Why do atheists hate Jesus?

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?

It was taught to me by the latter, namely Christianity. I would expect it to be rare for you to ever come across a person who claims that other religions are just as truthful as Christianity and also call him/herself a Christian. Where this underlying doctrine of a monopoly on truth is not spoken outwardly (it usually is), it certainly is spoken in practice.

But regardless of that, the account was of mine personally, which means if you don't agree with it, that's fine.
 
Last edited:
I don't have those books you mentioned.

Of course you don't, that's my point.

your an atheist?

Wow, you hadn't figured even that out yet?


That is an intelligent, well thought-out, and intriguing article. However, it doesn't answer my question in the slightest. You've given me an essay on a person's definition of faith and the implications of it, while what I ask you to show me is how faith itself is a necessary part of human life.

Maybe I'm missing something though, that's always a possibility. To help, maybe you should summarize this in your own words and tell me exactly what point you are trying to get across with it.
 
Last edited:
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?

I won't go to great lengths to point out all the problems with your response, nova (a theist just like you, except obviously more rational) has helped me with that, thank you.

But I'd like to ask you specifically about the segment I bolded. Exactly how can one be brainwashed by doubt? Let me expound a bit:

Doubt is questioning. Now it seems to me perfect logic to say that you cannot have a full answer to something unless you first ask the question concerning it. In this way, doubt is an extremely powerful accelerating force in knowledge and truth (scientific or philosophic). Without people magnanimously asking questions, sometimes perceptively bold ones, we would not have the invaluably edifying frontiers of philosophy--and subsequently religion for that matter--or science that make us so defined as intelligent beings. Discouraging questioning not only stifles intellectual growth, but it is an extremely suspicious notion to say the least. What reason does one have to be so fearful of questioning? Whatever the reason may be, this avoidance certainly hints that there is something to hide that doubt may dig up.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have nothing to hide but the truth. This still doesn't absolve you from your illogical claim that doubt brainwashes; if what you believe really is the truth, then delving into it, to whatever extent of doubt and questioning, should only reinforce your truth, as it is the ultimate answer. The more questions asked, the more you should discover that what you believe is true, otherwise, it's not the truth.

Dawkins is promoting this kind of thinking because it is the healthier choice any way you look at it.
 
Last edited:
Of course you don't, that's my point.



Wow, you hadn't figured even that out yet?

oh, man you've got to be kidding:rolleyes:

That is an intelligent, well thought-out, and intriguing article. However, it doesn't answer my question in the slightest. You've given me an essay on a person's definition of faith and the implications of it, while what I ask you to show me is how faith itself is a necessary part of human life.

Maybe I'm missing something though, that's always a possibility. To help, maybe you should summarize this in your own words and tell me exactly what point you are trying to get across with it.


You seem like a good person and i have no desire to insult you. The only thing i can tell you relating to our exchange in this thread is to read the article and search the word faith. OR don't read the article, everything discussed so far is basic human nature, i knew what was in the article before i read it. You should rely more on you own abilities than someone have to point things out for you, at least i never tried to sway people here either way-i just point out things i see that are wrong or clearly BS.

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."

So then for the last time explain your statement or just paraphrase from YOUR book.

1. an understanding of why things are the way they are

2. how they came to be

3. how they continue to be

Right now your just a preacher, that is exactly what you are, which is fine because everyone believes in something.
 
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.

It's interesting and also a little telling that you automatically assume free-thinking means selfishness, and that Western culture (materialism) means drugs, gambling and sex...
 
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.
*************
M*W: Very well put! I want to stress what you said, "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."

This cannot be more true.
 
*************
M*W: Very well put! I want to stress what you said, "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."

This cannot be more true.
and I'll second it.
well said.
 
You seem like a good person and i have no desire to insult you. The only thing i can tell you relating to our exchange in this thread is to read the article and search the word faith. OR don't read the article, everything discussed so far is basic human nature, i knew what was in the article before i read it. You should rely more on you own abilities than someone have to point things out for you, at least i never tried to sway people here either way-i just point out things i see that are wrong or clearly BS.

So then for the last time explain your statement or just paraphrase from YOUR book.

1. an understanding of why things are the way they are

2. how they came to be

3. how they continue to be

Right now your just a preacher, that is exactly what you are, which is fine because everyone believes in something.

The account you quoted from me was a personal one, John99, so of course it's going to sound like preaching. But it only does that, sound like preaching; for it to be actual preaching, I would have forced it upon you as the unmitigated truth. I didn't, I merely gave a personal account. I don't have any desire to insult you, but you give me little choice with responses such as this--think before your fingers hit the keys.

I did read the article and I still echo what I said earlier about it. The reason I asked for you to paraphrase is because I had a hunch you didn't know what you were talking about, certainly not enough to convey it in your own words, and since you didn't, I count my hunch correct.

While the same judgement could be made of my refusal to paraphrase what you ask of me, note that my source is a multi-hundred page book while yours is significantly shorter. To type out the answers to those points you're asking is a paramount task, one which quite frankly, I don't have the time or energy to do. Your approval is not worth my construction of an entire research paper, which is what would be required in order to hit on all those points you have numbered up there. This is precisely why I chose to state is as simply as I did in the original memoir.

There are countless books written on these subjects if you want to 'rely on your own abilities' as you put it, I've already offered you one in particular. I have read what you proposed to me, maybe you should reciprocate and read what I proposed to you.

Back to the scope of this thread, you still haven't answered the question I asked you so long ago, so don't "for the last time" me.
 
Last edited:
So then you don't agree with it? That is what i had in mind from the beginning.

See post #244 and answer that, why don't you?
 
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.

Nova900,

I see you have enough consciousness and humility to begin to accept the failings of European civilisation.

But have you enough to accept there is no such thing as a universal God or a universal science?
 
Nova900,

I see you have enough consciousness and humility to begin to accept the failings of European civilisation.

But have you enough to accept there is no such thing as a universal God or a universal science?

They were eating dinosaur bones in China for years. Evolution??? now you can say they ate the evidence...and what if they did?
 
Nova900,
But have you enough to accept there is no such thing as a universal God or a universal science?

The boiling temperature of water and the speed of light are the same everywhere, regardless of cultural perspective. Science is universal.
 
So then you don't agree with it? That is what i had in mind from the beginning.

See post #244 and answer that, why don't you?

Oh you were truly answering? I thought that was a comical response to escape the argument. What do you mean by "B" exactly? I'm not sure I see what you're referring to there, please be more clear.
 
DeepThought:

Dawkins clearly is.

He is explicitly demanding that children be brainwashed by doubt.

You mean, he is advocating that they be allowed to think for themselves.

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.

They want to be with their God in paradise, don't they?

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.

With free choice comes the possibility of making bad choices. It's a matter of weighing up goods against evils, and going with the least bad option.

Would you prefer the Taliban?
 
Back
Top