"Why I am Not a Christian"
hurley_108 @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:42 am
lily lily:
Durandal Durandal:
lily lily:
Calling my faith silly and saying believers don't use their brains seems more argumentative than anything I've had to say. So really.... who is trying to convince who here?
C'mon. Realise that even if the atheists/agnotics are enthusiastic at pointing the finger at the dirty recruiting/controlling tactics of various religions, they are not afrait to bully and intimidate in order to advance their own belief system.
Perhaps being an atheist who happened to fall in love with and marry a Christian has given me more reason than most atheists to be gracious towards Christians, but this atheist doesn't understand the caustic attitude many atheists look on Christians with. It's just belief.
$1:
Joe Stalin Joe Stalin:
Anyone who does not convert to the new religion of Global Warming deserves to have their wives coveted by neighbours.
My wife is safe then!
Blue_Nose @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:58 am
I'll point out that my "tactics", and those of most atheists, can hardly be considered bullying since all we doing is talking - perhaps it's Durandal's discomfort with dealing with what is said that makes him think I'm doing something more offensive than offering opinions.
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Perhaps being an atheist who happened to fall in love with and marry a Christian has given me more reason than most atheists to be gracious towards Christians, but this atheist doesn't understand the caustic attitude many atheists look on Christians with. It's just belief.
"It's just belief" that causes people to argue the twin towers were demolished, but I don't see people constantly complaining about my attacking those "beliefs". I don't accept this notion that religion is a belief somehow above criticism, or their faith is any more solidly grounded than anyone else's.
That being said, if it were just belief, I'd have no problem - my own girlfriend is a Christian and I don't harass her for her beliefs because its never been an issue (well, a week ago she said if we ever had kids, they were going to church, but my only response to that was that she doesn't even go herself).
It's the self appointed harbingers that try to convince other people into accepting their irrational beliefs that get to me - note that my presence here is only because of lily's (ie, Pascal's) little wager. She'll deny it, but it's obvious that letting her sentence trail off and finishing with "oops" is nothing more than an attempt to scare people into contemplating how God will punish us for not accepting the beliefs of Christians - Bart's post immediately after would indicate he knew what she was talking about, too. It's disingenuous, and that's my issue.
Ruxpercnd @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:27 am
Christianity incorporates many aspects of the true religion...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE
Durandal @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:38 am
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
I'll point out that my "tactics", and those of most atheists, can hardly be considered bullying since all we doing is talking.
No. I see it on every debate either on the net or not, the Atheist always permits himself to insult, mock, intimidate and be overly agressive, while the Christian MUST be patient, gentle, soft... if he's a tiny bit holding his ground... watch out... "CRAZY FUNDEMENTALIST !!" "RETARD RELIGIOUS FANATIC !!" and so on.
I reiterate my point : Atheists always complain that religious persons have foreever put intelectual & social pressure on people, wet they do the exact same
"But that doesn't count since they are (apparently) non-theists" 
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypocritical
Durandal @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:47 am
>>> Joe_Stalin, very interesting article, it exposes another Atheist double standard, thanks. 
In the same order of ideas, I think I'm gonna buy this :
Atheism is a world without God. Its true nature -- whether disguised in Eastern mysticism or American cynicism -- is despair. In this thought-provoking and insightful book, Ravi Zacharias exposes the hopelessness of Atheism and explains how a worldview based on belief in God is the key to fulfillment. The Real Face of Atheism systematically examines atheistic positions on human nature, the meaning of life, morality, the "First Cause", death, and more. Ravi Zacharias is president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and is heard worldwide on his radio program, Let My People Think. A former visiting scholar at Cambridge, he has lectured at the world's most prestigious universities and in more than fifty countries. His numerous books include Jesus Among Other Gods and Can Man Live Without God ?
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Face-Atheism ... 0801065119
Blue_Nose @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:51 pm
Durandal Durandal:
No. I see it on every debate either on the net or not, the Atheist always permits himself to insult, mock, intimidate and be overly agressive, while the Christian MUST be patient, gentle, soft... if he's a tiny bit holding his ground... watch out... "CRAZY FUNDEMENTALIST !!" "RETARD RELIGIOUS FANATIC !!" and so on.
I reiterate my point : Atheists always complain that religious persons have foreever put intelectual & social pressure on people, wet they do the exact same "But that doesn't count since they are (apparently) non-theists"
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypocritical
I feel bad for you... really I do. I can't imagine the awful feeling one must get after being called names over the internet - it must completely consume any feeling you have of self worth and intergrity. Of anyone, you've shown here that Christians consistently treat atheists with honesty and respect - something we atheists could learn from, regardless of how ridiculous we can see the beliefs of others are.
I reiterate my point : Atheists always complain that religious persons have foreever put intelectual & social pressure on people, wet they do the exact same
"But that doesn't count since they are (apparently) non-theists" http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypocritical
I understand now why Christians are completely incapable of putting forth any sound reasoning for their arguments - they're virtually ripped apart inside by nothing more than words of evil old atheists. They demand respect for no other reason than they want it, and unfortunately they haven't received it. I see now that we need to be a little nicer to Christians and let them win some of the time, too, or they'll just feel bad.
Thank-you for clearing that up, Durandal.
PluggyRug @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:19 pm
Faith without fact is just that...faith.
Durandal @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:28 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Thank-you for clearing that up, Durandal.
Nah you still don't get my point (or perhaps you do but pretend not to).
I don't care your childish attacks on a forum. Faithfull Christians can absorb them.
I was just empasizing the point on how much so many Atheists are absolutists and disrespectfull towards those who don't share their views, while at the same time they supposedly reject all such things 'cause they claim it is THE characteristic of religion !
You yourself is the best example of it. Every message you post prouves me right.
Anyways, I have already said that Atheism is a religion, so it's no suprise that Atheists do everything they denounce.
Biblical_Christian @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:10 am
Here's a good analogy. This is a true story. It was storming a big storm was happening the big bridge was washed out totally wiped out by the storm their was a big drop to the big river the bridge was just around the bend where the motorists cannot see it. Few people were at the bend warning,trying to stop motorists from going further, yelling "No Bridge!" " No Bridge!"some heeded, some don't. That is why we warn, some heed, some don't.
Blue_Nose @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:00 am
Durandal Durandal:
Nah you still don't get my point (or perhaps you do but pretend not to).
Gee, you think?Durandal Durandal:
I was just empasizing the point on how much so many Atheists are absolutists and disrespectfull towards those who don't share their views, while at the same time they supposedly reject all such things 'cause they claim it is THE characteristic of religion !
I've never once stated that the reason I reject religion is because its followers are disrespectful.In fact, I feel there's absolutely no room for tolerance if you believe you hold the one true key to "salvation". If you absolutely believe there are certain things one must do to get into heaven (or to stay out of hell), there's absolutely no reason to "respect" other beliefs - how "respectful" is it to say that you know you hold the key to heaven but you don't mind if others go to hell?
That being said, that doesn't make your Christian views any more correct, and even though I might respect you more than the "liberal" Christian, I still think you're full of shit.
Durandal Durandal:
You yourself is the best example of it. Every message you post prouves me right.
Either you have mistaken me for someone else, you don't actually understand what I post, or you're lying, because I've never stated anything of the sort - I couldn't care less if someone who believes in fairytales respects my own beliefs.
Joe_Stalin @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:43 am
$1:
A Question of Religion
By Lee Harris : BIO| 22 Jan 2008
Some years ago I was asked a question that has haunted me. It came during a telephone conversation I had with a young man whose Internet book club has selected one of my books to read. The young man wanted to find out more about me, and he began asking what I thought about various subjects. Finally, hesitantly, he said, "Would you mind if I asked you a very personal question?" How personal, I wondered briefly, but gave my consent anyway. His question was, "Are you for or against religion?"
I have lost a clear recollection of my reply, but I recall being shocked at the radical and remorseless either/or with which I had been confronted: Either a person is for religion, or a person is against it.
Suppose I had answered by saying that I was for religion. Would this imply that I approved and admired the blood-thirsty rites involved in the worship of the Aztec god of war, Huitzilopochti? On the other hand, what if I had said that I was against religion. Would I thereby commit myself to condemning the ethical teachings expressed by the prophets of ancient Israel, with their stern injunction to protect the weak and defend the downtrodden? To me it was obvious that certain religions have been ghastly, like those religions that required the sacrifice of young children, while it was equally obvious that other religions have lifted human beings out of the squalor and brutality of mere animal existence.
Take the case of those fundamentalist Protestants in the small French village of Le Chambon who, at great risk to their own lives, opened their hearts and homes to French Jews who were being hunted down by the Nazis—an astonishing story movingly told by Philip P. Hallie in his book Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed. The villagers' Huguenot religion gave them the strength of will to resist the temptation to do nothing when doing nothing would have been far easier and far less dangerous to their own survival. It made them perform heroic actions and yet it also made them see these actions as their simple duty. They saved Jews, as they put it, because "it was the right thing to do."
In reflecting on the miracle of La Chambon, it would be possible to argue that a village of highly ethical atheists might have acted in the same way the Huguenots did. Certainly they would have recognized that saving the Jews was the right thing to do; but the intellectual apprehension that we have an ethical duty to risk our own lives for the sake of others is not always accompanied by the visceral courage required to take this risk. There must have been millions of decent Frenchmen who were horrified that the Nazis were rounding up Jews, and thousands who would have been willing to offer them sanctuary if the risk of getting caught had not been so great and so terrible. In the abstract, these other Frenchmen shared the same ethics as the villagers of La Chambon, but their ethical principles could not convince them to endanger themselves and their own families. In the face of despotism, mere decency is not enough. There must also be courage.
A person does not have to share the Huguenot religion in order to admire the courage of the villagers of La Chambon. Indeed, a person can find that religion absurd. But is it possible to be against a religion that can produce a whole community of men and women who are willing to stake their own lives in order to offer help to people of a different faith?
It is easy to make the case against religion by pointing to the multitude of examples where religion has brutalized men, and by carefully avoiding any mention of those instances where religion has given men the courage to struggle against despotism. "How Religion Poisons Everything" is the subtitle of Christopher Hitchens' recent book God Is Not Good. But did the Huguenot religion poison the village of La Chambon or ennoble it?
The villagers of La Chambon were Christian fundamentalists: to them there was no higher authority than the Bible. Today their attitude to the Bible is treated with scorn by those who identify themselves with the modern scientific spirit. But this was not the attitude taken by the great nineteenth century English scientist and thinker, Thomas Huxley.
Today Huxley is remembered for two things. He coined the word "agnostic" and he devoted his enormous intellectual energy to the defense of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Huxley himself did not believe in God, nor did he believe that the Bible was literally true. Yet if someone had asked Huxley whether he was for or against religion, he would have responded that he was emphatically for those religions that had created communities made up of men and women like the villagers of La Chambon. In fact, this is almost exactly what he wrote in 1892, at the end of the Prologue to his book, Science and the Christian Tradition.
"So far as...equality, liberty, and fraternity are included under the democratic principles which assume the same names, the Bible is the most democratic book in the world. As such it began, through the heretical sects, to undermine the clerico-political despotism of the middle ages....; Pope and King had as much as they could do to put down the Albigenses and the Waldenses in the twelfth and thirteen centuries; the Lollards and the Hussites gave them still more trouble in the fourteenth and fifteenth; from the sixteen century onward, the Protestant sects have favored political freedom in proportion to the degree in which they have refused to acknowledge any ultimate authority save that of the Bible....I do not say that even the highest Biblical ideal is exclusive of others and needs no supplement. But I do believe that the human race is not yet, possibly may never be, in a position to dispense with it."
The villagers of La Chambon were collectively committed to carrying out the highest Biblical ideal, even if it meant their personal extinction. They were prepared to defy a despotism far more hideous than that of the European middle ages. They remind us that the simplistic "for or against" approach to religion inevitably obscures the startling differences between the various religions of mankind, between those religions that demand human sacrifice to appease a blood-thirsty god, and those that have inspired self-sacrifice in the name of a better world.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011508B
By Lee Harris : BIO| 22 Jan 2008
Some years ago I was asked a question that has haunted me. It came during a telephone conversation I had with a young man whose Internet book club has selected one of my books to read. The young man wanted to find out more about me, and he began asking what I thought about various subjects. Finally, hesitantly, he said, "Would you mind if I asked you a very personal question?" How personal, I wondered briefly, but gave my consent anyway. His question was, "Are you for or against religion?"
I have lost a clear recollection of my reply, but I recall being shocked at the radical and remorseless either/or with which I had been confronted: Either a person is for religion, or a person is against it.
Suppose I had answered by saying that I was for religion. Would this imply that I approved and admired the blood-thirsty rites involved in the worship of the Aztec god of war, Huitzilopochti? On the other hand, what if I had said that I was against religion. Would I thereby commit myself to condemning the ethical teachings expressed by the prophets of ancient Israel, with their stern injunction to protect the weak and defend the downtrodden? To me it was obvious that certain religions have been ghastly, like those religions that required the sacrifice of young children, while it was equally obvious that other religions have lifted human beings out of the squalor and brutality of mere animal existence.
Take the case of those fundamentalist Protestants in the small French village of Le Chambon who, at great risk to their own lives, opened their hearts and homes to French Jews who were being hunted down by the Nazis—an astonishing story movingly told by Philip P. Hallie in his book Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed. The villagers' Huguenot religion gave them the strength of will to resist the temptation to do nothing when doing nothing would have been far easier and far less dangerous to their own survival. It made them perform heroic actions and yet it also made them see these actions as their simple duty. They saved Jews, as they put it, because "it was the right thing to do."
In reflecting on the miracle of La Chambon, it would be possible to argue that a village of highly ethical atheists might have acted in the same way the Huguenots did. Certainly they would have recognized that saving the Jews was the right thing to do; but the intellectual apprehension that we have an ethical duty to risk our own lives for the sake of others is not always accompanied by the visceral courage required to take this risk. There must have been millions of decent Frenchmen who were horrified that the Nazis were rounding up Jews, and thousands who would have been willing to offer them sanctuary if the risk of getting caught had not been so great and so terrible. In the abstract, these other Frenchmen shared the same ethics as the villagers of La Chambon, but their ethical principles could not convince them to endanger themselves and their own families. In the face of despotism, mere decency is not enough. There must also be courage.
A person does not have to share the Huguenot religion in order to admire the courage of the villagers of La Chambon. Indeed, a person can find that religion absurd. But is it possible to be against a religion that can produce a whole community of men and women who are willing to stake their own lives in order to offer help to people of a different faith?
It is easy to make the case against religion by pointing to the multitude of examples where religion has brutalized men, and by carefully avoiding any mention of those instances where religion has given men the courage to struggle against despotism. "How Religion Poisons Everything" is the subtitle of Christopher Hitchens' recent book God Is Not Good. But did the Huguenot religion poison the village of La Chambon or ennoble it?
The villagers of La Chambon were Christian fundamentalists: to them there was no higher authority than the Bible. Today their attitude to the Bible is treated with scorn by those who identify themselves with the modern scientific spirit. But this was not the attitude taken by the great nineteenth century English scientist and thinker, Thomas Huxley.
Today Huxley is remembered for two things. He coined the word "agnostic" and he devoted his enormous intellectual energy to the defense of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Huxley himself did not believe in God, nor did he believe that the Bible was literally true. Yet if someone had asked Huxley whether he was for or against religion, he would have responded that he was emphatically for those religions that had created communities made up of men and women like the villagers of La Chambon. In fact, this is almost exactly what he wrote in 1892, at the end of the Prologue to his book, Science and the Christian Tradition.
"So far as...equality, liberty, and fraternity are included under the democratic principles which assume the same names, the Bible is the most democratic book in the world. As such it began, through the heretical sects, to undermine the clerico-political despotism of the middle ages....; Pope and King had as much as they could do to put down the Albigenses and the Waldenses in the twelfth and thirteen centuries; the Lollards and the Hussites gave them still more trouble in the fourteenth and fifteenth; from the sixteen century onward, the Protestant sects have favored political freedom in proportion to the degree in which they have refused to acknowledge any ultimate authority save that of the Bible....I do not say that even the highest Biblical ideal is exclusive of others and needs no supplement. But I do believe that the human race is not yet, possibly may never be, in a position to dispense with it."
The villagers of La Chambon were collectively committed to carrying out the highest Biblical ideal, even if it meant their personal extinction. They were prepared to defy a despotism far more hideous than that of the European middle ages. They remind us that the simplistic "for or against" approach to religion inevitably obscures the startling differences between the various religions of mankind, between those religions that demand human sacrifice to appease a blood-thirsty god, and those that have inspired self-sacrifice in the name of a better world.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011508B
Synopsys.
Good guys = White hats.
Bad guys = Black hats.
Durandal @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
I've never once stated that the reason I reject religion is because its followers are disrespectful.
No, I didn't say that.It's part of the Atheist rethoric, "the religious intimidate/brainwash/control/manipulate/etc"
. I've seen it in countless debates I have participated into, and it is also reflected by tons of hard-core atheist web sites such as anti-religion and nobelief. The fact is that Atheists do the same and have been doing the same since they started to pop-out.$1:
In fact, I feel there's absolutely no room for tolerance if you believe you hold the one true key to "salvation". If you absolutely believe there are certain things one must do to get into heaven (or to stay out of hell), there's absolutely no reason to "respect" other beliefs - how "respectful" is it to say that you know you hold the key to heaven but you don't mind if others go to hell?
Totally OT ; but it prouves my point (again) so I'll reply.
So according to you my faith is disrespectfull in its core, interesting. I'm used to this load of crap, but for a novice, your kind of argumentation must sound imposing. What you are really saying is : "You think you have the only truth ? Okay this means you are intolerant and therefore wrong so STFU". Nice way to muzzle-up a person which faith is not solidely anchored, it would probably have worked with me just a couple of years ago.
$1:
Either you have mistaken me for someone else, you don't actually understand what I post, or you're lying, because I've never stated anything of the sort - I couldn't care less if someone who believes in fairytales respects my own beliefs.
Your all mixed-up. Anyways, it doesn't matters, I got my point through.
Durandal @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:59 pm
Joe_Stalin, thanks again.
Much better than the "you don't think if you embrace religion" of some Atheists that are not as much open-minded as they would like us to believe.
Blue_Nose @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:14 pm
Durandal Durandal:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
I've never once stated that the reason I reject religion is because its followers are disrespectful.
No, I didn't say that.It's part of the Atheist rethoric, "the religious intimidate/brainwash/control/manipulate/etc"
. I've seen it in countless debates I have participated into, and it is also reflected by tons of hard-core atheist web sites such as anti-religion and nobelief. The fact is that Atheists do the same and have been doing the same since they started to pop-out.Durandal Durandal:
Atheists are absolutists and disrespectfull towards those who don't share their views, while at the same time they supposedly reject all such things 'cause they claim it is THE characteristic of religion !
and regardless of what you've seen in "countless debates", I haven't attempted to "intimidate/brainwash/control/manipulate" anyone, and none of that is the reason I reject religion.Durandal Durandal:
So according to you my faith is disrespectfull in its core, interesting. I'm used to this load of crap, but for a novice, your kind of argumentation must sound imposing.
I didn't say it was disrespectful at its core at all - I put for a personal opinion that if you believe in salvation and believe its only acheived through Christianity, you're not being respectful by being tolerant of other views. English is obviously a challenge for you, so read slower.Durandal Durandal:
What you are really saying is : "You think you have the only truth ? Okay you are intolerant therefore wrong so STFU". Nice way to muzzle-up a person which faith is not solidely anchored, it would probably have worked with me just a couple of years ago.
Not once did I say "you are intolerant therefore wrong so STFU" in any way, shape or form. Intolerance doesn't have any bearing on validity, and I never attempted to "muzzle" anyone - in case you haven't noticed, I'm engaging in an open dialogue with the other members of this forum. Again your comprehension is lacking or you're a liar.Durandal Durandal:
You'r all mixed-up. Anyways, it doesn't matters, I got my point through.
You invented a load of ridiculous arguments and attempted to attribute them to me - was exposing yourself as a dishonest and/or incoherent your point?
Durandal @ Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:00 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
You did say that, actually - right here
I never said they reject *because* of disrespect/bigotry/etc, I said that they use it as an *argument*. Difference !Too easy c'mon !
$1:
and regardless of what you've seen in "countless debates", I haven't attempted to "intimidate/brainwash/control/manipulate" anyone
I'ts all over CKA I don't even need to stard quoting it's everywear. (And BTW don't take it personal it's not aimed at you.)$1:
I didn't say it was disrespectful at its core at all - I put for a personal opinion that if you believe in salvation and believe its only acheived through Christianity, you're not being respectful by being [in?]tolerant of other views.
LOL, and that is pretty much the core of my faith.
$1:
English is obviously a challenge for you, so read slower.
Nope I was right on target.
$1:
Not once did I say "you are intolerant therefore wrong so STFU" in any way, shape or form.
Between the lines.