Why do atheists hate Jesus?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
haha..very funny..fyi, it was 2 am then in the philippines and i have to sleep because i will be waking up at 7 am or so to go to church and that doesn't mean that im withdrawing from this discussion..i also need some sleep...duh..
I became an atheist gradually, it wasn't a quick-tempered or ill-thought-out move, nor was it due to any kind of limerance concerning the idea of it. There was a time where I, like you, looked upon atheists as nothing but an immoral, selfish, unthoughtful, and ignorant lot. But of course I thought this, how else was I supposed to think under such a potent influence of Christian opinons? As I grew and absorbed more and more of the world around me, I came to the then shocking realization that these people calling themselves atheists were just that, people; people with morals, goals, love, joy, and everything that I had been taught were in total possession of those who knew Christ, and those who knew him only.
This, in a nutshell, is the same token that allowed me to examine my beliefs; these people were wrong about atheists, certainly they could be wrong when they tell me other things. I gradually discovered (at the time, to my great and tortuous dismay) that atheists weren't the only thing that my "family" seemed to have an askewed view of. The more I thought about it and the more I learned (about things pertaining to my faith and things that were seemingly irrelevent to it), the more contradictory, outlandish, and unlikely the whole idea of a God became.
It was these notions accompanied with months worth of countless hours of deep study that it became very clear; Christianity was not logically sound in the slightest. It was a complete magic trick, performed by people who don't know any more about what they are talking about than I did. This led me to seperate from mainstream religion, being ever closer to the edge of the spectrum of faith (at this point, I wasn't agreeing with most everything I heard from the pulpit, but I still considered myself a Christian) until eventually I become agnostic; I surely didn't think there was a God, but realized that I had no grounds to throw him out as a possibility. I couldn't prove him but I couldn't disprove him either. So there I stayed.
That is until I came across Richard Dawkins, specifically The God Delusion. Never in my life have I read such an intellectually satisfying book; it articulates so many notions I had but wasn't educated or well-spoken enough to present to anyone, including myself. I find now that the joy and uplifting admiration I derive from this world view is remarkably similar to the revelatory appreciaton I had when God first became a real idea to me ("this is his creation! It's so great and mysterious!"). The difference is that now, I have an understanding of why things are the way they are, how they came to be, and how they continue to be; not just a "magic man" philosophy that just "felt so real to me". It is, as Douglas Adams so eloquently said, "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
That may have been a longer dissertation than you barganed for! But oh well, it felt good to document all that.
Last edited:
But you didn't say much. Sure, you told your story and then you said:
You read a book called WHAT and THAT is the result?:bugeye: I wont ask you to explain any further..
Thanks, I know what I said without your pointless reiteration of it.
I wouldn't expect you to ask, seeing as how I'm positive you would never pick the book up. The book alone is not where I derive my athesim, though it certianly helped. That's more than you can say about your book, which I'm willing to bet is entirely where you derived your theism.
Last edited:
While I have your attention, John99, I'd like to bring something to it that you have chosen to ignore.
I asked if you could give an example of such an aspect of humanity that requires faith, and you never told me one, not even this one you have thought of.
Should I just ask you not to explain any further?
I asked if you could give an example of such an aspect of humanity that requires faith, and you never told me one, not even this one you have thought of.
Should I just ask you not to explain any further?
That is very interesting.
We note your use of the passive voice - "had been taught." Who was doing this teaching? Was it one particular individual, or was it a doctrine of a particular sect? If the latter, can you refer us to a Statement of Doctrine that enunciates this?
I don't have those books you mentioned.
your an atheist?
does this mention anything?
http://www.philosophyandscripture.org/Issue3-1/Woodard/Woodard.html
Celpha Fiael,
Dawkins clearly is.
He is explicitly demanding that children be brainwashed by doubt. He admits this is a gamble and for no apparent reason slants the odds in his favour - "it's a good bet". This behaviour is typical of gambling addicts. This addiction to 'playing the odds' runs through all his books and thinking.
Dawkins is a sick man who needs counselling.
Materialism has destroyed Dawkins empathy with others. He cannot comprehend that martyrs kill themselves in a completely selfless act because of empathy with the suffering... only that they seek some nonexistent material reward.
Dawkins wants to offer them the full rewards of Western materialism - a life of free-thinking (selfishness) and all the drugs, gambling, drinking and sex that come with it.
Now who is the real evil?
James R,
It's more than possible... it's happening.
It's why so many people kill themselves.
Why? I believe he just wants empirical evidence of God.That does not make him "sick". While I'm not atheist, I don't feel threatened by him or other atheists (unless they try to force me to not believe in God). My belief in God is as strong as ever. I feel there is suggestive evidence for afterlife/God thru the thousands of cases of Near Death experiences and the work of some leading psychics,while he no doubt,does not.
I agree with Dawkins that religous dogma can indeed drive people to act irrationally.The ignorant man made created "hatefull" side of God that some religions contain is the main culprit,the other "our religion is better than yours" is also another one.
I don't remember Dawkins encouraging drugs,drinking,gambling,etc. References please?
He seems like a nice enough guy. I would rather converse with him than many hate filled religous people I have met or seen in action.
Thinking for yourself is selfish?? Are you condoning we let other people think for us???
Many religous people who use the "word of God" for their own selfish agenda.
I also hate Mohammad...and I despise stupid people, does that, also, make me a sicko?
How about hating shit; what does that say about me?
I'm not partial to Santa, either. He never did bring me that G.I. Joe that Christmas.
Does hating Americans make me envious of their grandeur and "freedom".
I know the repression in Canada can result in deep resentment of anything that is as free as America.
How about hating shit; what does that say about me?
I'm not partial to Santa, either. He never did bring me that G.I. Joe that Christmas.
Does hating Americans make me envious of their grandeur and "freedom".
I know the repression in Canada can result in deep resentment of anything that is as free as America.
nova900,
It sure does.
Empiricism is a European philosophy.
Since when should God conform to European values or only be recognisable through European systems of thought?
The only people who ever suggested God was part of a 'material world' were Europeans in the first place.
It's the same old Eurocentric arrogance.
First going around the world teaching everyone God was a European and should be worshipped.
Then going around the world and telling everyone that only European rationality can determine the truth.
For non-Europeans it all adds up to the same thing - complete loss of self-determination, destruction of their culture.
Have you any idea how much child abuse and torture goes on in the New World?
Last edited:
Definition of Empiricism:
In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.
The thing is you cannot force people to believe in God anymore than someone can force me not to believe in God.
I see your distaste with things being "Eurocentric", i agree to an extent.
The God I believe in however is God for life all across the universe(s), not just for any one individual group.
I am aware. I don't like it whether it's in the New World or the Old World.
I've read and re-read this thread and still can't find a link to documentation of this. Can you please give me a link or tell me what study this was so I can find it?