It is hard for me understand a truly atheistic position. The theist and the Atheist both hold their positions as beliefs. One cannot prove, in the scientific sense that there is a god, but neither can it be proved there isn’t one. Ultimately it comes down to how one looks at the facts as they seem them. We all make an educated guess and exercise a certain amount of faith in our decision. Most fair-minded people I discuss these things with seem to agree with that.
I think an agnostic position is much easier to hold, because it requires no leap of faith. “There might be a god, there might not be, I don’t know!” (Jim, a Christian)
I used to think I was agnostic. Because although I didn’t accept that any of the religions in the world could be true, I had no way of proving that there isn’t a superpower creator deity lurking out there behind the celestial curtain.
In a similar fashion, I have no way of proving that a benevolent pink dragon isn’t waiting to provide a utopian afterlife for all its faithful followers. But I struggle to think that makes me agnostic about pink dragon deities: I’m sure my lack of belief is something stronger than that. So why would Christians think I should be agnostic about their god God, any more than I am about Dragon the dragon, or the Muslim god Allah or the Inca god Pachamama?
Let’s be clear about a few things:
1. Christianity is a popular religion. But so are lots of other religions. It stands to reason that for a species that has evolved fearing and worshipping invisible forces, religious structures based around this primitive superstitious instinct will continue to be popular. It also stands to reason that in our increasingly internationalised world, there will be some religions that have a greater mass appeal than others. Christianity offers the globally popular hope of an eternal and blissful afterlife, combined with protection and love in the current life, and an excuse plus forgiveness for bad behaviour. Of course it’s popular for those who seek religion in their lives! Popularity doesn’t make it more likely to be true than any other religion, just a more efficient parasite of belief.
2. Christianity, like every other religion, only makes sense if you want it to. The Bible is chockablock full of contradictions and nonsense that only those who are desperate to believe it can overlook. I’m not denying that, like most religions, it has interesting historical stories, some useful moral frameworks and some beautiful sections of writing in its holy book. If it didn’t it couldn’t have survived all these years. But on the most basic level, it’s impossible to reconcile the notion of a benevolent, perfect deity drowning almost all of its creation, demanding the vicious slaughter of whole groups of people, including pregnant women and children, regretting its actions, being jealous of fake gods, brutally testing its most loyal worshippers, and condemning most of its ‘beloved’ creation to eternal torment. I know Christians have screeds of writings trying to make all that sound plausible, but when the religious delusion glasses come off, you realise it’s really not even slightly possible.
3. Christianity is the religion of our culture. Many Christians lead such a culturally sheltered life, they think that atheists are rejecting the Christian god, and agnostics are not sure about the Christian god. I would ask Christians to try to understand that while we may discuss Christianity the most, given that it’s likely to be the religion we know most about, or the religion that negatively affects our society the most, we have a similar disdain for all of these antiquated superstitious belief systems. Please don’t feel either special or victimised, and remember that your invisible deity has serious competition from many other invisible deities on the same crazy scale.
I’m not agnostic. I don’t think it’s possible that any of the gods in any of the world’s many religions exist. I can’t prove they don’t exist anymore than any religious person following any invisible deity can prove their invisible deity does exist. But I’m not suggesting Christians are agnostic. I can only look at the facts and make an educated guess.
Jim makes the classic Christian mistake of describing atheism as a belief system. Christians are so indoctrinated in believing in something that they have to describe atheism as ‘believing’ there isn’t a god. Drives me nuts.
I don’t ‘believe’ there isn’t a Christian god or any other god. I just don’t happen to believe in any of them. And that’s it. Summarised in ten words. Unless you consider don’t to be two of course.
Religion dominates peoples’ lives. Atheism doesn’t dominate mine. To me, it’s on a par with saying I don’t eat dead animals, I’m not fond of Terry Pratt-chump—at least I thought it was funny— although I’ve only read one book, and I don’t like globalisation.
But I come from the atheist until God is proven guilty perspective.
LikeLiked by 4 people
That’s a good position to be in, and one lots of Europeans share with you. I get the feeling it’s not such a common position in the USA, where belief in the Christian god is pretty much taken for granted in lots of area. Anything else is, bizarrely enough, communism. If only they knew how wonky their outlook is.
I’m quite happy for atheism to be described as a belief system, for as long as religions are held by the majority. Because it seems to me we are opting out of something that has held sway over human beings for thousands of year, and still does in most of the world. Once the rational view is the majority view though, I do agree it will be silly to pretend it’s a belief.
“Jim makes the classic Christian mistake of describing atheism as a belief system.”
Actually, I didn’t call atheism a belief system. Only that it does require a certain amount of belief, since it can not be proven. You seemed to agree with that when you state:
“I don’t ‘believe’ there isn’t a Christian god or any other god. I just don’t happen to believe in any of them””
You chose the word “believe” to describe your position, not the word “know”.
You said ‘both hold their positions as beliefs’.
I also said ‘believe’ in quotation marks, to refer back to your comment.
Now, what is it that you can’t understand? I don’t ‘believe’ there is a god. Not that I ‘believe’ there isn’t one. It is not part of my life. My life is not based on beliefs. I do not need them.
‘Know’ wasn’t included in the quote. Why would I therefore add that? Dont change the parameters.
Fair enough. But “System” wasn’t included in the quote either.
“Christians are so indoctrinated in believing in something that they have to describe atheism as ‘believing’ there isn’t a god. Drives me nuts.”
There is something about having your views mischaracterized that can really get to a person!
I have heard that “It takes more faith to be an atheist” a lot in my circles. There was a time that I believed that, but I don’t think that is true any longer. Mainly because of the atheist blogs I visit. You guys all say the same or at least the similar thing in this regard. I have chosen to take people at their word.
I value clarity over agreement.
It’s difficult to understand where someone is coming from when you haven’t been there. I’m not a deconvert, I’m a never was. So on the spectrum, there is a believer, a deconvert, and an it-means-nothing-to-me. It takes nothing at all to be in the last category, believe me 😉
Hmm, I know it’s violets blog but I am not a guy. I don’t accept its a gender neutral word, there is nothing wrong with saying you people, you atheists, you heathens, or whatever. Actually, why say you anything? As you appreciate clarity I thought I would clarify.
And, atheists are not a collective. We have no meetings or set of agreements or anything, you really can’t lump us together. The fact that we don’t believe in a god is not a way to collectively describe disparate people. Atheists have no commonality. They (we) are not a tribe. We do not go round saying ‘I am an atheist’. In fact, I don’t tell anyone that. It. Is. Not. Relevant.
Thanks for replying, not cutting you off, but it’s bye byes where I live now. Sweet dreams.
Christians/religious people of many stripes are conditioned to think that everybody believes in something. That line of argumentation is popular with evangelicals. Here’s a link to a similar, if not identical, argument.
There is no such thing as a true Atheist
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except gold exists, and so does China (so I understand). Whether or not the two co-exist is another matter, presumably they do. That was a totally irrelevant scenario compared with proving there is a god. Which God to prove that these people, as you say, are so conditioned they can’t even provide a reasonable comparison.
LikeLiked by 1 person
goes not *God*
I think my iPad has been evangelised 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’ve clearly been hanging out in all the wrong places …
More likely possessed, you heathen! :p
That link you provided is exactly the sort of oddness that irritates me. It presupposes that all atheism and agnosticism relates only to the Christian god God. It just shows how ignorant or blinkered of the world many Christians can be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am an equal opportunity disbeliever. Name any god, if you can’t demonstrate its existence or tell me what it is, I will not believe it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Beautiful! That should be your opening line in every religious discussion. 😀
If anyone doesn’t see it, that person needs more help than I can possibly give
Christianity powered the rise of Western Civilization, the only civilization in human history to progress past the slave and the beast of burden.
Additionally, no civilization ever developed without religion.
Consequently, atheism is intellectually and socially retrograde since its only claim to fame are the greatest mass murders in human history.
And to say, “Christianity like every other religion only makes sense if you want it too,” is a statement by someone who has never studied Christianity.
In fact, ALL atheist arguments are based in ignorance, bigotry, logical fallacy, elitism and 100% faith in the absurd notion that everything just happened all by itself.
Until the atheist can explain how everything just happened all by itself, her criticism of religion is nothing more than the passing of fecally odored wind.
Western Civilization only progressed past those things when secularism took over as the leading social force.
The correlation of early developing civilizations with religious superstition has no bearing on atheism being “retrograde” any more than no civilizations ever having emerged with the airoplane as if that somehow made the airoplane a retrograde idea. Civilizations evolve.
The fact that atheistic governments have been more efficient in mass murders than Christian, or any other religious governments tells us nothing of the nature of atheistic governments in comparrison to governments lead with the Christian agenda. What this difference tells us, is that some totalitarian governments assumed atheism in an age and place long after Christianity had lost it’s position and incentive as the leading value base for the industrialized world. Insatiable violence was the modus operandi of most Christian nations untill such was snuffed out of them by the emergence of freedom of religion and secularism in Western Civilization as a result of violence between disagreeing Christian sects.
How much does one need to study Christianity? I mean, Violet and I have both been born into western culture, Christianity is the most familiar religion to us by circumstances, and we have both considered it more than most people who self identify as Christians. Is that not enough? Then surely it is not enough for those poor sods either who have taken it up at face value. Does your god require people first choose a religion to study and accept at face value, or are we required to study all possible religions in the world, or should we just randomly choose one and hope for the best? Is there no free will after all?
Us not knowing why or how something happened does not warrant us to make up explanations or accept such from ignorant people in the distant past and then claim that the made up explanation must be true, because it explains something as if it did, nor to hold faith, that we are revealed how and why it all happened by a particular cultural concept, like a religion. Especially when that religion makes claims that are against our best and most objective possible knowledge through science.
You are fighting a strawman. Atheism does not require anybody to believe anything happened all by itself, rather it only rejects childish and obviously made up explanations such as gods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your argument is based on the fundamental dogma of atheism which is, “Everything just happened all by itself.”
It took over 1000 painstaking years for the foundation of the scientific revolution to be laid down during the Christian Middle Ages.
No other cultures or civilizations were ever able to build the foundation necessary for the development of modern science.
In fact, modern science is a direct result of the Christian worldview which differs from that of every other culture and philosophy, especially atheism.
Your quote is the usual atheist quote which serves the atheist propaganda mill, not the pursuit of truth.
Here, from the Nicene Creed from 325 Year of Our Lord, recited by all Catholics every Sunday from now to eternity:
“We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.”
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages.
“(God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made.”
Jesus is clearly God. That is a fundamental Christian doctrine held in common by both Catholics and Protestants.
1. Can I explain how my god God just happened all by itself?
Of course I can’t because it isn’t possible to answer a stupid question. Allow me to explain.
The reason your question is stupid is because you are trying to assign finite attributes to the god God who is infinite.
Thomas Aquinas explained that bit of stupidity back in the high Middle Ages. He was gracious enough to use the word “absurd” instead of the word “stupid,” however.
So the atheist is encouraged drop the pre-medieval stupidity and get with Western Civilization which values modernity and reason.
2. If I can’t explain how everything came into existence, does that mean automatically that any old god exists, or specifically that your god exists?
This is another stupid question because again you are applying a finite characteristic to the god God who is infinite.
To create everything, the god God must be infinite.
Since the god God is infinite, by definition of the word, “infinite,” there then can be only one god God.
Since there is only one god God, he is not my god God, or your god God or anyone else’s god God.
He is Creator, everyone’s god God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The reason your question is stupid is because you are trying to assign finite attributes to the god God who is infinite.”
Stupid, the Christian god doesn’t claim to be infinite:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” Revelation 22:13
“”This is what the LORD says– Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” Isaiah 44:6
He claims to be the first and the last god, clearly created by something higher than mere gods. Because everything that’s not infinite needs created, right?
“Since there is only one god God, he is not my god God, or your god God or anyone else’s god God. He is Creator, everyone’s god God.”
Beautiful! Is that from Song of Songs? If not, it should be.
You prove that the atheist who quotes the Bible is like the chimpanzee who tries to tap out the works of Shakespeare on a computer keyboard.
The chimp just ends up defecating all over the keyboard.
You quote the last book of the Bible which was written by John.
Please read the first paragraph of the Gospel of John (I know you won’t bother because you’re too busy doing your version of the chimpanzee anal nasty all over the Good Book):
“1 At the beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word was God. 2 He abode, at the beginning of time, with God. 3 It was through him that all things came into being, and without him came nothing that has come to be. 4 In him there was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in darkness, a darkness which was not able to master it.”
Yes, violet, according to the man you quoted from Revelation, the god God is Creator, he is Logos, the Word (Greek for ubermind or uberbeing).
You are yet another example of the atheist who argues with herself and loses while doing a most excellent impersonation of a Shakespearean chimpanzee.
SOM, you are yet another Christian blindly stumbling along believing the nonsense of centuries of poorly fabricated justification by ‘theologians’ . The verses you quote make no sense in light of the god God calling himself the beginning and the end – he is not characterised as infinite. The beginning of ‘time’ isn’t the beginning of the existence of the creator of the god God, because time has no relevance to this infinite creator. The beginning of ‘time’ is when the creator made the god God, according to the tradition. That’s also why there are lots of other gods that the Jewish/Christian god God has to compete with through the Old Testament. Why else would the ultimately wise Solomon who chatted with the god God and saw him on at least two occasions, worship other gods? That would be silly if he didn’t know the other gods also existed.
You are the one who quoted the Bible in total ignorance.
Now you are blaming your total ignorance on the Christian.
Do atheists ever take responsibility for anything?
Sorry SOM. Lo siento.
No need to be sorry.
It’s just wacky when an atheist tries to beat someone over the head with the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Silenceofmind, I honestly do not know why I bother, but let’s try this once more.
There is absolutely no dogma required by atheism. I do not know who told you that, nor do I understand why do you – after all these conversations here – believe there is. It is an empty claim without no evidence to back it up, much like your god. Atheism is the rejection of claims about gods without actual evidence, not a requirement to make any knowledge claims, or even to guess where did all things come from, or “how did it all happen”. I have to say, that you being wrong about this once more, you hardly can appeal to mere ignorance in this matter any longer, as it has been explained to you before. Has it not?
However, a god serves as no explanation to the question as to “how did it all happen” either. If one is to make the guess, that a god did it, it still does not answer the question “how did it all happen”, now does it? Nor does it give any answers to the questions, that necessarily arise from such a claim that a god did it, as why did this god do it, nor how did this god do it all and how did this god happen. All by itself? And ad to injury, as such, the god claim can not be supported by the fact that it serves as no answer to any unanswered questions. If I do not know where my lost socks are, or do not know how they got lost, a claim, that god did it, serves as no explanation to them being missing, nor how did they got lost, any more than it serves as evidence for this god who alledgedly gets around making socks disappear to exist. Does it?
Even if it was as you said, that Christianity was the only base from wich modern western culture could have risen, that offers none what so ever support to the truth value of Christianity. That would only mean, that the greatest achievement of Christianity so far, is to spring forth most rapidly, among all cultures of the world, the secular culture rampant in western civilization today. Infact with such equations, as you present here, medieval Christianity is the requirement for modern public atheism. Correlation is not causation. Is it?
As long as cultures differ from each other, and they do, as they obviosly are the products of individual human beings, not some divine entity setting everything, one of them shall always be the first to achieve something before the others. Any far reaching assumptions as to the truth value on the superstitious beliefs in unnatural things like gods, of any single culture to reach something before the others, is just absurd. That is like saying communism must be the most advanced way of living because Soviet Union was the first country to send a man into space. That is not how these things should be rewieved, now is it?
Scientific revolution is precisely a victory of secular thinking over spiritual and otherwise superstitious thinking. The roots of scientific methodology run much deeper in history, than Christianity, but even if they did not, that would not mean anything for the truth value of the unsupported super- and otherwise unnatural claims in Christianity. Exactly like the truth value of the so called golden rule is not dependant on Jesus, or Laoze before him expressing it.The value of the scientific revolution in western society is, that we recognize the superiority of the scientific method over religious faith in obtaining the most objective information – or the the truth, if you will – of any matter.
“Until the atheist can explain how everything just happened all by itself, her criticism of religion is nothing more than the passing of fecally odored wind.”
I can’t resist wasting my fecally odored wind on you sometimes.
1. Can you explain how your god God just happened all by himself?
2. If I can’t explain how everything came into existence, does that mean automatically that any old god exists, or specifically that your god exists? Or could it simply mean we don’t know, but invisible creator gods aren’t part of the explanation? Does your god only exist if there’s a gap in our knowledge?
I disagree with you greatly, but “fecally odored wind” made me laugh harder than I have all day. Thanks for that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Christian definition of God is very short. “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible… and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the giver of life.” Other parts of the creed concern what God has done.
I glory in the contradictions of the Bible: to me they show a concept of God developing through dialectic to Jesus.
SOM’s replied to you further up. Poor thing, can’t get the hang of buttons, he’s too busy flicking through his copy and paste book of inane comments. 😉
Oh, so he has.
I wondered why he referred to “fecally odored wind” rather than “fart”, or even at all. I thought of this quote, which would have more point if it had been in the Bible; but still SOM should listen to George Fox: Be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations, wherever you come, that your carriage and life may preach among all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have now provided enough content for three of your posts! 🙂
Yes, thanks for that! One more and you join my list of official muses. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Jim is basically right.
We’ve got militant atheist bloggers like you, Violet, then we’ve got the Neil Degrasse Tysons who are basically agnostic. The argument “Because I reject these specific gods, I must reject all gods” is nincompoop logic. If that’s really what pushes you from agnosticism to atheism, buying into such a stupid logical fallacy, then you must be simply believing what you want. But, hey, it gets a lot of “likes”! Yayyyyyy!
“Popularity doesn’t make something true”. Truism.
“Christianity only makes sense if you want it to”. Just like any body of knowledge, like the science of frogs and the history of Victorian England. Another truism.
“Christianity is the religion of our culture.” And? When Islam if the religion of your culture, you may well want Christianity back. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the transition between agnosticism and atheism.
Ah … Brandon. How nice.
An agnostic is one who neither disbelieves or believes. A fence sitter in the vernacular.
While no atheist will likely state there is no creator deity at the root of it all most are sure of their position based upon the evidence provided by every religion that, the notion of a god can be dismissed with impunity.
And as for the god of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, i the face of the evidence, or lack thereof, only a very silly person would continue to adhere to this belief and only a half-wit would actually convert.
And only the most obtuse moron would re-convert.
“And only the most obtuse moron would re-convert.” That’s really cheeky, I can’t condone that kind of cheek. But it did make me laugh, hehe.
“And as for the god of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, i the face of the evidence, or lack thereof, only a very silly person would continue to adhere to this belief and only a half-wit would actually convert. And only the most obtuse moron would re-convert”
That certainly isn’t accurate, Arke. There are plenty of theists and Christians who are very intelligent, who have high IQ’s. The same can be said of atheists.
I’m sorry to inform you, Jim. It is a well-known fact that Ark has a superior intellect to Sir Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, and Francis Collins COMBINED, which he uses to rid the internet of theistic scum such as ourselves instead of making important discoveries. You know . . . because he said so. And who can argue with impeccable logic like that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am pretty sure Arke was just being sarcastic. He is sharp enough to know that what he asserted as dogmatic fact is easily falsifiable. I think he was just having fun at our expense!
Well, Consolereader, as my mate Rene once said ….
‘If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible,all things.’
So, tell me, Hotshot, how did your man god, Jesus of Nazareth, walk on water, hmm?
So, tell me, Hotshot, how did your man god, Jesus of Nazareth, walk on water, hmm?
In the same way Moses parted the Red Sea, Dante traveled through hell, Beowulf defeated Grendel, and that you’re an intelligent person. They’re all examples of the most astounding fictions.
Well done! I think we can give you a Noddy badge for three out of four.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good dog. You can stop wagging your tail now.
Well, nobody is perfect. I suppose you may be right. It is possible I was wrong about Beowulf.
Really? I was leaning more towards Moses, as a matter of fact. But Beowolf might be the one.
I thought Jesus was perfect?
Militant? Violet? She’s engaged in warfare, is she? She acts out her ‘extremism’ (that is to say, she doesn’t believe in your god) in a violently confrontational way, does she? (haven’t you noticed the root ‘militare’ – serving as a soldier does?)
What’s wrong with your language skills?
How about something a little closer to what’s demonstrated: how about ‘critical’? How about ‘reasonable’? How about ‘honest’?
Those descriptors are much more accurate and reflective of reality and of Violet than your overblown terminology that misrepresents what’s true and inaccurately describes someone you disagree with.
It would be a start for you to be a little more honest and a lot less disingenuous.
Yes, violet acts out atheist extremism much like you do only in a more subtle fashion.
extremism: The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism
critical: Expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgements:
Note that the two terms are not synonyms, SoM. In fact, they are significantly different.
Violet demonstrates the latter, to which you assign the former. The fault here lies entirely with those who assign the wrong definition to import false meaning the way you intentionally do regarding atheists.
Typically, those who are intent on misrepresenting others as you demonstrate time and again, call atheists who are critical ‘militant’, meaning those who favour confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause. Atheism is not a cause; it means non belief in gods or a god. There is no political or social cause attached to the term ‘atheist’ although many atheists will attach themselves to various political and social causes. Don;t confuse correlation with causation. What Violet does involves criticizing really bad religious ideas that hurt real people in real life when acted upon. You and your religious beliefs again demonstrate this egregious fault as you set out to cause harm to the reputations and character of those who criticize your religious beliefs for their pernicious effect (pernicious meaning having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way).
You are dishonest, SoM, and you are dishonest in order to misrepresent. That makes you duplicitous (meaning deceitful). And on this demonstration I claim your behavour compared to Violet reveals a lower moral character lacking equivalent ethical standards.
You should reread Exodus to find out what your god supposedly thinks of your behaviour and think about why you are intentionally breaking his commandment about lying (meaning making intentionally false statements) not to do what you so gleefully and flippantly do.
By the way, all of these definitions are from the Oxford English dictionary…. a source you may want to reacquaint yourself with if you wish to communicate effectively with others.
It’s a metaphor. The term “militant atheism” was coined to describe a particular brand of atheists that are highly vocal and active. Violet blogs about atheistic arguments more than anyone I’ve seen on the blogosphere, so I don’t think it’s inappropriate to use that term in that sense.
It’s like when I say something that even remotely defends theism, all the sudden I’m an “apologist”. You get these, “You’re just an apologist” lines thrown around and it has a negative connotation of intellectual acquiescence.
Judging by your response “militant atheism” also has a negative connotation to some in the atheist community. I think I’ve known Violet long enough that I can say this and she know I’m not insulting her. But, I take your criticism seriously, and will be more careful about using the term in the future. I do want to be provocative, and sometimes that requires colorful language, but this requires great care.
The word militant atheist is not a metaphor. It is used as derogatory term to describe atheists who point out that religion is full of bull. To say
either means you are being dishonest or you don’t read much. The good lady has been away for almost 6 or so months and just made a come back a few days ago.
And Brandon you are an apologist. An apologist is not a negative term, it is what you do every time you are trying to defend the absurd that is Christianity
It is not a derogatory term to all atheists. I believe Richard Dawkins embraces the term and this was the title of one of his TED talks.
Technically, an apologist is just someone who argues for one side of a particular controversy. So, atheists can be apologists too. But, I’ve definitely seen people called apologist in a derogatory way. It was used to imply that atheism is somehow intellectually default and the defense is all theism which is most obviously false.
Mak, maybe it’s better to not use “militant atheist” because of its potential to be derogatory. You see, when I originally used the term, it was meant to distinguish between the less active atheists, “apatheists” (is that also a derogatory term?). Maybe a more PC term would be convicted and active atheist versus inactive atheist versus agnostic versus many other permutations (ignostics, naturalists, etc.).
Brandon I know who an apologist is.
Just call them atheists.
anaivethinker, see my comment to SoM about why your lying in these matters matters to your everlasting soul. You may want to do something about that and stop lying about others.
Or maybe not.
I thought my response was diplomatic, but you just escalated, so let’s reexamine the term.
Militant atheism has a completely different meaning from militant Islam or other uses of militant where it denotes literal violence and coercion. According to Urban Dictionary militant atheism is simply, “one who is hostile towards religion. They differ from moderate atheists because they have the desire to propagate atheism. . .” I believe Violet fits this definition and that is part of the purpose of blogging, right? On RationalWiki they say “militant atheism” carries a negative connotation, like I mentioned in my last comment. But, their definition also requires political activism. I’m not sure if Violet is politically active or writes books; so if you really require all of these, then perhaps she is not.
Now that we have that out of the way, what really troubles me is that a seemingly bright individual is resorting to ethical ad hominem attacks while avoiding the substance of the original comment.
““Christianity only makes sense if you want it to”. Just like any body of knowledge, like the science of frogs and the history of Victorian England.”
Classic! Are you not embarrassed to say things like that? Christianity isn’t a body of knowledge, it’s mishmash of ever-changing interpretation and practices, based on a foundation of myth and superstition.
You’re right the post isn’t particularly slick though, I’m just getting back into the groove, many brain cells have rotted in the last few months and I’m still sleep deprived. It’s still fun bashing them out though.
You, V, is a militant atheist! How did you become militarized? I may want to join the brigade
Militant? Where? I like ‘bashing out’ posts (quickly rattling out my thoughts), not physically bashing people! Did you think I’d gone all violent? 😉
I was afraid that you started bombing churches and the likes. If it is about blogging, then am a very militant atheist
Okay, I now see where this comment came from. I totally missed that I’d been called a militant atheist – skim reading. You’re definitely the most militant atheist in Blogsville! I was going to jump into the discussion to say I don’t mind the term at all (probably why I didn’t notice it in the first place) but poor Brandon has a terrible habit of attempting to be ‘good’ and saying all the wrong things in an effort to placate situation. It’s fun watching him dig deeper! 😉
me militant, now V am just going to weep in the roof. I am as polite as they get, I wouldn’t notice a silly person even one was standing in front of me.
Brandon these days has decided to shed niceness and fires canon balls
Pingback: Winsome Christians | Clare Flourish
I don’t know where to ask this, but I thought this might be as good of a place as any.
I was watching a TV show (American Horror Story) that basically had a bunch of ghosts in the story. I never had given much thought this idea, but I immediately wondered “I wonder how Violet views this whole idea of ghosts and paranormal stuff?”
Would you say an atheistic world view argues against this? I am curious!
Since am not V, but I think she would agree that she has no belief in the supernatural.
I’m a bit disappointed you thought that was a question worth asking of me, but I guess there will be some illogical people somewhere who reject organised religion and the notion of gods, but continue to have superstitious beliefs about ghosts.
For the majority of atheists who generally understand our existence in terms of what science has so far been able to explain, the ghost world world is rooted in the same superstitious ignorance as the world of religion. There is no evidence for it, and lots of evidence that has discredited every single appeal to the paranormal.
Ghosts: wishful thinking (that loved ones are still around and that our existence doesn’t end with our physical death) combined with fear of the unknown (can’t face death and can’t explain the noises/lights/behaviour of disturbed person etc).
Religion: wishful thinking (that loves ones are still around and that our existence doesn’t end with our physical death) combined with fear of the unknown (can’t face death and can’t explain the floods/rainbows/disease/behaviour of a disturbed person etc).
As human knowledge increases, our need to explain the unknown with recourse to invisible beings lessens, although the natural pull to belief that has been a key part in our evolution (providing stable, obedient societies all tribally united under one belief system) unfortunately still remains strong in the face of clear evidence against both ghosts and gods.
Please don’t tell me you believe in ghosts? And yet, I’m sure you believe in demonic possession, sigh …
Well, sorry to disappoint! My initial thinking on this was accurate. I thought an atheistic world view should exclude the belief in the paranormal as well as UFO stuff. As Roughseasinthemed pointed out to me,
“atheists are not a collective. We have no meetings or set of agreements or anything, you really can’t lump us together”.
I was simply curious though how you viewed it, as well as some of the people who read and comment on your blog viewed it. Thanks for the answer.
Glad to help. So, demon possession?
You already have three posts based on my thoughts. Now you want more? Don’t get greedy, and be patient. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Come on Arke, how have you NOT seen the evidence that Ghost Busters was based on a true story?
Jim, are you truly suggesting that Ghostbusters is not a documentary?
Sorry,Jim this is the ultimate oxymoron. It’s called compartmentalization as a result of indoctrination. You cannot be genuinely intelligent and be a Christian.
This is like claiming ”I am a devout vegetarian except for chicken. Oh,and maybe pork on Sundays, ‘cos you know I love pork.”
Brandon is a very special case. He is likely the only person to have donated their brain to science before actually dying.
(I heard they returned it)
You’ve been reading too many posts by vegetarians. I had a fascinating exchange with a Buddhist one, Singapore maybe. ‘Yes, we’re vegetarian, on Sundays, once a month’ …
This, Ark, is a keeper. How do you think of this?
“Christianity offers the globally popular hope of an eternal and blissful afterlife, combined with protection and love in the current life, and an excuse plus forgiveness for bad behaviour.” Actually, the New Testament doesn’ t excuse bad behaviour, the New Testament says that a person born of God (Christian) does not practice sin, therefore anyone that claims to be Christian that practices sin, is not Christian, 1 John 3:9 No one born of God practices sin.
So have you never ‘sinned’, according to the sin rules laid out in the Bible? Do you not believe Jesus’ death absolved all sin?
The term “practice sin” means that a person born of God will not live in sin, before a person is born of God, the person lives in sin, I believe that Yeshua is the Messiah and by that faith that God has given me, I no longrr practice sin, therefore I am Christian, that is Biblical definition of a Christian. I believe that Yeshua did pay the penalty for sin, for all who are born of God, I do not believe that Yeshua died for everyone because the New Testament says that Yeshua would die only for the sheep, not the goats, Yudas was a goat, therefore Yeshua did not die for Yudas, that proves the truth that Yeshua the Messiah did not die for everyone
The Bible doesn’t support what most people that claim to be Christian speak, it’s amazing how many have been deceived into believing things that are not true about Christianity & the Bible, a Christian is not what the world has been led to believe, a Christian lives peacefully with everyone, a Christian doesn’t force his or her beliefs on others, a Christian let’s everyone live as they are supposed to live, that is the truth that the false church doesn’t speak