Jesus
claimed to be the great I AM -
. “I am the Good Shepherd.” Jn.10:11 - But the Old Testament says that Yahweh is our Shepherd
. “I am the Judge of all men.” Matt.25:31ff Jn.5:27ff - But the Old Testament says that Yahweh is the Judge of all nations.
. “Father, glorify me, in your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began,” Jn.17:5 - But in the Old Testament Yahweh says that He will not give His glory to anyone except Himself.
. “I Am the Bridegroom,” Matt 25:1 - But the Old Testament uses this term only for Yahweh
. “I am the first and the last,” Rev.1:17 - But this is the exact term that Yahweh uses of Himself in the Old Testament.
. “I am the light of the world,” But the Old Testament says that Yahweh is the light of the world.
. “Before Abraham was, I AM,” But the Old Testament says that Yahweh is the great I AM.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.Jesus claimed to be equal with God:
. “Son, your sins are forgiven.”Mk. 2:5ff - But the Old Testament says that only God can forgive our sins.
. “I have the power to raise the dead and to judge them also.” Jn5:25-29 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes,” Jn 5:21 - But the Old Testament says that only God can give life and raise from the dead.
. “He who does not honour Me does not honour the Father,” Jn. 5:23 - But the Old Testament says that only God should be honoured.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.Jesus claimed to be Messiah - God
. Isaiah says of the coming Messiah, [He will be] “Mighty God, the everlasting Father.”
. Jesus says that prophecies from the Old Testament concerning Messiah were referring to Him and to Him alone.
. “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus answered, “I Am.” The High Priest tore his robes and said, “What need of we for further proof. You have heard Him say He is God.”
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.Jesus claimed to be worthy of worship:
. Even though both the Old and the New Testaments of the Bible forbid the worship of anyone or anything but Creator God, Jesus allowed people to worship Him.
-In Matt. 8:2it was a leper whom Jesus had healed.
-In Matt. 9:18 it was a rich ruler.
-In Jn. 9:38 it was someone who Jesus healed of blindness.
-In Matt. 14:33 it was His closest followers after He had done what only God could do - calm a storm.
-In Matt. 15:25 Jesus allowed a Canaanite women to worship Him as did the mother of James and John which is recorded in Matt. 20:20
-In Mk. 5:6 A man who’d just be freed from a legion of demons worshipped Jesus.
In all these cases Jesus allowed people to worship Him and to call Him God as though it was His due. Jesus considered Himself to be God Incarnate and
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.
Jesus claimed that His authority was equal to that of God:
. One of the most famous portions of the historical record of Jesus’ ministry is Jesus’ promises to the people as found in the Sermon on the Mount and in His, “You have heard it said . . . but I say,” statements. He said that He was the Promise and the Authority and the people recognised that He spoke with authority, ‘Not as their teachers who quoted other authorities.’ Jesus told His followers that by His authority He was sending them out to tell others about God’s love as they had seen that love demonstrated through Him. Jesus pointed out that it was those who reject what He taught that would be condemned to eternal life in the total absence of God’s love. "He who rejects me rejects the Father." Clearly He taught that He was more than just a man.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God. Jesus claimed that people could and should Pray “in His name:”
. “Whatever you ask in My Name, I will do it.” Jn.14:13.
. Jesus explained what it meant to be asking for something “In Jesus’ name” when He said, “If you abide (walk, talk, live and exist in an ever increasingly intimate relationship with Jesus) in Me I will give you want you want.” Jn.15:7.
. “No one comes to the Father but through Me. I and the Father are one.” We are encouraged to pray to God, but also to Jesus who is God.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.
. The people who knew Jesus best, both His friends and His enemies recognised Jesus’ claims to be Yahweh. He demonstrated this fact by the things that He did. At one point Jesus said, “You don’t have to believe that I Am God by what I say, but you should believe that I Am God by what I do.” Why? Because the things that He was doing were not possible via natural means. They were supernatural. He fulfilled prophecy, He led a sinless life, He performed miraculous deeds, the greatest of which was His resurrection from the dead.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.
As far as I can see, there can be only two reasons for making a statement like, “Jesus never claimed to be God.” First, the writer suffers from profound ignorance regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Second, the writer is a liar.
There may be other reasons that I’m not aware of but the conclusion is the same, the writer is wrong at every level. How could it be otherwise. S/he is committed to a faith-based world view that rejects God's Word and condemns that person to a life of being spiritually dull of mind and slow of thought.
. “I am the Good Shepherd.” Jn.10:11 - But the Old Testament says that Yahweh is our Shepherd
. “I am the Judge of all men.” Matt.25:31ff Jn.5:27ff - But the Old Testament says that Yahweh is the Judge of all nations.
. “Father, glorify me, in your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began,” Jn.17:5 - But in the Old Testament Yahweh says that He will not give His glory to anyone except Himself.
. “I Am the Bridegroom,” Matt 25:1 - But the Old Testament uses this term only for Yahweh
. “I am the first and the last,” Rev.1:17 - But this is the exact term that Yahweh uses of Himself in the Old Testament.
. “I am the light of the world,” But the Old Testament says that Yahweh is the light of the world.
. “Before Abraham was, I AM,” But the Old Testament says that Yahweh is the great I AM.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.Jesus claimed to be equal with God:
. “Son, your sins are forgiven.”Mk. 2:5ff - But the Old Testament says that only God can forgive our sins.
. “I have the power to raise the dead and to judge them also.” Jn5:25-29 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes,” Jn 5:21 - But the Old Testament says that only God can give life and raise from the dead.
. “He who does not honour Me does not honour the Father,” Jn. 5:23 - But the Old Testament says that only God should be honoured.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.Jesus claimed to be Messiah - God
. Isaiah says of the coming Messiah, [He will be] “Mighty God, the everlasting Father.”
. Jesus says that prophecies from the Old Testament concerning Messiah were referring to Him and to Him alone.
. “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus answered, “I Am.” The High Priest tore his robes and said, “What need of we for further proof. You have heard Him say He is God.”
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.Jesus claimed to be worthy of worship:
. Even though both the Old and the New Testaments of the Bible forbid the worship of anyone or anything but Creator God, Jesus allowed people to worship Him.
-In Matt. 8:2it was a leper whom Jesus had healed.
-In Matt. 9:18 it was a rich ruler.
-In Jn. 9:38 it was someone who Jesus healed of blindness.
-In Matt. 14:33 it was His closest followers after He had done what only God could do - calm a storm.
-In Matt. 15:25 Jesus allowed a Canaanite women to worship Him as did the mother of James and John which is recorded in Matt. 20:20
-In Mk. 5:6 A man who’d just be freed from a legion of demons worshipped Jesus.
In all these cases Jesus allowed people to worship Him and to call Him God as though it was His due. Jesus considered Himself to be God Incarnate and
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.
Jesus claimed that His authority was equal to that of God:
. One of the most famous portions of the historical record of Jesus’ ministry is Jesus’ promises to the people as found in the Sermon on the Mount and in His, “You have heard it said . . . but I say,” statements. He said that He was the Promise and the Authority and the people recognised that He spoke with authority, ‘Not as their teachers who quoted other authorities.’ Jesus told His followers that by His authority He was sending them out to tell others about God’s love as they had seen that love demonstrated through Him. Jesus pointed out that it was those who reject what He taught that would be condemned to eternal life in the total absence of God’s love. "He who rejects me rejects the Father." Clearly He taught that He was more than just a man.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God. Jesus claimed that people could and should Pray “in His name:”
. “Whatever you ask in My Name, I will do it.” Jn.14:13.
. Jesus explained what it meant to be asking for something “In Jesus’ name” when He said, “If you abide (walk, talk, live and exist in an ever increasingly intimate relationship with Jesus) in Me I will give you want you want.” Jn.15:7.
. “No one comes to the Father but through Me. I and the Father are one.” We are encouraged to pray to God, but also to Jesus who is God.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.
. The people who knew Jesus best, both His friends and His enemies recognised Jesus’ claims to be Yahweh. He demonstrated this fact by the things that He did. At one point Jesus said, “You don’t have to believe that I Am God by what I say, but you should believe that I Am God by what I do.” Why? Because the things that He was doing were not possible via natural means. They were supernatural. He fulfilled prophecy, He led a sinless life, He performed miraculous deeds, the greatest of which was His resurrection from the dead.
The religious leaders wanted Jesus to be killed because they clearly heard Him claim to be God.
As far as I can see, there can be only two reasons for making a statement like, “Jesus never claimed to be God.” First, the writer suffers from profound ignorance regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Second, the writer is a liar.
There may be other reasons that I’m not aware of but the conclusion is the same, the writer is wrong at every level. How could it be otherwise. S/he is committed to a faith-based world view that rejects God's Word and condemns that person to a life of being spiritually dull of mind and slow of thought.
Why do you complain about Atheists saying things like this? Clearly he is wrong, I agree with you, but obviously Jews, Muslims or any other non-Christian could say the same...
ReplyDeleteWell, yes they could make that claim. I'll tell you what. If I ever encounter a Jewish person or a Muslim person or a non Christian person writing a post and making this claim, I'll be sure to make note of it, just for you.
ReplyDeleteSo basically, this part
ReplyDelete"Well, yes they could make that claim."
means
"Yes Hugo you are right"
...and the rest means...
"Fuck you for pointing it out. Who cares what others think? Atheists are the ones who are wrong at every level, being spiritually dull of mind and slow of thought."
Hey I just noticed that the word 'spiritually' appeared in this expression. Atheists used to be literally 'dull of mind and slow of thought'. You also posted a conversation with an imaginary atheist a couple of days ago. Hum... coincidence?
What it means is, "Yes they COULD make that claim but it's atheists who DO make that claim. It's atheists who look for any angle from which to deny their Lord.
ReplyDeleteAnd when they run out of excuses they simply say, "No He didn't," or "No it's not." or as Alexander (I think) said when there is too much evidence, "You're just trying to overwhelm me with evidence, so I won't read any of it."
As a point of interest, did you know that what atheists call Gish Gallop, scholars in Old Testament times called it "Pearl Stringing." It's when they would use verse after verse after verse to make their case.
Yes they COULD make that claim but it's atheists who DO make that claim
ReplyDeleteYou mean...
Yes I COULD find such claims but it's atheists who DO make claims I like to complain about.
(It's the internet. You can find whatever you want.)
It's atheists who look for any angle from which to deny their Lord.
You mean...
I don't care what other believers say; it's atheists who I like to look at.
And when they run out of excuses they simply say, "No He didn't," or "No it's not." or as Alexander (I think) said when there is too much evidence, "You're just trying to overwhelm me with evidence, so I won't read any of it."
Well if this 'Alexander' said something like that, it's useless since 'I won't read any' is not a very productive thing to say. 'I will look only at 1-2-3 only for now because I don't have time for the others' would make more sense, for example. Obviously I have no idea what you are actually talking about. You are just ranting about things without posting any quotes or links, so for all I know it's yet another imaginary Atheist you are complaining about... or you probably made up some context in your head that changes the meaning...
As a point of interest, did you know that what atheists call Gish Gallop, scholars in Old Testament times called it "Pearl Stringing." It's when they would use verse after verse after verse to make their case.
Nope did not know that, and that's not what Gish Gallop is anyway... and it's not an 'atheist' thing... I think the expression did originate from a religious debate but it's a label that can be used in any debate when one of the opponents wrongfully uses that technique.
Well, my young friend, my usual daily routine is to look at blogs on Jesus, Christianity, and atheism, the first three pages for each topic.
ReplyDeletePlenty of room for Jews, Muslims and non Christians to say whatever they want. Like I said, If I notice one of these three groups saying that Jesus never said he was God, I'll take note.
====
it's atheists who I like to look at."
Yes, that's true. For me, it's kind of trying to not look at a two headed person. Atheism is such an absurd conclusion to reach regarding the evidence before us that I find it very intriguing. I've always found human anomalies fascinating. It's one of the main reasons I went into counselling.
=====
'I won't read any' is not a very productive thing to say."
I agree. I referred him to three or four posts that addressed one of his comments, and he came back with an accusation of Gish Gallop.
======
I have no idea what you are actually talking about. You are just ranting about things without posting any quotes or links,"
Ya, my comment gadget hasn't been working properly so I just deleted it, for now. I know, it makes it harder to follow. His comment is from "What More Could He Do?"
------
Well, my young friend, my usual daily routine is to look at blogs on Jesus, Christianity, and atheism, the first three pages for each topic.
ReplyDeleteI would be curious to know what that means exactly: what are these 3 pages you talk about?
Like I said, If I notice one of these three groups saying that Jesus never said he was God, I'll take note.
You don't seem to get the point, or you do get it and are too proud to admit your mistake. You started by quoting an atheist blog, fine, but you never address the same kind of quotes from others. You don't do so because they don't exist; you do so because you prefer to focus on hating and insulting that one group of people.
Yes, that's true. For me, it's kind of trying to not look at a two headed person. Atheism is such an absurd conclusion to reach regarding the evidence before us that I find it very intriguing. I've always found human anomalies fascinating. It's one of the main reasons I went into counselling.
What's fascinating from my end is that after reading so much about Atheism and Atheist, you still don't get it. You make the same mistakes on Thesauros that you were making on Makarios.
I am thus not surprised that it's the same kind of "interest" that pushed you into counselling. You seem to like to the the judge more than the observer; you seem to like more to be the one who comments and write than the one who listens and learn.
In other words, you are not fascinated by Atheists at all, at least not in the sense that you would like to learn something. You have your conclusions that you lay out here on your blog, or even on an ebook, and you mock and ridicule any Atheists who dares disagree with you.
The thoughts and ideas coming from this group of people have absolutely 0 value for you. It seems that you are someone walking through a zoo and commenting on the animals; surely nobody would pay attention to what the animals think or do. We humans are the ones who are right, no matter what.
I agree. I referred him to three or four posts that addressed one of his comments, and he came back with an accusation of Gish Gallop.
Ok now I see who you were talking about... I think you misinterpretated the context. He was not calling Gish Gallop on you; that would be the case if he asked you a question and you went on to discuss many other topics. I think we simply realized what I just wrote above: you don't care to be corrected, so why bother?
"what are these 3 pages you talk about?"
ReplyDelete. I go to google blog search
. I type in Jesus (last 24 hours) and scroll through the first 3 pages of posts to see if anything interests me
. I type in Christianity (last 24 hours) and scroll through the first 3 pages of posts to see if anything interests me
. I type in atheists (last 24 hours) and scroll through the first 3 pages of posts to see if anything interests me.
. Then I go on with the rest of my day.
=====
"never address the same kind of quotes from others."
Because on these three subjects (Jesus, Christians, atheists) I haven't seen any comments by Jews, Muslims and non Christians stating that Jesus never claimed to be God. Can't you get that? How could I say that more clearly?
=====
"not in the sense that you would like to learn something."
Well, what do you have to offer besides a non belief in gods?
=====
Gish Gallop
I referred him to several posts on the issue that he was referring to.
Because on these three subjects (Jesus, Christians, atheists) I haven't seen any comments by Jews, Muslims and non Christians stating that Jesus never claimed to be God. Can't you get that? How could I say that more clearly?
ReplyDeleteI know that; you clearly don't get the point... Let me try this:
"Jesus never said He was God." That’s what a black blogger said the other day. Sheesh, you can just say any old thing can’t you? Well, I feel compelled to point out the following:
There can be only two reasons for making that statement.
First, the black writer suffers from profound ignorance regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Second, the black writer is a liar.
There may be other reasons that I’m not aware of but the conclusion is the same, the writer is wrong at every level. How could it be otherwise. Blacks are spiritually dull of mind and slow of thought.
Do you get it now?
Well, what do you have to offer besides a non belief in gods?
Anything you would be interested in knowing about, just like any other atheists... since Atheism is not my define myself. It's not my worldview, it's a tiny part of who I am. That's the reason why I find your blog so interesting. I am an Atheist but almost never identifies myself with your view of what an Atheist is...
For example, after all these years of "studying" Atheists and being interested in their worldviews, could you name some of the things that most of us have in common? Could you name a few of the things I believe and base my worldview on?
One's race has nothing to do with whether God exists or not, whether the Bible is God's Word or not, whether Jesus was God incarnate or not. Atheism is intimately tied to all of these. Poor example.
ReplyDelete=====
"I am an Atheist" - Our view of God is THE most important view we can have. From that view flows everything else about life that is important.
=====
"could you name some of the things that most of us have in common?"
. God does not exist
. This is a material universe
. There is nothing more to life than what meets the senses
. Matter has either always existed or matter created itself
. Some material things can just pop into existence - uncaused
. There are no objective moral obligations or duties
. Our thoughts and actions are determined by the chemical reactions in our brains
. Our conscious existence ends at death
. There is no soul
. There is no "I"
. Design is an illusion
I don't care if you believe these things or not. They are the natural, logical outcome of believing that a Supernatural Creator God does not exist. You, Hugo present a world-view that picks and chooses regardless of whether it coheres to a belief in a material world-view.
One's race has nothing to do with whether God exists or not, whether the Bible is God's Word or not, whether Jesus was God incarnate or not. Atheism is intimately tied to all of these. Poor example.
ReplyDeleteYou confirm that you still don't understand: The fact that being black is not tied means that it's a GOOD example, because being an Atheist has nothing to do with claiming that Jesus did not say he was God. That what's I keep trying to explain.
What you are doing is called bigotry and you seem to think that it's fine because Atheist are, according to you, dull of mind and slow of thought.
"I am an Atheist" - Our view of God is THE most important view we can have. From that view flows everything else about life that is important.
That's your opinion. I completely disagree.
First reason, short and sweet:
There is not even one unique thing that's so important that it's influences everything else we do in life.
Second reason, way more complicated... so you will probably not read it nor will you care, but that's how I form my opinions:
Most of what we do in life is not even related to a belief in God. Yes our beliefs inform our actions so beliefs do matter, but a belief in God is not tied to anything specific since believing in God is too vague and vary too much from person to person and culture to culture. If someone tells you they believe in God, you know absolutely nothing more about that person. You have no way to guess what their views are on anything. For you it is important of course, there is nothing wrong with that, but that's because that's how you think. You can wish it to be different but that's reality. Not everybody thinks the same way.
Of course that's not that simple either: Yes there are correlations; but correlation does not equate causation. Yes there are correlations; but there are no rules. Yes there are correlations; but there is always a significant part of the population which differs from this correlation. Therefore, even if belief in God can be found to coincide with a lot of views, it does not mean that people base their entire views on that one view of God as a starting point.
I believe our views, on every level from personal to national, passing through our families and work place, are more important than our view on God, and are independent on our view on God. I strongly believe that our views on education, justice, friendship, family, foreign policy, environment, and many more, are more important than our view on God.
"could you name some of the things that most of us have in common?"
[...]
I don't care if you believe these things or not. They are the natural, logical outcome of believing that a Supernatural Creator God does not exist. You, Hugo present a world-view that picks and chooses regardless of whether it coheres to a belief in a material world-view.
Fine. I was going to explain why most of the points were wrong (not all) but since you have your own idea of what it means to be an Atheist, for all Atheists including myself, I will let you enjoy your imaginary world in the fantasy of your own mind.
You should write more of this post where you had a conversation with a fake Atheist. That seems to be the most accurate way for you to actually show what Atheism means for you.
If you ever want to know why what you wrote is NOT the natural, logical outcome of believing that a Supernatural Creator God does not exist, let me know. If you want to know why it seems to you that I pick and choose, let me know. If you want to really know what my basis are and why I have materialist beliefs, let me know.
Hahaha, what am I saying; as if you would start to want to learn something. You are right, I am wrong, and you are fascinated by that... but not 'why'.
What a joke!
"Atheist has nothing to do with claiming that Jesus did not say he was God."
ReplyDeleteSo atheists keep saying it because . . .
-------
Bigotry is not okay and atheists are SPIRITUALLY dull of mind and slow of thought. As you are demonstrating right now.
-----
"There is not even one unique thing that's so important that it's influences everything else we do in life."
That's your opinion. I disagree.
=====
. God does not exist
. This is a material universe
. There is nothing more to life than what meets the senses
. Matter has either always existed or matter created itself
. Some material things can just pop into existence - uncaused
. There are no objective moral obligations or duties
. Our thoughts and actions are determined by the chemical reactions in our brains
. Our conscious existence ends at death
. There is no soul
. There is no "I"
. Design is an illusion
For what it's worth, I typed this question out before I read your invitation to ask. Which points are NOT a logic implication from the starting position that a Supernatural Creator God does not exist?
-----
"Atheist has nothing to do with claiming that Jesus did not say he was God."
ReplyDeleteSo atheists keep saying it because . . .
1) Atheists, or non-Atheists, who "keep saying it" are wrong.
2) Not all Atheists say "it".
3) Non-Atheists say "it".
You explained yourself that the only reason why you are aware of Atheists saying such thing is because you read blogs written by Atheists. Hence, mentioning that the wrong information was written by an Atheist is meaningless; it can only serve one purpose: to ridicule/insult a group of people, Atheist, that you dislike/hate for other reasons. That's why I call this bigotry.
-------
Bigotry is not okay and atheists are SPIRITUALLY dull of mind and slow of thought. As you are demonstrating right now.
Thanks for the insult... on a spiritual level.
May I ask how I am demonstrating that I am dull of mind and slow of thought... SPIRITUALLY?
In the same vein, can you explain how you define "spiritual" in your own words?
For what it's worth, I typed this question out before I read your invitation to ask. Which points are NOT a logic implication from the starting position that a Supernatural Creator God does not exist?
Your question is formulated in a weird way because my point is that disbelief in a Supernatural Creator God is not a starting position. Now you ask me to explain something that assume that it is... The point was also that not all Atheists believe the same things; hence the statements are not a logical follow-up of being an Atheist.
I would proceed after you acknowledge that point as it's a waste of time to start on the wrong foot.
“it can only serve one purpose:”
ReplyDeleteIt serves the purpose of showing those who are exploring atheism, that when atheists say they should be known as Brights because they are so much smarter than Christians, or when they say they know more about the Bible than Christians, the atheists are blowing smoke.
=====
“May I ask how I am demonstrating that I am dull of mind and slow of thought... SPIRITUALLY? In the same vein, can you explain how you define "spiritual" in your own words?”
You don't need to take it as an insult. It's merely stating a fact. It's like saying my kids are retarded. Doesn't sound nice I suppose, but it's a fact. You are spiritually dull of mind and slow of thought to the point that you are unable to recognise the evidence for God's existence that surrounds you. It's like asking my "retarded" 11 year old to do grade six math. It can't be done.
“Spiritual” in my own words means being awre of another dimension, a spiritual dimension if you will, that exists in concert to or perhaps parallel to the material dimension.
=====
What other starting position could there be? I said, A belief that God and the supernatural does not exist carries with it these logical implications. You say that's not true. So I'm asking you, “Which of the following are not logical implications of stating that a Supernatural Creator God does not exist?”
. God does not exist
. This is a material universe
. A supernatural dimension does not exist
. There is nothing more to life than what can be detected by the senses
. Matter has either always existed or matter created itself
. Some things can just pop into existence - uncaused
. There are no objective moral obligations or duties
. Our thoughts and actions are determined by the chemical reactions in our brains
. Our conscious existence ends at death
. There is no soul
. There is no "I"
. Design is an illusion
It serves the purpose of showing those who are exploring atheism, that when atheists say they should be known as Brights because they are so much smarter than Christians, or when they say they know more about the Bible than Christians, the atheists are blowing smoke.
ReplyDeleteAtheists who claim to be smarter than average because they are Atheists are wrong.
The fact that you want to point that out is yet another example of bigotry. Two in a few days. Good job.
You don't need to take it as an insult. It's merely stating a fact. It's like saying my kids are retarded. Doesn't sound nice I suppose, but it's a fact.
Just like the fact that you are a bigot. Sounds good actually.
You are spiritually dull of mind and slow of thought to the point that you are unable to recognise the evidence for God's existence that surrounds you.
I understand that for you God is real so anybody not seeing that is spiritually slow of mind and dull of thought. What's interesting is that this spiritual world you talk about is entirely in your head. It is a very lazy way to support your own belief. It's actually very dishonest as well since you don't have evidence, you have faith.
It's like asking my "retarded" 11 year old to do grade six math. It can't be done.
Or it's like asking you to think logically and present reasoning that supports your views. You use emotions and insult because you are incapable of explaining why anybody else should believe the same things as you. They just feel right for you. You happen to also have people around you that agree and share the same kind of spiritual experience. What you think about gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction. You have no way to show why you are correct.
Spiritual” in my own words means being awre of another dimension, a spiritual dimension if you will, that exists in concert to or perhaps parallel to the material dimension.
I like that you use the words 'in concert to or perhaps' because it shows the underlying lie that you tell yourself: there is no such thing as a spiritual world. You just make that up. That's why you cannot really define what it is. It's basically something you can think of in your head, that other people have talked about, and that you hope is true. Who would not want to live forever in this conscious experience 2.0?
What other starting position could there be? I said, A belief that God and the supernatural does not exist carries with it these logical implications. You say that's not true.
Nice way to turn things around. You are so incapable of following a discussion and coming up with rational thought that you forgot what the question was. I am the one who asked you:
...after all these years of "studying" Atheists and being interested in their worldviews, could you name some of the things that most of us have in common? Could you name a few of the things I believe and base my worldview on?
Nice try but you failed. Miserably. It's not surprising obviously since it is a fact that you are incapable at following argumentation, both yours and that for others. It's so much easier to use feelings and common sense, right?
By the way, nothing here is an insult; they are just facts.
“Atheists who claim to be smarter than average because they are Atheists are wrong.”
ReplyDeleteExactly the point I was making. So when you say they're wrong it's a good thing. When I say they're wrong it's bigotry. Nice.
=====
“Just like the fact that you are a bigot. Sounds good actually.”
Obviously, like other atheists, you don't need God in order to be a nice person. Right?
-----
“It's actually very dishonest as well since you don't have evidence, you have faith.”
Ah yes, back to “No He didn't,” “No it doesn't.”
=====
“you are incapable of explaining why anybody else should believe the same things as you.”
You mean besides the other 2 billion Christians?
------
“What you think about gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction.”
Ha! That's a good one. I promise you, if you want warm fuzzy feelings, you do not want Christianity.
-----
“You have no way to show why you are correct.”
Not to you. At least not at this point in your life. Perhaps God has plans to call you later on but for now He is leaving you to your own devices.
=====
“I like that you use the words 'in concert to or perhaps' because it shows the underlying lie that you tell yourself:”
Actually, I used the words deliberately because atheists have such an aversion to Christian confidence. I have no doubt – NONE – about a spiritual dimension but atheists demand that we should all live in a perpetual state of doubt.
-----
“conscious experience 2.0?”
That's good. I like that.
=====
"I am the one who asked you: could you name some of the things that most of us have in common?”
So are you going to answer or not? Are these or are they not beliefs that based upon logic Atheists would have in common? You said at one point, “Some of them are and some of them are not.” You even said that if I asked, you would answer. So - enlighten me please.
. God does not exist
. This is a material universe
. A supernatural dimension does not exist
. There is nothing more to life than what can be detected by the senses
. Matter has either always existed or matter created itself
. Some things can just pop into existence - uncaused
. There are no objective moral obligations or duties
. Our thoughts and actions are determined by the chemical reactions in our brains
. Our conscious existence ends at death
. There is no soul
. There is no "I"
. Design is an illusion
=====
“By the way, nothing here is an insult; they are just facts.”
Hugo darling, you take this WAY too personally. I don't care one speck if you think I'm an idiot. Why should you care what I think about you?
Exactly the point I was making. So when you say they're wrong it's a good thing. When I say they're wrong it's bigotry. Nice.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone does something wrong, the non-bigot will point out what that person did wrong, regardless of gender, race, religion.
When someone does something wrong, the bigot will point out what that person did wrong and specify something that has nothing to do with it.
That's why you are a bigot.
That's why it's a fact that you are not a rational person.
Obviously, like other atheists, you don't need God in order to be a nice person. Right?
Nobody needs God to be a nice person. Some people are nice
Ah yes, back to “No He didn't,” “No it doesn't."
in the story he did a lot of things. The point is that you believe that all parts of the story are true, because you are not thinking rationally about it.
How could these good people lie? How could they be mistaken? They died because of what they believe, it must be true!
You mean besides the other 2 billion Christians?
Aw yes of course, when you feel like you need support; you use the 2 billion numbers, but when you want to show how special your relationship with Jesus is, and how most Christians fall short of the good path to follow, that number shrinks tremendously.
Not surprising though, you are an irrational bigot to pick and choose certain facts when it suits his views. You are not able to write coherant arguments in support of your position. When it becomes too hard, you whine and say that I am (or others) are completely irrational and blah blah blah. Can't wait for you to go back to these insults. I am one of the most irrational person you ever ran into after all, no? That's what you said in one of your outburst of 'I don't care what you have to say; God did it and that's it'
Ha! That's a good one. I promise you, if you want warm fuzzy feelings, you do not want Christianity
Really? I was convinced that it was you who once said that we cannot feel as good as you feel if we don't know that we are saved? Didnt you even mention how sex between two married Christian is the best? Didn't you mention a bunch of other examples of how truly blessed you feel to be saved, how comforting it is to be loved by the Creator of the whole Universe! Didn't you mention how good it is to have an intimate, healed and forgiven relationship with Creator God ... looking forward to a life of eternal rest?
My mistake then; good to know that you now agree with reality: both Christians and non-Christians can live fulfilled lives and enjoy it as much as possible. There are way more factors than religion that influence one's state of mind in life. Maybe you are rational about that one point now.
“You have no way to show why you are correct.”
Not to you. At least not at this point in your life. Perhaps God has plans to call you later on but for now He is leaving you to your own devices.
I like that you put the burden of proof on God. Your system has this nice way of proving itself. You believe strongly that you were saved by a God and it's because you were saved that you can be so sure. Hence, there is nothing to prove to others because it's up to them to be saved, but at the same time everything is part of God's plan so it's not really up to anyone. You can literally decide how it works every time you need to switch between 'You choose' and 'God chooses'.
Actually, I used the words deliberately because atheists have such an aversion to Christian confidence. I have no doubt – NONE – about a spiritual dimension but atheists demand that we should all live in a perpetual state of doubt.
ReplyDeleteYes it's rational to doubt things that one cannot be certain of. That's why I would never claim that God, when defined in certain ways, cannot exist. There is always a possibility. Asserting 100% conviction for such positions is not rational. When you do that for your belief in God, a belief which is highly context dependent, localized, personal and not falsifiable, you let your emotions lead you to a dogmatic position that should not be questioned. Hence, you are irrational and dogmatic.
“conscious experience 2.0?”
That's good. I like that.
Ya it's funny isn't it. It shows how you are unable to explain what the difference between consciousness and soul is. The only difference is that the soul is supposed to survive the death of your material body for the conscious experience 2.0 yet to come.
"I am the one who asked you: could you name some of the things that most of us have in common?”
So are you going to answer or not? Are these or are they not beliefs that based upon logic Atheists would have in common? You said at one point, “Some of them are and some of them are not.” You even said that if I asked, you would answer. So - enlighten me please.
I know it's hard for someone irrational and impaired in philosophy to understand, so I will try to repeat: I was asking you what Atheists have in common. Talking about what we can derive from a belief in 'God does not exist' is not the same at all. The former asks you to name things that people who don't hold a god belief have in common, while the later is about logical deductions based on a hypothesis.
In other word, ALL of the items on your list were wrong ANSWERS to the question, but some of them are true statements anyway if taken by themselves. Let's try to go through them to explain:
. This is a material universe
Yes of course, the universe is material. You probably meant that Atheists believe "all there is is a material universe" but were either too lazy to write it correctly, or actually probably just did not realize your mistake because you write with your gut, without thinking about how a statement's meaning can change depending on the exact wording.
In any case, assuming you meant "all there is is a material universe" then you are wrong on more than one level because some Atheists do believe in some spiritual immaterial magic stuff, just not in a god, while others like me don't believe in that, but still don't claim that the material universe is all there is, because we cannot prove such statement.
Then, the next version of this is to look at the statement from the position of a belief that God does not exist. The statement still fails because it does not follow that if a God does not exist, all there is is a material universe.
. A supernatural dimension does not exist
ReplyDeleteMostly a synonym of the previous one; but since you don't care about actually formulating statements that make sense, your gut told you that this should be right.
. There is nothing more to life than what can be detected by the senses
-- Everybody agrees that there is more to life than what can be detected by the senses. The statement is simply false. Hence, it is not the case that Atheists share this view.
--If someone believes that Creator God does not exist, it does not logically lead to this view. Eliminating God of the picture still leaves the door open for something more to exist, besides what the sense can detect.
. Matter has either always existed or matter created itself
That's something you write over and over again even if it's illogical, violating basic logical aboslutes
- Atheists don't all agree on this view
- Believing God does not exist does not lead to this view
Either matter was created, or not
If it was created, it was created by something which 'not matter', by definition
Everywhere we look, all we see is matter, so we cannot know for sure if it was created or not
If we assume that it was, the 'non-matter' thing that created matter remains unknown and undefined, since we define things by what they are, not what they are not.
. Some things can just pop into existence - uncaused
- Not all Atheists would agree
- Believing God does not exist has nothing to do with this
Wrong on both account again. Moreover, from our point of view, we do see things that give the impression to pop into existence. It's complicated and hard to define so nobody really knows if it's truly uncaused or not, but it is certainly not caused by something around it, where it does appear.
. There are no objective moral obligations or duties
- Some Atheists agree; some don't. Again, not a common thing.
- Believing God does not exist has nothing to do with this since some Atheists who do believe God does not exist believe that there is such a thing as objective morality
. Our thoughts and actions are determined by the chemical reactions in our brains
Yes they are, at least in part. The real question is whether or not they are entirely caused by the brain. Nothing to do with either position again but the statement is true by itself.
. Our conscious existence ends at death
- Some Atheists agree; some don't. Again, not a common thing.
- Believing God does not exist has nothing to do with this since some Atheists who do believe God does not exist believe that there is such a thing as an afterlife
. There is no soul
- Some Atheists agree; some don't. Again, not a common thing.
- Believing God does not exist has nothing to do with this since some Atheists who do believe God does not exist believe that there is such a thing as an afterlife for the soul
. There is no "I"
That's just stupid. A person is a 'I'.
. Design is an illusion
That might be the only one which is right! But again, this is not even a purely Atheistic thing. We know for a fact that lots of designs are illusions. Just look at a rainbow; doesn't it look designed?
“By the way, nothing here is an insult; they are just facts.”
ReplyDeleteHugo darling, you take this WAY too personally. I don't care one speck if you think I'm an idiot. Why should you care what I think about you?
Well I was joking obviously, using the same kind of words you use.
However, it is personal, not in the sense that I take this personally and feel offended, I am never offended; it's personal in the sense that I, Hugo, as a person, have been talking to you, Rod, for a couple of years now. What I write on your blog is a response to you. You are the bigot. You are the liar. You are the one who writes illogical statements.
I don't really care about Christianity as a whole; it's way to diverse (2 billion people right?). What's interesting to look at and response to are individual actions or statements made by certain people. Your blog is thus a great source of such examples. On top of it, you reply personally to comments so it makes it fun to interact with you... even if you are an irrational fundamentalist bigot.
"I am never offended"
ReplyDeleteoh ya I can tell.
"I am never offended"
ReplyDeleteoh ya I can tell.
Oh my god you really think that I am even slightly offended by 1 single word you write?
Ok so to be clear... you had absolutely nothing to reply to the points I made. Instead, you exposed yet another reasoning error: you thought I was offended.
ReplyDeleteGood to know!
"Ok so to be clear... you had absolutely nothing to reply to the points I made."
ReplyDeleteOh I've got lots of thoughts on what you said. It just makes me tired to think of putting it into words. And for what - really? You'll believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. I mean, I appreciate the effort you put into what you wrote. Some of it I agree with, but in the end... I am interested in what you mean when you say that I'm a fundamentalist. And I think that a true full-blown bigot (you know that I believe we're all bigots to one degree or another) would see the "person" in this case an "atheist person" as less than, rather than this or that specific belief, and I don't see atheists as less than or worse than. I might be wrong on the definition of bigot. But other than that, I don't think you and I need to keep going down the same trail over and over.
Oh I've got lots of thoughts on what you said. It just makes me tired to think of putting it into words.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should write another book about it then?
And for what - really? You'll believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe.
Ya that's how you operate, but please don't include me, I am constantly reviewing my beliefs to make sure they match reality. Since reality is changing, that's the rational approach.
I mean, I appreciate the effort you put into what you wrote. Some of it I agree with, but in the end... I am interested in what you mean when you say that I'm a fundamentalist.
Being a fundamentalist is not a black-or-white thing obviously. It is a combination of a few things and a matter of perception. It thus my opinion that fundamentalists are people who take spiritual stories more literally than the average reader, hold to certain beliefs without question, judge others that do not adhere to the same beliefs, try to push their dogma onto others, fall into a 'us-vs-them' mentality, base a larger than average portion of their life on their dogma, etc...
In your case, what applies is the fact that you take the Christian narrative to be literally true, hold certain beliefs without evidence and without possibility of questioning and judge others who dare question your dogma. This creates this 'us-vs-them' mentality at the core of your bigotry.
And I think that a true full-blown bigot (you know that I believe we're all bigots to one degree or another) would see the "person" in this case an "atheist person" as less than, rather than this or that specific belief, and I don't see atheists as less than or worse than. I might be wrong on the definition of bigot. But other than that, I don't think you and I need to keep going down the same trail over and over.
I might be wrong on the definition too; but it's seems pretty simple to me: a bigot is like a racist but for a group of people that is not identified by race.
You don't need to think that they are 'less than'; you just need to judge them based on the common characteristic that they depict, regardless of other actions/characteristics they might present. The bigot tends to over-generalize, over-simplify and extrapolate present actions to predict future misbehavior. Any action performed by a member of the group targeted by the bigot is thus instantly labeled as 'bad' or at least suspicious. In other words, the bigot has strong pre-conceptions that causes biased opinions with respect to any member of the targeted group.
“you take the Christian narrative to be literally true,”
ReplyDeleteWhat is the Christian narrative?
-----
“hold certain beliefs without evidence”
Such as?
-----
“judge others who dare question your dogma.”
If by judging you mean judging them as less than or as worse individuals, you are flat out wrong. If you mean judging the conclusions they draw as being wrong, absolutely I do. What's wrong with that? I'm not allowed to form my own opinion?
-----
"I might be wrong on the definition too; but it's seems pretty simple to me: a bigot is like a racist but for a group of people that is not identified by race."
Well, can you give me an example where I've challenged or addressed something other than beliefs and statements of atheists?
-----
“and extrapolate present actions to predict future misbehavior.”
Unless there has been something profound take place in an individuals character, the best predictor of future behaviours are past behaviour. When I hear present day atheists calling for the elimination of Christianity for exactly the same reasons that past atheists attempted to eliminate Christianity it does tend to make me feel that it is them against me. When I hear the most powerful and popular atheists leaders advocating removing children from Christian homes because, according to them teaching my children about Jesus is “child abuse,” it does tend to make me feel that it is them against me.
-----
pre-conceptions that causes biased opinions with respect to any member of the targeted group.
Preconceptions? Preconceptions??
. Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children. Christopher Hitchens writes, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?” The atheist answer? Inculcate all children with atheist beliefs. Atheists have done it in the past. Why would they not do it again?
. Christian Children are not the property of their parents. Daniel Dennett, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? Should [Christian parents] be free to impose their beliefs on their children?”
Again, the atheist answer is to impose atheist beliefs upon not just their children but upon everyone’s children. This is exactly the tactics used by Stalin et al.
. Atheists know best what children need to learn. Christopher Hitchens “Parents don’t literally own their children. [Christian parents] ought to be held accountable by outsiders [read atheists] for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.” Atheists have done it in the past. Why would they not do it again?
. Christian parents have no right to teach their children about Jesus. Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, “ [Christian] Parents, have no god-given license to enculturate their children in whatever way they choose, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.”
I’ve personally experienced this developing atheist dogma from an atheist blogger. His stated hope is that our children will be taken from us to keep them from being taught about Christianity. His hope of course is that someone else will raise our children and teach them the tenets of his faith.
And your response will be, “Oh well, those atheists are wrong.” Guess what Hugo? Nobody cares what you think. People DO care what these very popular authors think. And for what it's worth, if you are still alive when atheists have the power to once again implement programs to bring about this old atheist utopia, I don't believe you'll do one thing to stand against it. You might not agree with it but if you aren't saying anything in protest now, you won't say anything in protest then.
“you take the Christian narrative to be literally true,”
ReplyDeleteWhat is the Christian narrative?
“hold certain beliefs without evidence”
Such as?
These two can easily be combined. Let's take the Bible, start reading it, and you tell me when it's stopped being metaphorical and became literal. We won't get very far...
Now because you are very emotional, you might be tempted to reply that there is tons of evidence of the Bible, and I would agree. What you don't have evidence for is things like a talking snake or a bush on fire, up to a ghost talking to people.
These things require more than a book to be believed, but that's just the way I judge things; for you the bar is set much lower obviously.
If by judging you mean judging them as less than or as worse individuals, you are flat out wrong.
That's exactly what you do because you are a bigot. You pretend not to do so because everyone is a little bit bigot, but you write in a very different ways about Atheists, or to Atheist, than you do with Christians. You feel attacked by Atheists... 'They want to take my kids, OMG!!!!!'
If you mean judging the conclusions they draw as being wrong, absolutely I do. What's wrong with that? I'm not allowed to form my own opinion?
Of course, feel free to expose your misunderstanding of the conclusions drawn by others. Feel free to expose your own false conclusions. That's what I am commenting on.
Well, can you give me an example where I've challenged or addressed something other than beliefs and statements of atheists?
Search for 'bigot' on your own blog. Each time I quoted you is an example.
“and extrapolate present actions to predict future misbehavior.”
Unless there has been something profound take place in an individuals character, the best predictor of future behaviours are past behaviour.
Yes that makes sense in general. Therefore, you have to be completely out of your mind to think that the people who don't want their kids' school to organize lunch at a church are the same people who would commit genocide. I am not saying I agree with what they do, I don't even know the details, but if that's the kind of behavior you use as 'past behavior' to predict 'future behavior', you do it very wrong.
...it does tend to make me feel that it is them against me.
Yes because you are an irrational fundamentalist who does not understand half of what the Atheists "leaders", as you call them, attempt to do.
Preconceptions? Preconceptions??
ReplyDelete. Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children. Christopher Hitchens writes, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?”
That's a good example of how irrational you are about the topic. Your own words are
' Teaching Christianity is...'
while the quote says:
'How can we ever know how many children'
So you think that Hitchens mean that teaching Christianity is necessarly harmful, while what he is ACCURATELY stating is that teaching kids a faith-based system can have negative impact in some cases... and we know that's true!! I mentioned the people who stopped believing and still feel shit scared of Hell...
The atheist answer? Inculcate all children with atheist beliefs. Atheists have done it in the past. Why would they not do it again?
More emotional reaction; nothing logical. There is no such thing as 'atheists beliefs'. You just label them like that because you are a bigot who labels ANY beliefs held by Atheists as suspicious, by default. Obviously, you do agree with most of what they want to teach once you get to know what it is, but that's not important...
I’ve personally experienced this developing atheist dogma from an atheist blogger.
There are also Christian bloggers who would prefer to pray instead of having their kids get a blood transfusion... so what?
And your response will be, “Oh well, those atheists are wrong.” Guess what Hugo? Nobody cares what you think.
I usually think you are the one who is wrong when quoting things out of context and over-simplifying. It's hard to think about issues you know... but you should try it anyway instead of just writing books that nobody reads.
People DO care what these very popular authors think.
Good. It triggers discussion instead of submission.
And for what it's worth, if you are still alive when atheists have the power to once again implement programs to bring about this old atheist utopia, I don't believe you'll do one thing to stand against it.
Again, you use 'atheist' as a vague derogative term. You don't specify what are these terrible things that Atheists would teach...
You might not agree with it but if you aren't saying anything in protest now, you won't say anything in protest then.
I don't know what I would protest against...
"Therefore, you have to be completely out of your mind to think that the people who don't want their kids' school to organize lunch at a church are the same people who would commit genocide."
ReplyDeleteAnd you say that I don't understand what atheists leaders want to do? Nobody in this town is against "their" kids eating a meal in the Church. Nobody from the town protested or voiced concern. Non of football players parents protested. It was David Silverman, head of some atheist organisation that came half way across the country, into a town he'd never been in before and lodged this complaint. This is where atheist leaders ALWAYS begin. With the children.
Hugo, do you think Hitler started with the ovens? No, he started with closing Church youth groups and forcing the kids to join the Hitler Youth Brigade.
"Once I have settled my other problems, I'll have my reckoning with the Church. I'll have it reeling on the ropes."
Adolf Hitler in conversation with Martin Bormann.
Do you think Stalin started with exporting people north by the thousands? No he started with closing down youth groups at Church and taking prayer out of the schools.
You really don't have a clue do you?
=====
"Obviously, you do agree with most of what they want to teach once you get to know what it is, but that's not important"
What's that supposed to mean. I thought atheism is nothing more than a non belief in gods?
=====
"I don't know what I would protest against"
I'm sure you don't. Either you'll willfully obtuse or painfully ignorant of human nature and how it's been played out in history.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Trade Unionists.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
And then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemoller, a concentration camp prisoner of Hitler for eight years.
Hugo, do you think Hitler started with the ovens? No, he started with closing Church youth groups and forcing the kids to join the Hitler Youth Brigade.
ReplyDeleteHence any Atheist doing something you consider stupid is an indication that if Atheists were more influential they would commit genocide? As I said, you have to be completely out of your mind to think that the people who don't want school to organize lunch at a church are the same people who would commit genocide. I remove the 'their kids' just to please you.
Look at this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/21/nc-teacher-captured-on-video-suggesting-student-could-be-arrested-for-obama/
Can you imagine if more black were teachers? Or if more blacks were in position of authority? Clearly, they would want to silence everybody! This teacher is on a slippery slope to ban all criticism from white people toward black people.
You really don't have a clue do you?
I have a very good understanding of the situation and the way you are reacting to the situation is exactly what we should expect from a bigot like you. It's really interesting to read you and see how you process the information.
"Obviously, you do agree with most of what they want to teach once you get to know what it is, but that's not important"
What's that supposed to mean. I thought atheism is nothing more than a non belief in gods?
Exactly, you got part of it correctly. Atheism is nothing more than a non belief in gods. You are the one who says that Atheists are pushing their Atheistic beliefs on others. You are the one who makes logical errors all the time. You are the one who has not clue about what Atheists would teach because you think they would teach Atheistic ideas, which does not even make sense! The fact that you did not understand my comment confirms that I am right. Reading you is the easiest thing in the world.
"I don't know what I would protest against"
I'm sure you don't. Either you'll willfully obtuse or painfully ignorant of human nature and how it's been played out in history.
Of course you did not understand due to the same reasoning error as what I just wrote. You extrapolate your own fear and hatred of Atheists to ridiculous proportions in order to express how terrible a world with more Atheists would be. Personally I don't know what I would protest again because I cannot know what points would annoy me if more Atheists were in power. The issues would be different and there would certainly be things I don't agree with. That's it...
The quotes you posted are interesting because they show how Niemoller was wrong from the beginning. Not caring about others being arrested for no reason is wrong, regardless of being part of the targeted group or not.
For instance, if you had a blog dedicated to how stupid, slow of mind and dull of thought Muslims are, I would find you just as despicable. I would not contribute because I don't see the point of discussing thins that don't concern me. However, if it was a government targeting Muslims specifically and putting them in prisons just for being Muslims, then I would protest and see what I can do in the context.
Why do you think atheists today are different than the atheists who were in power (to the detriment of 90 million souls) in the 20th century?
ReplyDeleteTheir goals are exactly the same.
Why would their tactics be different?
You agreed that it would take a radical change of character to change behaviours. What character changes do you imagine in today's atheist?