo etc etc. Hitchens also has a drinking problem. When he visited our city here in Toronto the first thing he did when he left the radio station is go across the street and get smashed. Why not? Life is meaningless in the end (thank you for "opening my eyes" Mr Sartre) or has (and I love this one) whatever
"meaning" you give it. thats a laugh! As if you can give your self a greater cause than yourself (be your own god).
They are soooo full of it. I have BEEN there done that. They are just scared little egos who hate the idea of there being a Creator because in their selfish little hearts THEY want to be there own god.
They scurry around writing how
"bad" religious people are and how they, the atheists, are sooo scientific because they believe all of existence came out of nothing for nothing and for no reason. Yeah thats soooo scientific. I believed in that myself. What a fairy tale! Atheists are the biggest "fairy tale believers" there is!
GOD bless you in this site and if you have any ideas for my own blog I want to start let me know.
Yeah to everybody out there I said: "GOD"
me who was the biggest atheist this side of great lakes.
deal with it.
Kurt J.
Recovering Atheistholic
You are ridiculous. All of your comments aren't intelligent at all, and you think this Atheist says the nuttiest things.
No one will every convince you of an arguably good reason for not believing in God. Because you don't want to be convinced. Do you instigate just for the sake of debate? Only someone insecure in their beliefs would so obviously twist someone else's words around until they said exactly what YOU WANTED them to say. What happened to the RELIGIOUS concept (which you RELIGIOUS folks should be following!) "Judge not, lest ye be judged" ?
For all of you saying I'm going to hell because I'm an Atheist, I say, "I'll see you there!"
"Hannah": Is that the best response you have? Look, you people write this lame stuff on blogs all over the Net, I just note it for your viewing pleasure.
"nobakecheezecake": The reason none of you will convert me to atheism is because of the VERY REAL experiences I've had after becoming a believer and accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. Why don't you do the same and then you'll understand.
"Anonymous": Sorry, son, but I won't be joining you there. Say hello to Hitler for me.
hey, Kurt J,
You say:
"Yeah to everybody out there I said: 'GOD' . me who was the biggest atheist this side of great lakes."
For the record, you probably weren't the biggest atheist on your side of the great lakes. In fact, you weren't a very good atheist at all.
You let your ego get the better or you. You didn't like a life without a deeper meaning, and went searching for that meaning. You found yourself a cult, where they tell you you're special; you're chosen; God has a plan for you; there is a meaning and a purpose to your life. That sounded warm and comforting, and stroked your weak ego, so you signed up.
And like the reformed smoker, you are now yelling from the rooftops at all that bring match to tobacco.
You also accused the atheists of having an ego problem, of thinking they are the center of the world. Not so. Being an atheist is not very rewarding to the ego at all. To believe that you are a rather insignificant specimen of a fantastic, but rather insignificant species on one of a billion of spherical rocks hurtling in space-time is actually not an exercise in ego wanking. It can be depressingly humbling...which is probably part of what sent you back to your cult.
Since when do atheists not say that atheism sucks? It sucks. You should know. You're faith comforts you, but I don't ever get that comfort.
I have to realize that god doesn't love me, since he doesn't exist. I don't fit in with the majority in my country, nor on my planet. I am distrusted by the populace, could never be voted president of the USA, and clearly am hated by some, as the owner of this blog so aptly proves. You have a heaven to look forward to, muslims have 73 virgins, hindus can come back and do it all again...I get eaten by worms. Seriously, being atheist sucks.
But some of us simply are honest with ourselves about empirical observations, scientific probabilities, the understanding of the human mind -- most notably it's propensity to invent fantasies to fit the world into a context ignorant humans can understand. Some choose to question authority, teachers, prevailing wisdom. And when the answers are found lacking, we come to the painful conclusion that we get 70 years, maybe leave an impact and some kids, then it's over. The truth hurts, for sure.
It's not fun. It sucks. But it is intellectually honest, and we firmly believe in our methodology. Thus, for me to believe in any religion would be an act of cowardice. A hedge in case "maybe I'm wrong." A choice of comfort and ego over truth.
Comfort over truth is never the right choice.
signed,
the persecuted.
PS:
Another truth is that this blog seems to promote intolerance and hate. It invents all kids of false positions, then ascribes it to atheists. It posits that atheists are organized, but if so I didn't get the memo. We don't seem to meet every Sunday, either. The logic and debate of the blog owner is as poorly crafted as his use of the English language. I would suggest to the author that he would have far more credibility if he wrote at a GED or equivalent level.
"For the record, you probably weren't the biggest atheist on your side of the great lakes. In fact, you weren't a very good atheist at all."
Perhaps you can describe what a "good atheist" is, since that seems to a nebulous value in Atheism.
"You let your ego get the better or you. You didn't like a life without a deeper meaning, and went searching for that meaning."
Kurt simply responded to his human nature. He was honest enough to admit to himself that human beings are "wired" to seek out what he found. Perhaps your staunch denial of this is truly YOUR ego taking over.
"You found yourself a cult, where they tell you you're special; you're chosen; God has a plan for you; there is a meaning and a purpose to your life. That sounded warm and comforting, and stroked your weak ego, so you signed up."
Here's an issue atheists tend to ignore: religion is one of the identifying traits of a human culture. The use of the term "cult" to decribe religious belief is incorrect based on this anthropological fact.
"You also accused the atheists of having an ego problem [they do], of thinking they are the center of the world. Not so. Being an atheist is not very rewarding to the ego at all [Oh, really? Richard Dawkins doesn't do so bad]. To believe that you are a rather insignificant specimen of a fantastic, but rather insignificant species on one of a billion of spherical rocks hurtling in space-time is actually not an exercise in ego wanking. It can be depressingly humbling...which is probably part of what sent you back to your cult."
Or, Kurt was honest enough to swallow his ego and take the leap of faith, which an atheist fails to understand.
"Since when do atheists not say that atheism sucks? It sucks. You should know. You're faith comforts you, but I don't ever get that comfort."
Dump the ego and the comfort is yours. That's what all of us believers have had to do.
I have to realize that god doesn't love me, since he doesn't exist. I don't fit in with the majority in my country, nor on my planet. I am distrusted by the populace, could never be voted president of the USA, and clearly am hated by some, as the owner of this blog so aptly proves. You have a heaven to look forward to, muslims have 73 virgins, hindus can come back and do it all again...I get eaten by worms. Seriously, being atheist sucks.
Get off your self pity trip. By the way, you accuse me of hating atheists because I take the things THEY POST on the internet and dissect them in defense of my faith. Perhaps you should more closely examine the vile words and images posted by atheists against Christians all over the internet, then come back here and lecture me on MY "hatefulness". What I post here is NOTHING compared to the sewage I constantly have to tolerate from the Village Atheist Community. You people need to grow up.
But some of us simply are honest with ourselves about empirical observations, scientific probabilities, the understanding of the human mind -- most notably it's propensity to invent fantasies to fit the world into a context ignorant humans can understand. Some choose to question authority, teachers, prevailing wisdom. And when the answers are found lacking, we come to the painful conclusion that we get 70 years, maybe leave an impact and some kids, then it's over. The truth hurts, for sure."
In what way are you more honest with yourself than a Believer, who honestly believes in God based on the evidence you reject? You can say it's all relative, but it doesn't mean you stand on higher moral or intellectual ground than a Christian.
It's not fun. It sucks. But it is intellectually honest, and we firmly believe in our methodology. Thus, for me to believe in any religion would be an act of cowardice. A hedge in case "maybe I'm wrong." A choice of comfort and ego over truth.
What makes Christianity cowardly or intellectually dishonest if you accept properly presented evidence as proof that God exists? You see, I find atheism to be BOTH cowardly and intellectually dishonest when the atheist simply assumes a higher moral or intellectual position than a believer. Atheist ego makes the atheist stand upon a make-believe pedestal.
"Comfort over truth is never the right choice."
The sad fact is, atheists are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that man might be subject to an all-power Superbeing. For most atheists, believing in NOTHING is far more comfortable.
"signed,
the persecuted."
PS:
"Another truth is that this blog seems to promote intolerance and hate. It invents all kids of false positions, then ascribes it to atheists. It posits that atheists are organized, but if so I didn't get the memo. We don't seem to meet every Sunday, either. The logic and debate of the blog owner is as poorly crafted as his use of the English language. I would suggest to the author that he would have far more credibility if he wrote at a GED or equivalent level.
Thank you for your observations. Now let me clarify a few things.
First of all, if I'm intolerant or hateful of anything, it's the disgusting, condescending, and intellectually dishonest rhetoric that is splattered ad nauseum against Christians all over the web. This site is an answer to the volume of intentional, obscenity-laden cruelty that atheists seem to enjoy posting on the internet. Despite their claims, Village Atheists seem to delight creating entire websites that exist for the harassment of religious believers and the dissemination of blatant falsehoods about religion itself. The assertations I make are based on what atheists write, period.
I apologize if you aren't impressed with my writing style. If you're an English teacher, I welcome your advice to improve my writing skills.
Site Author says: "The sad fact is, atheists are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that man might be subject to an all-power Superbeing. For most atheists, believing in NOTHING is far more comfortable."
"Persecuted" replies:
You tend to paint everything with a wide brush. You respond to my comments with vitriol because of what you claim is a rampant abuse of theists on the Internets. If you're responding to me, don't hold me accountable, or excuse your aggressiveness because of what is or isn't going on elsewhere on the web. You can't walk into a dinner party and treat everyone there like crap because three cars cut you off in traffic getting there. Well, you can, but it means you're a dick.
If Dawkins has a big ego, does that mean that all atheists have a big ego? This is the kind of logic leap that I criticized you for in my closing above.
But let's focus for a second on the ego question. You seem convinced that atheists have big egos. I think I can convincingly (even with your readers) argue the contrary.
I think I am a speck of organic happenstance of a scale that will have absolutely NO measurable long-term effect on the universe. Humans will come, and go someday, but the galaxies, stars and many planets will still remain. Sound like I have a big ego? A big important impression of how important I am? Definitely not.
YOU think you are eternal. That this planet, this world, all the beasts herein, and the pretty stars in the sky were all put here for YOU. It took a being of incredible power to do so, but, good news, he did it because He loves YOU. YOU matter to this amazing being. When you kneel by your bed at night and pray, this being listens to you. He's got a plan for you. Everything that happens to you happens for a reason. When it rains, floods, pestilence comes, crops are good, it's all about you. It's a reward or a penance on you.
Now which, of the two of us, appears to have a bigger ego? It's not a real question. It's absolutely rhetorical, because the answer is unequivocal.
Maybe I think I'm smarter than you. Maybe. But that wouldn't mean I have a big ego. If we ran a 100 meter race, me in 10 seconds and you in 14. I could think I was faster than you - would that mean that I have a big ego? Ego size is irrelevant to whether one is smarter or not.
So, even if some atheists DO think they are smarter (which research indicates is, generally, the case), they don't have such a huge ego that they think the world revolves around them!
You say:
"The sad fact is, atheists are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that man might be subject to an all-power Superbeing."
Are you kidding? Getting in with your superbeing would be extremely comfortable! That's why so many people naturally gravitate towards it (in addition to the brainwashing.) It offers comfort. Answers to the unanswerable. An imaginary friend you believe is real, and loves you. Brothers who would die for you. No, sir, the two of us are in absolute agreement on one point: religion is a magnet for humans. They love it, seek it, are "wired" for it, and they don't want to let it go. Yes, humans seek a deeper meaning, and aren't satisfied if there is not some bigger answer that puts them at the center of the universe. Your interpretation that I am in "staunch denial" of that indicates that you read my words with little comprehension.
What could be MORE comforting that accepting to be subject to an all-power Superbeing -- especially given that it is a benevolent, loving, sacrificing superbeing? Oh, and you're his son - basically a prince. Oh, and he's giving you eternal life in paradise. But I'M THE ONE who is taking a more comfortable choice? Gimme a break.
The theist camp offers paradise, love, belonging, self-importance, while the atheist camp offers nothing but truth. No, not The Truth you guys enjoy. Just the plain old, self-deprecating truth. Really, we have little to offer. Atheism sucks.
I wrote that atheism sucks in response to Kurt's claim that "atheists never tell you that it sucks to be atheist". I proved him dead wrong. 100% wrong. And then I explained how it sucks. Then you said "Get off your self pity trip." It's not self pity, it was on topic, and factual. Funny, if atheists don't say it sucks, Kurt tries to make us look sneaky, but when I do say it sucks, you tell me I'm on a pity trip. I know you think this true anyway, but I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't by your logic.
I said Kurt wasn't a very good atheist, making fun of the fact that he says he was the biggest atheist in Canada. You asked me what makes a good atheist. Well, it's fairly brief. A good atheist would lack belief in any god. Kurt didn't do so well on that test. To Kurt, yelling the most about atheism wouldn't have made you the biggest atheist in Canada, but it might make you one of the people that this site author is so angry about for attacking theists on the web. You probably weren't the biggest atheist, but may have been a big provocateur.
You say: "Perhaps you should more closely examine the vile words and images posted by atheists against Christians all over the Internet, then come back here and lecture me on MY 'hatefulness'."
Talk about non-sequitur. What have any posts from some other @#$@ho@es on the net got to do with whether you treat people civilly on your blog? I absolutely have no moral obligation to research whether vile things have been said before I judge the tone of your posts. You, on the other hand, should have a moral obligation to treat people with respect until they as individuals, demonstrate themselves unworthy. Gosh, you are supposed to turn the other cheek and forgive the very individuals that are asinine to you. Yet not only do you fail at this morality test, you actually fester your anger and throw it back at any innocent atheist you come across. Where, sir, is your moral compass?
-Persecuted.
"Persecuted" replies:
You tend to paint everything with a wide brush. You respond to my comments with vitriol because of what you claim is a rampant abuse of theists on the Internets. If you're responding to me, don't hold me accountable, or excuse your aggressiveness because of what is or isn't going on elsewhere on the web. You can't walk into a dinner party and treat everyone there like crap because three cars cut you off in traffic getting there. Well, you can, but it means you're a d***.
I CAN do that if you walk into MY dinner party, call one of my guests a "coward", and accuse me of having a G.E.D.-level writing capability. Or do you suffer from selective amnesia where it concerns your own comments?
"If Dawkins has a big ego, does that mean that all atheists have a big ego? This is the kind of logic leap that I criticized you for in my closing above."
Dawkins' attitude towards believers is more the norm than the exception.
"YOU think you are eternal. That this planet, this world, all the beasts herein, and the pretty stars in the sky were all put here for YOU..."
WRONG: The Universe was created for God's pleasure. We're just lucky enough to be part of it. Read Genesis.
...YOU matter to this amazing being. When you kneel by your bed at night and pray, this being listens to you. He's got a plan for you. Everything that happens to you happens for a reason. When it rains, floods, pestilence comes, crops are good, it's all about you. It's a reward or a penance on you...
WRONG. The world was set in motion before a single human being was conceived. We are judged on how we react to those things that will ultimately happen in our lives. Prayer is part of our response to God. Read Psalms.
"So, even if some atheists DO think they are smarter (which research indicates is, generally, the case), they don't have such a huge ego that they think the world revolves around them!"
WRONG. The stats you atheists quote about being "smarter" than believers was an NSA poll taken of professors at the University Level, not a realistic demographic of the population at large.
AND, we Christians do NOT think the world revolves around us. The fact is, non-believers think that MAN is the highest life-form. Hence, the ego.
You say:
"The sad fact is, atheists are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that man might be subject to an all-power Superbeing."
Are you kidding? Getting in with your superbeing would be extremely comfortable! That's why so many people naturally gravitate towards it (in addition to the brainwashing..."
Get off the "brainwashing" mantra. What is it about atheism that causes atheists to think believing in God isn't a free and logical choice for the average believer?
The theist camp offers paradise, love, belonging, self-importance, while the atheist camp offers nothing but truth. No, not The Truth you guys enjoy. Just the plain old, self-deprecating truth. Really, we have little to offer. Atheism sucks.
The statement "atheism offers nothing but truth" is a false statement. You just shot yourself in the foot.
I say this because Atheism is logically fallacious, therefore incapable of being completely truthful.
You've also skipped over an important point. Atheists choose NOT to believe in any of the good stuff about Christianity because it involves SUBMISSION to a Higher Authority, and that's where atheists give in to their frail human egos.
You say: "Perhaps you should more closely examine the vile words and images posted by atheists against Christians all over the Internet, then come back here and lecture me on MY 'hatefulness'."
Talk about non-sequitur. What have any posts from some other @#$@ho@es on the net got to do with whether you treat people civilly on your blog?"
You've given just another example of the finger-pointing games atheists play with people like me. You log into MY blog, attack another poster, insinuate I'm stupid, then whine about my response? I let your comments remain here. Be a grownup and show some gratitude.
"I absolutely have no moral obligation to research whether vile things have been said before I judge the tone of your posts. You, on the other hand, should have a moral obligation to treat people with respect until they as individuals, demonstrate themselves unworthy.
WRONG. Positive Atheism, a.k.a. Humanism, which I believe you support, DOES have a moral obligation to treat others with respect. On top of that, Atheists love to treat believers as screaming nutbags while demonstrating similar behavior themselves.
In case you forgot, this Blog is called "Atheists Say the Nuttiest Things". Just what do you think I'm going discuss on this blog? "Positive" Atheism?"
Gosh, you are supposed to turn the other cheek and forgive the very individuals that are asinine to you. Yet not only do you fail at this morality test, you actually fester your anger and throw it back at any innocent atheist you come across. Where, sir, is your moral compass?
Sir, I do not need a Sunday School lesson from a non-believer. And let me remind you of 2 things:
1. God gave me only 2 cheeks. After you've slapped both of them, I get to defend myself.
2. The Bible teaches us to "contend for the faith". "Contend" in the Bible was translated from a Greek word that applied to people in athletic contents, especially wrestling. It means we may have to get down and dirty with those who attack our Lord and His reputation.
-Persecuted.
BY the way, if you think you're persecuted, check out what Muslims have done to Christians in Darfur since the 1980's.
"Persecuted" replies:
You tend to paint everything with a wide brush. You respond to my comments with vitriol because of what you claim is a rampant abuse of theists on the Internets. If you're responding to me, don't hold me accountable, or excuse your aggressiveness because of what is or isn't going on elsewhere on the web. You can't walk into a dinner party and treat everyone there like crap because three cars cut you off in traffic getting there. Well, you can, but it means you're a d***.
I CAN do that if you walk into MY dinner party, call one of my guests a "coward", and accuse me of having a G.E.D.-level writing capability. Or do you suffer from selective amnesia where it concerns your own comments?
"If Dawkins has a big ego, does that mean that all atheists have a big ego? This is the kind of logic leap that I criticized you for in my closing above."
Dawkins' attitude towards believers is more the norm than the exception.
"YOU think you are eternal. That this planet, this world, all the beasts herein, and the pretty stars in the sky were all put here for YOU..."
WRONG: The Universe was created for God's pleasure. We're just lucky enough to be part of it. Read Genesis.
...YOU matter to this amazing being. When you kneel by your bed at night and pray, this being listens to you. He's got a plan for you. Everything that happens to you happens for a reason. When it rains, floods, pestilence comes, crops are good, it's all about you. It's a reward or a penance on you...
WRONG. The world was set in motion before a single human being was conceived. We are judged on how we react to those things that will ultimately happen in our lives. Prayer is part of our response to God. Read Psalms.
"So, even if some atheists DO think they are smarter (which research indicates is, generally, the case), they don't have such a huge ego that they think the world revolves around them!"
WRONG. The stats you atheists quote about being "smarter" than believers was an NSA poll taken of professors at the University Level, not a realistic demographic of the population at large.
AND, we Christians do NOT think the world revolves around us. The fact is, non-believers think that MAN is the highest life-form. Hence, the ego.
You say:
"The sad fact is, atheists are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that man might be subject to an all-power Superbeing."
Are you kidding? Getting in with your superbeing would be extremely comfortable! That's why so many people naturally gravitate towards it (in addition to the brainwashing..."
Get off the "brainwashing" mantra. What is it about atheism that causes atheists to think believing in God isn't a free and logical choice for the average believer?
The theist camp offers paradise, love, belonging, self-importance, while the atheist camp offers nothing but truth. No, not The Truth you guys enjoy. Just the plain old, self-deprecating truth. Really, we have little to offer. Atheism sucks.
The statement "atheism offers nothing but truth" is a false statement. You just shot yourself in the foot.
I say this because Atheism is logically fallacious, therefore incapable of being completely truthful.
You've also skipped over an important point. Atheists choose NOT to believe in any of the good stuff about Christianity because it involves SUBMISSION to a Higher Authority, and that's where atheists give in to their frail human egos.
You say: "Perhaps you should more closely examine the vile words and images posted by atheists against Christians all over the Internet, then come back here and lecture me on MY 'hatefulness'."
Talk about non-sequitur. What have any posts from some other @#$@ho@es on the net got to do with whether you treat people civilly on your blog?"
You've given just another example of the finger-pointing games atheists play with people like me. You log into MY blog, attack another poster, insinuate I'm stupid, then whine about my response? I let your comments remain here. Be a grownup and show some gratitude.
"I absolutely have no moral obligation to research whether vile things have been said before I judge the tone of your posts. You, on the other hand, should have a moral obligation to treat people with respect until they as individuals, demonstrate themselves unworthy.
WRONG. Positive Atheism, a.k.a. Humanism, which I believe you support, DOES have a moral obligation to treat others with respect. On top of that, Atheists love to treat believers as screaming nutbags while demonstrating similar behavior themselves.
In case you forgot, this Blog is called "Atheists Say the Nuttiest Things". Just what do you think I'm going discuss on this blog? "Positive" Atheism?"
Gosh, you are supposed to turn the other cheek and forgive the very individuals that are asinine to you. Yet not only do you fail at this morality test, you actually fester your anger and throw it back at any innocent atheist you come across. Where, sir, is your moral compass?
Sir, I do not need a Sunday School lesson from a non-believer. And let me remind you of 2 things:
1. God gave me only 2 cheeks. After you've slapped both of them, I get to defend myself.
2. The Bible teaches us to "contend for the faith". "Contend" in the Bible was translated from a Greek word that applied to people in athletic contents, especially wrestling. It means we may have to get down and dirty with those who attack our Lord and His reputation.
-Persecuted.
BY the way, if you think you're persecuted, check out what Muslims have done to Christians in Darfur since the 1980's.
Haha! This is a great satire about religious idiots!
NeoCon Brownshirt? That says it all, that does. Dumb fundie.
There's nothing like "brilliant" remarks by people named "anonymous"... ya think?
The intelligence of people like this is just stunning... remember, they're considered the "smart ones".
Thanks for making my day! Thank God Jesus loves all of us despite our shortcomings. It's what makes Christianity so much more enjoyable than the bitterness of atheism.
Post a Comment