Dissecting Leftism - Grouchy Old Cripple - John C. Drew - NewsBlaze - Rebel Pundit - Right Wing News - Ritely
Isn't being a militant atheist somewhat hypocritical? I'm just kinda wondering if there is some sort of obligation to spread the faith, or lack therof among atheists.
I feel like the answer to this should be somewhat obvious. Like everything else in life, you can choose to be as involved or as "militant" as you wish to be. I don't consider myself a militant atheist, but I do feel a need to answer misconceptions. Because as simple an idea atheism is, it is extremely misunderstood. I don't see why it would be hypocritical to answer misconceptions. That would imply that atheists are somehow "obligated" to shut up and let people say whatever they want whether it is true or not.
I don't think answering questions or defining misconceptions would be considered militant. What I think Murph is driving at is, there are atheists that do something very close to evangelism. Everywhere there go, they must spread the word, what they feel is truth. They have turned what could be described as a lack of religion, into a religion. This certainly does not describe all atheists, but a certain segment of them does and we had quite the string of that type of atheist come here right after the election.
So, I got into another debate w/ an atheist from my school.I've no problem w/ them, but I'm shocked at how condescending they sound like. Case in point (condensed, I posted a lot):Last night, I had a heated discussion over the Net about the nature of God in society. As I'm fond of using the Moral Lawgiver argument (probably one of the most effective around there) I've argued that it is impossible for society to define "good", and that if God doesn't exist, every thing is permitted, and in that cases of communism & nazism, if atheism is true, we should be morally indifferent to it and shouldn't show disgust against it.
I used this quote (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god):The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.' He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.The atheist response? He told me my argument was "irrelevant" and I had "cute, but not valid arguments". Curiously, he never answered my question: Should we've evolved in a society where rape is permitted and normal, would you do it?His arguments could only be described as a mix of sunday school atheism & 4chan-style argument:"Since you say the proof God existed is b/c of the Bible, would you say Spiderman also exists b/c he's in a comic?"I countered: "Nope, as far as I know, nobody worshipped Spiderman for more than 5000 years and died for him. Out of the 12 apostles, 11 were brutally killed. If they knew that Christianity was false, they would repudiate it & profess paganism."He also said: "If the Moral Lawgiver is true, then why should it be your God? Shouldn't it be the Muslim Allah too?"I said: "My God never told me to kill an unbeliever to go to heaven."I'm confused as to why atheists are very keen to recruit others in their cause. I know hobbits don't exist, but I never spend my whole time convincing others they don't exist.Kierkegaard was right in saying that a lone atheist man, without his peers, would suddenly realise there is a God, so that's why they had to stick together.Also, I'll never go into debates again, as Proverbs 29:9 says: If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man,the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.
God, does not make sense logically. Although I understand why people say there must be some intelligent designer, their own premises actually defeat their conclusion. The argument is basically as follows:Humans are so amazing and complex that it is absurd to think that time and random events could have created them. The same could also be said of the entire universe. Therefore, there must have been an intelligent creator that purposefully created the universe and life. That creator is God.But who made God? The problem is that God has the same qualities--extended to infinity--that make "him" necessary to exist in the first place. In other words, if there needs to be an intelligent creator in order for a human being to exist then surely there must be an intelligent creator for God to exist. If a human can't just exist without being created then certainly God, being even more complex and amazing, cannot.
Religious people have a variety of ways to try to deal with the "who made God" question but they simply cannot answer it.
God does make sense logically, I would advice you to watch a few hours of William Lane Craig on the issue, or read his books or specifically the book "Signature in the Cell". Your own premise is actually your own defeat because you don't understand the opposition premise.Cells process and system they operate through are so complex and dependent on every variable and smallest factor to function that it is mathematically impossible that it was created through random mutation or chance. (The universe had a begninning, so cells could not have been formed through endless mutations, i.e string theory)The force that created the universe and material dimension transcend both time and matter. Therefore God is not bound by the beginning argument as God is timeless (more correctly out side of time). I just answered it.But if you are serious about this topic then please read the opposition instead of just making up your own premise and putting into religious peoples mouth.
The alleged mathematical impossibility of the current state of affairs in the universe may be true (although obviously it is just extraordinarily unlikely to come about by “chance,” not impossible). But the same could be said of any other state of affairs that could have existed in the universe. Furthermore, if there are a near infinite number of other universes, then many of these other potential states of affair already exist. The argument I made in my previous post has not been countered. Even if God “transcend both time and matter” and is therefore “not bound by the beginning argument,” my original argument remains intact. In fact, as amazing and complex as we humans are, a being that exists outside of time and space and is capable of creating us is much more amazing and complex than we are. If, by virtue of our complexity, we must have been created by an intelligent designer then God, for the same reasons, must also have been so created.
Sometimes raw logic will do the trick. It is a tautological truth that the existence of our current universe is NOT an "impossibility." By definition, impossible states of affairs can never exist. Because the state of affairs of our universe does exist, that state of affairs cannot be impossible.It is of no particular importance that the alleged God exists "outside of time." If anything, one would think that God's existence "outside of time" and the fact that "he" is a being capable of creating the whole universe and the inhabitants therein would require at least as compelling of an explanation as the existence of the aforementioned things, allegedly created by God, would. What is that explanation? That's what I'm asking. In other words, it seems entirely ridiculous that our universe needed an intelligent creator but that intelligent creator, being even more "impossible" and inexplicable than "his" alleged creations, needs no creator or explanation other than "he" has always existed "outside of time." If God's existence can be adequately explained in such a manner then, a fortiori, the universe and everything contained therein, including humans, can also be adequately explained that way, thereby rendering God an unnecessary part of any explanation of the universe's existence.
I have to say that I doubt you are really looking for answer, because you are not interested in researching arguments that does [sic] not validate your already embraced atheist view.
I'm not used to debating polite atheists, and I'm finding myself being the more rude one.
What I dont agree too [sic] is that you are stating that christians are illogical and don't have good scientific arguments for their faith or standpoint, this I will never accept.
I'm making a conclusion based on the observable data, and the data show [sic] that the universe had a beginning. This is based on verifiable data that is proved through science, the multiverse is a theory without any data whatsover [sic], just wishfull [sic] atheist thinking.
An eternal universe is an impossibility, +1 infinity and -1 infinity can't be the same number, yet if the universe was eternal it would be the same number of time which is not only logically false, but also mathematically false rendering the eternal universe theory invalid.
Because the universe had a beginning, then a fortiori our existence can't be explained as to have always existed or existed outside of time, therefore rendering a Cause for existence outside of time a necessity..