How to talk to an atheist (and you must)

Townhall.com ^ | January 24, 2005 | Mike S. Adams

[7thson]

When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. I’m sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.

[Protagoras]

scenerio = scenario

[SunnySide]

hee hee hee....


Keep em coming.

[malakhi]

Common law. The plaintiff complains, the defendant explains, and the judge decides who is credible and compares the precedents. Worked for centuries.

Go ahead, give it a try and let me know how that works for you.

[BJungNan]

Given some utility and interest, we could find out the answer to all these questions with a bit of effort.

Oh really. Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying we can find out where the tree and the seed came from?

[Protagoras]

Is this a recent change in your life? I've previously thought your beliefs were closer to those of the real Protagoras.

You thought wrong.

(Does the fact that you did not capitalize "Holy Spirit" mean anything?)

No.

Jumping to incorrect conclusions is commonplace on this forum. (everywhere I guess)

[MineralMan]

Interesting, but self-referential.

Proving the existence of a deity, or the deity of a man/god, based on the scriptures of the religion which believes both to be true is a tautology.

You can find the same proofs in Hinduism, Islam, or any other scripturally-based religion.

Are they all valid? No. Are any of them valid. Well, the one you believe is valid is valid for you.

[AppyPappy]

He is perfectly good

He is perfectly obedient. Since He is God, he is also good. Good is something we do; not what we are. God is the only good.

So when you get to the riddle of "Why do bad things happen to good people", you have to rephrase that to "Why do bad things happen to people" because no one is good except God. ALL sin and fall short of the Glory of God.

[Antoninus]

Incorrect. tehre is no one proper atheist answer to that. To many it woudl be as you say. Other atheists might well believe in an afterlife or re-incarnation... just no gods involved.

Sorry, it is correct. "I don't know" is the trademark phrase of the agnostic. You must at least have some inkling. What I want to know is what YOU think will happen to you after you die? For you to answer "I dunno" when this question is put to you is the equivalent of saying "I don't care."

The pint being: a flat satement that an atheist won;t ahve anything to say when asked what he/she beleives, or that an atheists believes *nothing*, is silly. Atheism only deals with the question of God. Many atheists believe in rather a lot of things. Just not gods, by definition.

Exactly. You'll notice, I didn't say that atheists believed in nothing. They believe in all variety of bizarre and wacky things. This is where the conflicts among them come from and where their idiosyncratic notions fall utterly flat when exposed to the light of day. What's the old saying? If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. It's also why atheists spend most of their time attacking Christians and precious little time defending their own "beliefs."

Is it ok if you want to, say, mash your TV? Is it ok if some total stranger does with without your permission? Is it even *possible* for you to steal your own TV from you?

What I'm saying is, what difference does it make if one conglomeration of proteins and chemicals mashes another one? The idea of "possession" is just an abstract, artificial construct. You can't see "possession" or feel it or hear it or taste it or smell it. Therefore, I don't believe it even exists? :-)

[what's up]

The pilgrims believed in a universal law.

Commies don't.

[MineralMan]

"hee hee hee....


Keep em coming."

Boy, what a treat it is to discuss issues like this with such an erudite, well-written individual. I'm going to just hate to forgo futher discourse with you.

[GLDNGUN]

First you talk about "True Christians", now you are talking about "true conservatives"

I think I got it, if they think like you, they are True conservatives or Christians.

No, unfortunately, you don't "got it". It was an analogy. Would you regard someone as truly conservative if they were in favor of: abortion, high taxation, gun control, big government, and various other political positions embraced by liberals, "progressives"? Are you suggesting that such a person would be considered a "true conservative"?

The point is very, very simple. Not everyone claiming to be something (Christian, conservative are but 2 examples) are typical or truly represeantional of the label they apply to themselves.

I hope you "get it" now.

[Modernman]

Actually, the best bet would be to surround yourself with a group of like minded tough m#####f#####rs who will defend you but support your desire to murder and rape.

Perhaps, but then your success is based on always being the guy with the most homeboys behind you. A smart person realizes that is not always a successful strategy.

An ideal society would be one in which those on the inside protect each other, but take whomever they want on the outside to impregnate. Thus they have complete control to spread their seed wherever they wish.

Again, that's been tried throughout history, with varying degrees of success. However, a society that is constantly picking fights with its neighbors will eventually find everyone else turning on it. Look at Germany.

[TigerTale]

Even Jesus said He wasn't good.

He did not say that. He asked someone else "Why do you call me good?" That is not the same thing.

[GLDNGUN]

I'm sure I could, but I'm not in the business of making up Christian bumper stickers.

And it's a good thing. So why start now?

[GatorGirl]

Newdow's Constitutional rights are absolutely NOT being violated.

There is not a Constitutional right to be free from "offense".

Our country's history and founding documents, right from the start, is replete with references to, and reliance on, God.

The Constitution prohibits government establishment of a state religion. The mere mention of God hardly establishes a state religion, seeing as Christianity, Judiaism, and even Islam believe in God. Three very different religions, don't you think?

[GraceCoolidge]

Or as my friend put it, "All personalized license plates and bumper stickers say basically the same thing - 'Shoot me - I have a point of view different from that of yours!'"

But I think there is a difference between a bumper sticker that says something about your own lifestyle versus one that ridicules the opposite. It's the difference between having a sticker that says "Happy atheist" versus having one that says "Believers are idiots" or something...

[newgeezer]

Jumping to incorrect conclusions is commonplace on this forum. (everywhere I guess)

As you surely know, not all incorrect conclusions on this forum are arrived at by "jumping." Sometimes it's a short step.

[SunnySide]

I'm just glad to be here (on earth). I'll play a tune on the violin for you.

[RinaseaofDs]

You shouldn't. They don't exist. Unless an atheist can prove that there is no God, then they simply don't know. We have a word for people like that - Agnostics.

Atheism is a belief system.

They believe there is no God, and that human beings are supreme on earth. They can't prove it, but they are sure of it. They aren't unlike Christians, in that Christians are justified by their faith as well.

I don't seek to convert atheists, because sadly, the logic of their positions are untenable. I have tried to get them to acknowlege that in the absence of proof of God's non-existance, there must then be even a scintilla of doubt. This doubt, no matter how small, places them in the category we know to be agnostics.

It was then I realized that atheism requires an enormous amount of faith.

[exnavychick]

The belief, not the action, is illogical.

LOL! That's what I was disputing...I don't think that their belief, or lack thereof, is irrational. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're irrational at all. If anything, they are perhaps a bit TOO rational, and that, to me, helps explain their lack of belief.