Neo-Atheists and Easter
In the light of Easter, E.J. Dionne Jr. criticizes neo-atheism. It is a good column, be sure to read it.
From the introduction:
While some Christians harbor doubts about Christ’s actual physical resurrection, hundreds of millions believe devoutly that Jesus died and rose, thus redeeming a fallen world from sin.
Are these people a threat to reason and even freedom?
It’s a question that arises from a new vogue for what you might call neo-atheism…
As Dionne writes, neo-atheists are dogmatic themselves as well. They can also accuse religious individuals of being intolerant but it is quite interesting to note that these neo-atheists are incredibly intolerant and arrogant themselves.
Besides Dionne’s column, also be sure to read this article at CNN by Dr. Francis Collins: a Christian scientist.
H/t Holly and Dan Schneider.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Can Social Conservatives Change?
Posted on May 28, 2013
-
North Carolina Lays Groundwork To Establish State Religion
Posted on Apr 3, 2013
-
Sunday Sermon: Cornel West
Posted on Mar 31, 2013
-
The Paradoxes of Pope Benedict
Posted on Feb 11, 2013
but it is quite interesting to note that these neo-atheists are incredibly intolerant and arrogant themselves.
Amen.
I agree that atheists can be as intolerant as religious folk-Communism was built on atheism, because Marx believed that capitalists used religion to keep workers enslaved. To some extent religious belief does limit your worldview- as we see in Hinduism’s rigid caste system, and Sharia’s innate lack of human rights for women. Fundamental Christianity also is limiting and intolerant. Perhaps the most tolerant are the agnostics- who claim to know little about God and his purpose in forming the universe.
“As Dionne writes, neo-atheists are dogmatic themselves as well. They can also accuse religious individuals of being intolerant but it is quite interesting to note that these neo-atheists are incredibly intolerant and arrogant themselves.”
If someone tells you 2+2=5 and you correct them, it is not being intollerant.
The difference between atheists and the religious is atheists can back up their claims with independent observation, facts, etc. All religious folk can give you is, ‘Clap! Tinker Bell is dying.’
Dionne’s piece is drivel. It is entertaining to watch the hornet’s nest stirred up by precisely two atheists. Every week the major media is a tidal wave of religiosity, particularly around the various holidays, but when two . . . count ‘em, two . . . atheists speak up, well, that’s a problem.
The US is about 80% Christian, another 15% various other religions, and perhaps 5% atheist/agnostic. How is it the 95% feel so threatened by the 5%?
To date precisely one member of the House of Representatives has announced he’s an atheist. One. In 200 plus years. The number for the Senate is zero. Same for the White House.
Christians and Jews hold and have held 99.9 percent of the political offices in this country — and yet it’s these two atheists and their dangerous 5% who have people in an uproar.
Every minority is accused of being arrogant (or shall we use the word “uppity?”) once they begin to stand up for their own ideas and rights.
If someone tells you 2+2=5 and you correct them, it is not being intollerant
But the subject in question is far more complex than a simple mathematical equation. That’s why people have been writing and arguing about religion for thousands of years.
All religious folk can give you is, ‘Clap! Tinker Bell is dying.’
Now that is intolerance (note the spelling). It would be like me comparing atheists to Joseph Stalin.
Well, I respect the rights of atheists to hold their point-of-view but sometimes feel they take it too far by filing numerous lawsuits about things like whether “God” should be in the wording of the pledge of allegiance or on our money. Likewise feel it is excessive when the RR fights to get evolution or sex ed out of the curricula, wants taxpayer money to go to faith-based initiatives, or goes nuts when a Muslim wants to put his hand on the Koran when taking his oath of office. Too much extremism by both- on this issue moderates should prevail.
Athiests can intolerant and arrogant because those are human faults, and athiests are humans.
They are not “dogmatic” however. To be dogmatic is to stubbornly hold to a prescribed set of beleifs, even when there is solid evidence against it.
Athiesm is simply the refusal to believe in something that one finds no compelling evidence to support. A refusal to bend to societal norms if, by so doing, one must deny what seems obvious to ones mind. That is not dogmatism.
What compelling evidence is there that there is NO god?
What compelling evidence is there that there is A God?
Neither side has the answers, but both think they do. The intolerance comes in not accepting the others evidence as important to the person in question.
Christ was undoubtedly the First Socialist. We should listen to his teachings rather than interpret them to fit our own slefish desires. In the name of the Father, the Son, and, the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Preach! lol
Also, White Agent is just as bad as Laura…just the left’s version of Laura…he’s wearing out his welcome.
“What compelling evidence is there that there is NO god?”
Ignoring the shifting burden of proof, how about the hundreds of different, mutually exclusive gods out there? They can’t all be real, but they can all be false. For example, Shiva and Allah can’t both be true, but they can both be false.
The universality of gods and similar phenomenon, (astrology, tarot cards, etc.), can be explained as part of the human condition. Man creates god(s) because they fill a need. In fact, this is studied by psychologists every day and is a well understood part of the human psyche.
“What compelling evidence is there that there is A God?’
I’ve never seen any, but practically every religious person out there thinks they have some. However, as I pointed out above, these can’t all be true, but they can all be false.
“Neither side has the answers, but both think they do. The intolerance comes in not accepting the others evidence as important to the person in question.”
Sorry. Atheists do have answers and these answers can be tested independently.
Religious people think they have the answers, but their answers are the same as all other religious people. And they think everyone else’s answers are wrong.
It’s the, “one less god” Stephen Roberts talked about.
Me:
Alan:
No. The question isn’t more complex. Do you believe there are giant warehouses in the sky filled with hailstones? The bible says there are. If you do, we can test this. If not, well, you’re one step closer to being an atheist.
Just like ESP, Crystal Therapy, etc., religion can be tested. Except when it fails here, people just say, “God works in mysterious ways.” Or as I put it, “Clap! Thinker Bell is dying.”
Also, people argue about this for the same reason there are UFO conventions. People need to believe in something and the more evidence there is that their beliefs are wrong, the more they will fight to defend them.
I’m a agnostic leaning towards atheist scientist and it’s pretty clear to me that Dawkins’ arguments about basic religious faith don’t really stand up to much logic and certainly aren’t ‘scientific’. There are just too many unknowns to say that science has all the answers.
Take the resurrection for example. First off, science isn’t really able to give us negative proofs. That is, using science is it very hard to PROVE that something didn’t happen, because you are always limited by your methods of detection. Factor in to that that science relies on repeatable measurements and that science creates probable truths, not absolute truths, and you can’t say much about what did or did not happen a single time 2000 years ago, scientifically.
You can take the knowledge science has given you and construct a belief about how the world works as I have, but if you are honest with yourself you know that such knowledge is just as faith-based in the final analysis.
Far too many, scientists included, forget that and start talking like science can explain everything, and more crazily, that it already has. This is just another Cult of Truth, and can easily lead to all sorts of wacky intolerant beliefs.
Scientists, oddly enough, are quite dogmatic. Read any literature on the history of scientific revolutions and you will see that no one really likes changing their world view, even when presented with evidence. But I would agree with you Tano that most major religions are over the top dogmatic.
At the same time, there’s a lot I don’t like in Mr Dionne’s piece:
Why the hell not? I don’t think we should lump all of religion in with it’s worst acts, but If a particular religious dogma prevents you from using condoms to slow the spread of one of the most insidious diseases of modern times, AIDS, then I think that particular belief should be tossed to the wayside.
I think one of the problems of dogma on both sides is that it wants to keep the baby and the bathwater together. Keep the baby, loose the filth.
Novak’s words not Dionne’s, but Dionne clearly supports them. Unfortunately, there is a lot of moral arrogance in some modern Christian movements. The acceptance of these groups into a greater ‘Christian Brotherhood’ doesn’t save these fringe groups, it damns the brotherhood. If religion really wants to maintain the moral high ground, it should be the first to criticize arrogant religion, not the last.
BrotherAlpha
There is one glaring flaw in the logic of your “they can’t all be true but they can all be false” argument.
While it is perfectly logical to conclude that if different claims are made about the truth of something all of them cannot be right. And it is true that by that same logic all of them CAN be wrong. But you in no way shape or form can then say that from that logical ASSUMPTION they all CAN be wrong is a PROOF that they all ARE wrong. There is a world of difference between a logical assumption and a proof.
If there are 20 different and contradictory facts presented about something it is a no brainer that they all can’t be right. But without evidence and proof you can carry your logic no farther than to say they cannot all be right. To say that they ARE all wrong (as you are asserting in your assumption) you would have to prove their falseness individually.
There is no empirical evidence of a God, I won’t argue with you there. But lack of empirical evidence does not prove lack of existence. You can’t PROVE the existence of something about which you have no empirical evidence. Likewise lack of empirical evidence does not DISPROVE anything either. All that can be said with certainty is that no one has any empirical evidence.
In the mid 1800′s no one even thought of the existence of sub-atomic particles, along came quantum physics in the early 20th Century and some people began to assume their existence (and non-existence). Later in the 20th technology was developed that allowed a person to empirically observe and thus prove that they existed. With the dawning of quantum physics there certainly were those who argued that because their was not empirical evidence of sub-atomic partials they could assert that they in fact didn’t exist. How wrong they proved to be.
One hardly needs to resort to detailing acts of humanity and generosity promoted by religion. Hard science provides ample evidence that belief provides a survival benefit for the human species. Evolution selects strongly for belief, and anthropology is rife with successful religious societies, and devoid of successful atheist ones. The history of the 20th century alone should sound a cautionary note as to the destructiveness of militantly atheist governments. Then, of course, there is the correlation between low birth rates among populations with fewer believers.
None of this has any bearing on the validity of religion, but it neatly refutes the argument that non-belief is clearly superior to belief for humans.
If this is the best that the “moderate” religious can come up with, then Sam Harris wins the debate hands-down.
Dionne writes: Argument about faith should not hang on whether religion is socially “useful” or instead promotes “inhumanity.”
Really? What should the arguments about faith hang on? Should they hang on who has the best army — the way religious argument against my people were conducted for most of the past two millenia?
In defending my religious commitment against my grandparents, who were heir to the “paleo-atheism” of the 19th and 20th century, I argued that in a world where religion wasn’t fading away — for better or worse — there was a need for the battle on behalf of the Good to be conducted within the religious communities; that arguing from outside wasn’t helpful or practical.
Dionne, however, is quite happy to join hand-in-hand with the traditional religions — whose record on human rights and tolerance and the like has been abysmal — against the atheists. He’d rather celebrate Easter with Nazis and Pogromists than make common cause with the atheists — or to even agree that their aims are worth acknowledging.
Or, to put it another way: How come it’s acceptable for Fundamentalist Christians to deviate from standard traditional doctrine and assert that God hates miscegenation (the policy of Bob Jones and his university, where Republicans such as Reagan and W. have made pilgrimage to garner Christian votes) but asserting that God loves homosexuals is considered heresy and treason?
Dionne’s knee-jerk defense of wishy-washyism (which, to be fair, is his political stance as well), and his selective discomfiture with people who believe strongly (Michael Novack, for example, is quite dogmatic) makes Harris seem quite reasonable.
And for the record: In “Letter to a Christian Nation,” Harris guts the arguments that “religious Christians killed Jews and religious Christians saved Jews.”
God wasn’t put into the Pledge for religious reasons, it was a political response to those godless Commie Russians. If the Pledge had included “God” since its creation it would be different. Maybe we need to change the Star Spangled Banner to reflect our new enemy, those nasty smelly Islamo-Stooges. They hate us for Britney Spears going commando. No panties is more Satanic than no headscarf.
Diones piece is a bunch of patronizing drivel conviently written just before Easter. Will any of the pious at TMV tell me of any atheists or agnostics killing Christians. I give the believers three examples of compassionate delusional Christians.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/01/20/child.death.ap/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3877421.stm
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Priest_charged_in_exorcism_death
I guess it’s a sin to be autistic, schizophrenic or a 6-year-old girl. Happy Easter!!
BrotherAlpha wrote.
In fact, this is studied by psychologists every day and is a well understood part of the human psyche.
Ohh this is a good one. So who is to say that God did not put this overwhelming need for God into the very heart and soul of man? Because a psychologist says man needs to create Gods to feel secure means their is no God? This is proof?
Who is to say that all these versions of God are not the same God? How do men who have never seen the light of day know their is a God. Something divine, something powerful out there. It certainly was not learned or studied or taught.
No I have to say in all the research I have seen regarding Proving there is no God, it is all based upon a drawn conclusion in which the evidence found only further supports the conclusion already reached.
There is no empirical evidence of a God, I won’t argue with you there. But lack of empirical evidence does not prove lack of existence. You can’t PROVE the existence of something about which you have no empirical evidence.
Those of religion depend on faith and do not have to PROVE their is a God. Why is that so hard for them to understand. Why must they PROVE to those Evil Christians there is no God.
Why is the hate in your heart so strong that you want to destroy the faith of others Brother Alpha? To take away that which gives these people comfort? This is a good thing?
Keep up the good work. Keep tearing down peoples faith so it makes you feel good about your hollow, Godless life. Thats a good mission in life.
“There is one glaring flaw in the logic of your “they can’t all be true but they can all be falseâ€? argument.”
Just a quick note, we were talking about evidence, not proof. You can’t prove any of this. In fact, you can’t prove someone wrote this post. There’s always some doubt.
There is no compelling evidence that god(s) exist, that’s why you need faith.
There is compelling evidence that god(s) don’t exist. This includes the lack mentioned above. True, absence of proof isn’t proof of absence, but it is evidence, especially when tests have been done.
For instance:
Question: Do I have a $20 bill in my desk?
Case A: There is no evidence that there’s a $20 bill in my desk, but I didn’t look.
Case B: There is no evidence that there’s a $20 bill in my desk, and I did look.
In both cases I could say, “There could be a $20 bill in my desk.” But in Case B it would be foolish to think so. It would be even more foolish to say, “There could be a $20 bill there, in fact, there could be $50 of them. So I’m going to but that big screen TV because I have the money.”
I think it comes down to this…
There are people in the world who are saying, “There’s isn’t 100% proof that I am wrong, so I must be right.”
“So who is to say that God did not put this overwhelming need for God into the very heart and soul of man?”
Read up on Descartes and the concept of the ultimate skeptic.
Basically it boils down to this.
Person A.) I think therefore I am.
Person B.) How do you know. Maybe you only think you think and you are in fact just a character in someone’s fevered dream.
Person A.) Fuck off.
Okay, Descartes didn’t drop an F-Bomb, but the meaning is clear. There’s no such thing as 100% proof and anyone who demands it should be ignored.
“Why is the hate in your heart so strong that you want to destroy the faith of others Brother Alpha? To take away that which gives these people comfort? This is a good thing?”
It has nothing to do with hate. The reason I do this is simple: Faith. Is. Dangerous.
Faith is irrational, and the natural laws are highly rational. For instance, let’s say there is a bush with berries on it. The berries look good, but the first person to eat them keels over dead. So does the second. And the third.
The fourth person says, “Well, the first three died, but the losing streak has to end eventually.”
It’s the same thing with psychic healing, the gambler’s fallacy, homeopathic medicines, etc. Being irrational can kill you.
I LOVED reading these responses!
Rudi- I don’t really care if God is in the pledge or on our money, but these cases get the RR all wired up for sound, and then they elect somebody like Brownback or Santorrum to force our godless society to cave in. I’m a live and let liver, and think everyone can practice in church or in their homes as long as they don’t sacrifice little brown goats at an altar in their living rooms!
BrotherAlpha, the $20 analogy doesn’t quite work very well because $20′s obey the laws of nature, whereas a god does not have such restrictions. How can you make scientific or logical suppositions about an entity which need not obey science or logic? You just simply can’t.
You can have a belief that the entirety of the universe (gods included) must be governed by laws very close to the natural laws we already know, but unfortunately that is just a belief. Any time you try and use science or logic to prove the ultimate validity of science or logic you get trapped in a circular argument.
Why is logic the best way to resolve all disputes? If you use logic, to prove the validity of logic, its circular, and if you use something else to prove logic’s validity, you then have simultaneously disproven your own claim because you have shown something other than logic to have a valuable use.
BrotherAlpha
So basically what you are saying is:
For instance, let’s say there is a bush with berries on it. The berries look good, but the first person to eat them keels over dead. So does the second. And the third.
You are saying that you are the BushMaster?
You are the decider of what people should believe and not believe? You are the decider to what is dangerous and what is not?
Brother Alpha is the Decider? Because Descartes says so?
Sorry. Atheists do have answers and these answers can be tested independently.
They can??? Breaking news folks. BrotherAlpha has proved there is no god!!
God exists because I say he does. Dispute this claim.
The fact is you cannot. You can only talk in circles like your 20 dollar bill. Comparing God to having 20 dollars in your desk is compelling evidence I must admit but…………….NO…..it doesnt quite convince me there is no God.
“There is no empirical evidence of a God, I won’t argue with you there. But lack of empirical evidence does not prove lack of existence. You can’t PROVE the existence of something about which you have no empirical evidence.”
Problem with this arguement is it can be used for anything. Santa Claus, the flying spagehtti monster, whatever. So its essentially useless except as a last ditch effort to stave off facing reality.
My main complaint agaisnt religons is they just dont’ mind their own business. You don’t want to have premarital sex, or use condoms when you do, or eat pork, or whatever fine. Don’t do it. Why do I have to follow the same rules? Can’t I just live my heathen life, and religous people be happy knowing I’m going to burn in hell forever? I think it would really work out best for all of us.
Also, someone mentioned the mention of God on money and the Pledge of Allegiance. That actually does bother me a little bit. The money not so much, but the pledge is actually something I like, and I feel its pretty much invalidated for me because of that one rediculous phrase. Again, its just an unofficial thing, but annoying.
You don’t want to have premarital sex, or use condoms when you do, or eat pork, or whatever fine. Don’t do it. Why do I have to follow the same rules? Can’t I just live my heathen life,
While commendable Sam. However your actions do affect me. I have a daughter. You are a horny heathen. You get my daughter pregnant or worse give her aids and essentially ruin her life. Now she is begging for an abortion in which I am opposed to and it quickly escalates into a huge snowball.
But thats okay I solved the problem. I found 20 dollars in my desk!!! There is a God after all!!
Again, this daughter arguement. These worst case scenarios used as a justification for telling the rest of us how to live our lives in a non worst case scenario life. First off, if your daughter is having sex she’s normal. Sex like it or not is a part of adult life, and our jobs as parents is to prepare them for that adult life.
Oddly enough I feel christians in particular, who seem to really like to throw out these protect the children arguements, do the least to actually prepare their children to look after themselves. What rule are you going to make that prevents me from having sex with your daughter? Age of consent laws are already in place and I’m happy to comply with them. Aside from that, she’s going to make her own decision and what kind of woman she is going to be is in large part shaped by you or not shaped by you.
I am a horny heathen. But we are all horny. Doesn’t mean we all go to orgies and try to tear the social fabric apart. Although to be honest I have yet to be invited to an orgy so I can’t say for sure whether or not I’d go. If there are alot of atheists out there going to orgies and knocking up young christian girls I somehow got left out. Probably due to something Pat Robertson did.
courtsey of SteveKs Bold Removal Service
That’s “courtesy“… duh!
Yet evolution, which I would assume you would consider to be a natural, rational process, selects very strongly for faith. You can make a good argument that faith is irrational, just not a good scientific one. And this is the point at which Dawkins and Harris jump the rhetorical shark, claiming, in the name of science, the superiority of atheism over religion while ignoring what science tells us of the relative worth of belief vs. unbelief.
A shining example you make, BrotherAlpha.
Gee Sam, you just described how we Libertarians view about 65% of our laws.
Nobody
Does anyone needs any further proof that faith is irrational and religion makes you irrational? Didn’t think so.
BrianOfAtlanta
I would argue it doesn’t. Humans are inquisitive and desire answers for every day problems. This is good, because without this in our nature, we wouldn’t advance.
However, what happens when we can’t find the answer? We invent one. This is the god in the gaps. The less gaps we have in our knowledge, the small god gets. Science explains it rationally.
Me:
Tonto:
Except I’m not saying, “There isn’t 100% proof that I’m wrong.” I’m saying, “Every peice of independently verifiable evidence suggests I’m right and there is no god(s). Granted, there could be new evidence that shows up tomorrow proving there is a god, but it would be foolish to live my life under the premise that it will happen.”
Its what I thought BrotherAlpha you cant prove God does not exist other then in your own mind and that is your right.
Sam so now your saying that if I raise my daughter in a way that does not make sure she has premarital sex that I am failing as a father and that my way of raising my daughter is not right? Therefore it is your perception of how things should be that determines if the world is adhering to your precepts and notions and not mine.
You are every bit the decider Christians or relgous people are. Its just that what you decide as relevant is not the same thing or has the same priority as someone else. Therefore anyone who chooses to have a differing set of values then yours is by association Wrong according to Sams law.
“Its what I thought BrotherAlpha you cant prove God does not exist other then in your own mind and that is your right.”
Goddamnit! What is wrong with you?
There’s a difference between not being able to prove something 100%, which is impossible, and have the preponderance of evidence on your side. Every bit of independently verifiable evidence shows that god(s) don’t exist. So it doesn’t take faith to say, ‘God(s) don’t exist.’ You can claiming that because something that can’t exist, (100% proof), doesn’t exist, our positionas are equal.
Are you really this fucking stupid? And I’m asking that as a serious question.
It’s a little sad to me that God is being debated as though he were a unitary entity. It is as though Theists and Atheists alike have not risen to the level of sophistication that recognizes the significance of the individual’s mind in the perception of God. They have not grasped the meta-human impulse to God as a social being. What about God as a moral impulse?
When you upack, bit-by-bit all these elements from the meaning of God, you’ll find that Atheists and Theists virtually agree. When it is objected that the atheist doesn’t have the ultimate answers, we find, similarly, nobody does. The neo-atheists want us to stop pretending anybody really does.
I dont know brother Alpha mabey I am stupid. Im still trying to find that 20 dollars in my desk.
So what your saying is because the Hindu worship one thing, Muslims another and Christians another then we cant all be right therefore we are all wrong.
That proves their is no God?
I simply proposed to you that we are all worshipping the same god. We just use different names and differing traditions.
Every bit of independently verifiable evidence shows that god(s) don’t exist. So it doesn’t take faith to say, ‘God(s) don’t exist.’ You can claiming that because something that can’t exist, (100% proof), doesn’t exist, our positionas are equal.
All I asked is what evidence. You point to all this evidence as overwhelming yet if it was overwhelming Mankind would be committing suicide right and left.
Ohh mabey thats what you want so you can have their stuff.
“So what your saying is because the Hindu worship one thing, Muslims another and Christians another then we cant all be right therefore we are all wrong.
That proves their is no God?”
First of all, there’s no such thing as proof as you demand it. You can’t prove anything in this world because it could all be a dream. [Insert Theremin Music Here.]
What it is is compelling evidence. Independently verifiably evidence. Anyone who studies comparative religions can see this. This is simple fact is more than all the pro-god evidence combined.
“I simply proposed to you that we are all worshipping the same god. We just use different names and differing traditions.”
That can’t be true because nearly all religions are mutually exclusive. “I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.” You can’t be a Scientologist and a Christian at the same time, they have mutually exclusive beliefs. The same is true of Buddhism and Judaism, etc.
The fact that you didn’t know that suggests you are over your head in this debate.
“All I asked is what evidence. You point to all this evidence as overwhelming yet if it was overwhelming Mankind would be committing suicide right and left.”
Why? Why would people be committing suicide? Just cause you can’t figure out how to live without your superstitions doesn’t mean everyone is that weak.
As for the evidence…
Prove to me that your god is the right god and the other gods are false. I’m sure someone who believes in the other god(s) can do the same to yours.
Or simply read the bible, in it there are scientifically testable claims made. They have been tested, and the bible has failed. For instance, according to the bible, you can drink poison and not die. Care to give that one a try?
Then you get into the incredibly shrinking god. A few thousand years ago god was really powerful. He causes the rain to fall, he causes the seasons to change, and he caused the sun to rise and fall. Then science came along and figured out that what seemed complex and in need of divine intervention was in fact based on very simple natural laws. Each of these laws we figured out took away from god’s powers. No longer were solar eclipses a powerful omen, they were merely the moon getting in the way of the sun. An event that is not only devoid of the supernatural but is completely predictable with a few simple mathematical tools.
If god really existed, he could break these rules, and according to the bible, you used to on a regular basis. So why doesn’t it happen anymore? Why doesn’t the sun stop in the sky?
You see, every time there’s a claim of the supernatural that can be explained away by natural laws, it’s evidence there is no god. And this evidence is independently verifiable and overwhelming.
Prove to me that your god is the right god and the other gods are false. I’m sure someone who believes in the other god(s) can do the same to yours.
Huh?
My response to you is your own response to me.
First of all, there’s no such thing as proof as you demand it. You can’t prove anything in this world because it could all be a dream. [Insert Theremin Music Here.]
You are a very confused person. As for Me. I believe there is a God. Proving that something that exists on the 6th dimension or 7th is not important to me. The fact that mankind from all walks of life to the very back woods of Tasmania believes in a supreme being tells me God has put his knowledge in mans heart. I do not care which name you use, or which Religion you follow. There is one god. We all worship the same God, just in different ways.
You realize we don’t use the same definition of proof. I use proof in the normal sense, you use it in a offensive sense. You use it as a weapon. ‘I demand 100% proof and since you can’t give it, I’m right. Ha ha ha. Ha ha. Ha.’
I use proof to mean, “Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Something you could use to convince a jury.”
But these very little since you’ve admitted you can prove your claims.
Speaking which…
Damn. That’s scary. That’s delusional.
If you were talking about anything else besides religion, you could get locked up for shit like that. Padded room and self-hugging suit and everything.
If you were talking about anything else besides religion, you could get locked up for shit like that. Padded room and self-hugging suit and everything.
When a religious person speaks you resort to trash taking and expounding your point with profanity.
Thats whats scary. The hate starts with you and with each word you speak in an attempt to prove their is no god you get more and more flagrantly angry and violent.
BrotherAlpah said:
Goddamnit! What is wrong with you?
Are you really this fucking stupid? And I’m asking that as a serious question.
No this is scary.