# The Immaturity of some Atheist...



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 7, 2018)

Good read. 

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/23/hey-atheists-its-immature-to-mock-peoples-deeply-held-beliefs/


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 8, 2018)

Some are very immature.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Some are very immature.


I have some friends that are atheist and we have some very good conversations regarding religion maintaining respect for each others position. There are even a few on GON that I believe I would get along with swimmingly, but others act as if Christians & God were the boogey man out to get them and they are constantly disrespectful and on the attack, in a very arrogant, demeaning, immature manner. Thus they might find themselves getting what the give eventually. Not that they'll understand why, or that it's even intentional.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 8, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I have some friends that are atheist and we have some very good conversations regarding religion maintaining respect for each others position. There are even a few on GON that I believe I would get along with swimmingly, but others act as if Christians & God were the boogey man out to get them and they are constantly disrespectful and on the attack, in a very arrogant, demeaning, immature manner. Thus they might find themselves getting what the give eventually. Not that they'll understand why, or that it's even intentional.


Yup, exactly.


----------



## furtaker (Jun 8, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I have some friends that are atheist and we have some very good conversations regarding religion maintaining respect for each others position. There are even a few on GON that I believe I would get along with swimmingly, but others act as if Christians & God were the boogey man out to get them and they are constantly disrespectful and on the attack, in a very arrogant, demeaning, immature manner. Thus they might find themselves getting what the give eventually. Not that they'll understand why, or that it's even intentional.



Yep.  What I've never understood is why they are so angry and consumed about something that they deem doesn't exist.  Christianity really bothers them for some reason.  I'm not obsessed with things that I believe are false.  They know that if God is out there somewhere, then they aren't king anymore.  I truly feel sorry for them.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 8, 2018)

furtaker said:


> Yep.  What I've never understood is why they are so angry and consumed about something that they deem doesn't exist.  Christianity really bothers them for some reason.  I'm not obsessed with things that I believe are false.  They know that if God is out there somewhere, then they aren't king anymore.  I truly feel sorry for them.


They’re angry at Christianity because they feel that our way of life controls and limits their way of living by being influential on our govt and the way we were established.

I guess the gun grabbers are not the only group that thinks that our Founding Fathers got it wrong.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 8, 2018)

They are angry that you assume a moral superiority


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> They’re angry at Christianity because they feel that our way of life controls and limits their way of living by being influential on our govt and the way we were established.
> 
> I guess the gun grabbers are not the only group that thinks that our Founding Fathers got it wrong.



Some of the Founding Fathers were Masons. That means you only have to believe in "a god".  Maybe they believed in "the God" and maybe they didn't.
It could have opened the door to unorthodox religious views. Again, maybe it did and maybe it didn't. Many of America’s founding fathers were devout Christians of this we can't deny. But they may have had some influence by Freemasonry to accept just a belief in any god.

That being said, I think you'll find the Atheist of this forum don't identify with the gun grabbers. Not that they believe in any God but it is possible the Founding Fathers thought that belief was good enough for them. To just believe in a Supreme Being. A Great Architect.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 8, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Some of the Founding Fathers were Masons. That means you only have to believe in "a god".  Maybe they believed in "the God" and maybe they didn't.
> It could have opened the door to unorthodox religious views. Again, maybe it did and maybe it didn't. Many of America’s founding fathers were devout Christians of this we can't deny. But they may have had some influence by Freemasonry to accept just a belief in any god.
> 
> That being said, I think you'll find the Atheist of this forum don't identify with the gun grabbers. Not that they believe in any God but it is possible the Founding Fathers thought that belief was good enough for them. To just believe in a Supreme Being. A Great Architect.


The point was that the gun grabbers think they got it wrong on the 2A.

Some atheist think they got it wrong on the 1A.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 9, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> They are angry that you assume a moral superiority



You just had to go and disrupt a perfectly good echo chamber.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 9, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> They are angry that you assume a moral superiority


Who is "you" in that statement?


----------



## General Sherman (Jun 9, 2018)

Maybe they are angry that so many people are so closed minded that they actually believe in their search for "god" that ended up finding god in their own regional religion. Shocker!!!!!

Nobody read about any of the other thousands of religions, most of which are older and more historically accurate than christianity, or did any real soul searching. They chose the same path that was easy and accustomed to and then preached to others about it. Do none of you ever step back for a single second and ask questions?  Really?  

Also, America is not the only (or the best) country in the world. Read some books folks


----------



## General Sherman (Jun 9, 2018)

Cue the "I only need to read one book" scholars.........


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 9, 2018)

General Sherman said:


> Also, America is not the only (or the best) country in the world.



That explains our immigration issue. 

I will gladly get you a one way ticket to any better place you choose.


----------



## General Sherman (Jun 9, 2018)

Been to all of them?  Or any of them?


----------



## General Sherman (Jun 9, 2018)

I love this country but it has taken a bad turn. In every measureable aspect of a nation, America leads the world in only three things. 

1.  Amount of people imprisoned per capita
2.  Amount of money spent on military
And 3. Number of full grown adults who believe angels are real

We are pathetic if you consider infant mortality, obesity, household income, education, life span, happiness, etc etc etc.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 9, 2018)

> 1.  Amount of people imprisoned per capita
> 2.  Amount of money spent on military
> And 3. Number of full grown adults who believe angels are real



I cant link it due to other comments.............but this looks just like some-ones personal "article" on a forumReal classy research for someone laying the smack down on others about lack of research. He has this question at the end.

_"Try as I might, I can not devise a suitable defense of my coutry, and I am left with one simple question: Where is the best place for me to relocate and plant my new flag as a free citizen of the world?"_

Now, my question is - Are ya`ll having trouble finding a better place?

BTW, I am now referring you to my sig line.


----------



## General Sherman (Jun 9, 2018)

I'll retreat. Someone who believes that a man kept two of every animal on a large wooden yacht while god destroyed his own creation has bested be intellectually.   Best of luck in life


----------



## Israel (Jun 10, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> They are angry that you assume a moral superiority



Who wouldn't be?

I have truly seen only One man who was never offended in submission to His superior. Not only that...His boast of Him (His superior)...was never in flattery nor disingenuous. He really does...love Him. As His superior.

I understand all too well the man who "has trouble with authority".

This Other...I need to know more about.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 10, 2018)

General Sherman said:


> Maybe they are angry that so many people are so closed minded that they actually believe in their search for "god" that ended up finding god in their own regional religion. Shocker!!!!!
> 
> Nobody read about any of the other thousands of religions, most of which are older and more historically accurate than christianity, or did any real soul searching. They chose the same path that was easy and accustomed to and then preached to others about it. Do none of you ever step back for a single second and ask questions?  Really?
> 
> Also, America is not the only (or the best) country in the world. Read some books folks


If that is the case then maybe they assume too much based on their superior intellect (si) and we all know the dangers in assumptions.

For me I was raised by a father who was a minister. In his library was a book from every prominent religion and I was allowed to study them all and make my own conclusions. Oddly enough, if you had done the same you would realize that the majority of religions in the world are represented by prophets, not a God, and only one of them offers salvation.

The crux of this topic is not how many religions are out there and what one's conclusion may be after studying each of them. It is about why those that don't believe in any God or Prophet have to wet their diaper every time they encounter someone that does believe. That believer is no threat to that non-believer financially, physically, psychologically or theologically. We may pray for them outside of their knowledge of us doing so, but again, it is no skin off of your back. So why the immature whiny assaults on Christians.

Were you truly intellectually superior one would think you would have better things to do with your time, and considering the lack of the threat by believers one would think you would deem it beneath you to stoop to their level to even insult them.

What the immature whining and banter reveals is that there is something there you are earnestly afraid of, but not even you yourself can identify it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 10, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If that is the case then maybe they assume too much based on their superior intellect (si) and we all know the dangers in assumptions.
> 
> For me I was raised by a father who was a minister. In his library was a book from every prominent religion and I was allowed to study them all and make my own conclusions. Oddly enough, if you had done the same you would realize that the majority of religions in the world are represented by prophets, not a God, and only one of them offers salvation.
> 
> ...


We need a homerun emoji


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Who is "you" in that statement?



Kinda wondered that myself.  He’s wrong.  They’re mad because we assume a moral law giver and you can’t posit a transcendent morality without one.  It exposes the hypocrisy of atheism: Condemn immorality, yet deny the existence of a transcendent morality.  It’s self-contradictory, but that’s Atheism.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> You just had to go and disrupt a perfectly good echo chamber.



There’s one “downstairs” you wouldn’t.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2018)

General Sherman said:


> Maybe they are angry that so many people are so closed minded that they actually believe in their search for "god" that ended up finding god in their own regional religion. Shocker!!!!!
> 
> Nobody read about any of the other thousands of religions, most of which are older and more historically accurate than christianity, or did any real soul searching. They chose the same path that was easy and accustomed to and then preached to others about it. Do none of you ever step back for a single second and ask questions?  Really?
> 
> Also, America is not the only (or the best) country in the world. Read some books folks



Ah!  The old and misguided “Since different people have different answers, they all must be wrong.”  meme.  Works with math (NOT!) so I guess that reasoning holds for everything.  Yeah that’s a well thought out argument right there Sir.  Keep preaching it easy Brother.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Kinda wondered that myself.  He’s wrong.  They’re mad because we assume a moral law giver and you can’t posit a transcendent morality without one.  It exposes the hypocrisy of atheism: Condemn immorality, yet deny the existence of a transcendent morality.  It’s self-contradictory, but that’s Atheism.


Read what you just wrote. 


> They’re mad because we assume a moral law giver and you can’t posit a transcendent morality without one.


Nothing to do with Atheism. That's about YOU and your beliefs.


> Condemn immorality, yet deny the existence of a transcendent morality.  It’s self-contradictory.


Condemning immorality and denying the existence of a transcendent morality is NOT contradictory. Should only take you a second to figure out why they don't contradict each other. 


> but that’s Atheism.


No its just more of your nonsense.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2018)

General Sherman said:


> I'll retreat. Someone who believes that a man kept two of every animal on a large wooden yacht while god destroyed his own creation has bested be intellectually.   Best of luck in life





WaltL1 said:


> Read what you just wrote.
> 
> Nothing to do with Atheism. That's about YOU and your beliefs.
> 
> ...



Sorry you don’t see the contradiction, but by all means, carry on.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sorry you don’t see the contradiction, but by all means, carry on.


Ok I will.
Atheists posit that morals are determined by society and individuals.
You've been told that no less than 100 times downstairs every time you have brought up this same old tired claim.
To posit morality exists, regardless of where it comes from, and to be against immorality is not a contradiction. Its the opposite of a contradiction.
You see a contradiction because you want your version to be true so bad that you just cant accept that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok I will.
> Atheists posit that morals are determined by society and individuals.
> You've been told that no less than 100 times downstairs every time you have brought up this same old tired claim.
> To posit morality exists, regardless of where it comes from, and to be against immorality is not a contradiction. Its the opposite of a contradiction.
> You see a contradiction because you want your version to be true so bad that you just cant accept that.






WaltL1 said:


> Ok I will.
> Atheists posit that morals are determined by society and individuals.
> You've been told that no less than 100 times downstairs every time you have brought up this same old tired claim.
> To posit morality exists, regardless of where it comes from, and to be against immorality is not a contradiction. Its the opposite of a contradiction.
> You see a contradiction because you want your version to be true so bad that you just cant accept that.



What I SEE is a very poorly thought out position.
THIS 


> Atheists posit that morals are determined by society and individuals.


 has absolutely no thought put into it.

Nazi German was a society that put 6 million of their own citizens to death BASED ON THAT SOCIETIES DETERMINED MORALS.

Think of the most barbaric and sadistic individual you can think of.
According to Athiest ( per your above statement, which is absolutely accurate by the way) their morals are justified because they are determined by them, them self. 

And while Yes, you probably have said it a hundred times I simply cannot believe you don’t see a problem with it.

That’s the cost of atheism.  When there’s no transcendent morality no individual or society can claim the moral high ground because every society and every individual is on equal footing morally no matter what their actions are....they are morally justified.

So, Athiest see, feel and often even rage against perceived immorality , yet their philosophy gives them no justification for such thoughts or emotions.  

It’s why Dawkins said “DNA neither knows nor cares.”  It’s why Peter Singer said he could not condemn incest or rape.  I’ll give them one thing.  At least they are honest to the implications of their position.  You.......well you just keep repeating your memes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What I SEE is a very poorly thought out position.
> THIS
> has absolutely no thought put into it.
> 
> ...


You made a claim.


> Condemn immorality, yet deny the existence of a transcendent morality.  It’s self-contradictory.


Its been explained to you over and over and again why your claim is false.
I'm not wading any deeper into your horse dung.


----------



## Israel (Jun 13, 2018)

Righteousness and morality are distinct.
One is always consistent to itself.
The other is at very best, perhaps.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What I SEE is a very poorly thought out position.
> THIS
> has absolutely no thought put into it.
> 
> ...


If what you say is true, no christian would do anything immoral ever. Yet you yourself are as guilty as any non christian that you constantly claim moral superiority over.
Your refuted claims are out of gas.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok I will.
> Atheists posit that morals are determined by society and individuals.
> You've been told that no less than 100 times downstairs every time you have brought up this same old tired claim.
> To posit morality exists, regardless of where it comes from, and to be against immorality is not a contradiction. Its the opposite of a contradiction.
> You see a contradiction because you want your version to be





bullethead said:


> If what you say is true, no christian would do anything immoral ever. Yet you yourself are as guilty as any non christian that you constantly claim moral superiority over.
> Your refuted claims are out of gas.



Sometimes I really wonder if some of you EVER, really EVER, have any regard for truth or if your vindictiveness and hatred toward God and anything even remotely God related totally consume it.  

Regardless, your above statement is just another shining example of how you guys behave when you can’t refute the truth.....just attack and belittle the messenger.  Guess that’s all you CAN do.  So predictable, so bane, and my tolerance for both has been reached today.  No point in debating truth with those who have no regard for it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You made a claim.
> 
> Its been explained to you over and over and again why your claim is false.
> I'm not wading any deeper into your horse dung.



I wouldn’t either.  You’ve been in over your head ever since you first subscribed to Athiesm.  Forsaking reason and truth is the necessary first step.   Again, no suprise at all.
“ Horse dung” has to do when reason  fails.  Again predictable and bane, just like bullethead.  Thanks for you guys “courtesy”, now you can go back downstairs and echo your memes back and forth in ‘victory’.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 14, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I wouldn’t either.  You’ve been in over your head ever since you first subscribed to Athiesm.  Forsaking reason and truth is the necessary first step.   Again, no suprise at all.
> “ Horse dung” has to do when reason  fails.  Again predictable and bane, just like bullethead.  Thanks for you guys “courtesy”, now you can go back downstairs and echo your memes back and forth in ‘victory’.





> I'm not wading any deeper into your horse dung.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sometimes I really wonder if some of you EVER, really EVER, have any regard for truth or if your vindictiveness and hatred toward God and anything even remotely God related totally consume it.
> 
> Regardless, your above statement is just another shining example of how you guys behave when you can’t refute the truth.....just attack and belittle the messenger.  Guess that’s all you CAN do.  So predictable, so bane, and my tolerance for both has been reached today.  No point in debating truth with those who have no regard for it.


So when you cackle about atheists being immoral it is ok. But when your moral giver logic fails and you are lumped in with having less than stellar morals you are being attacked?
Sfd, there is some truth being twisted, but it is not Walt or myself doing it.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 15, 2018)

Having good morals alone is like washing a cup on its outside, and the inside remaining filthy.
There is a need for the inside to be washed(made righteous). But we don't have that ability. It is a benevolence that is done for us.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 17, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Who is "you" in that statement?


It can't be the Christian. A Christian does not assume Christ.

It is telling though.


----------



## Israel (Jun 20, 2018)

A witness simply tells what he sees. What he has seen.
I think it would be very rare to find the "christian" who does not know, in some way, his testimony is open to all attempts at impeaching.
(I believe the Lord specifically warns of this "so that when it comes to pass, you will not be offended"...in places)

Called liar, tossed out of synagogues (congregations), the branding of fool and simpleton, betrayed by brother (given over to death in whatever form)...yet still instructed to hold fast, without _falling_ to offense.

What do we find as only help? The sight of the only One to conquer in this, another...who has navigated His way in full light...pressing us to a view, and as often as commended, a re-view of His stature. We do not testify of ourselves...as anything at all, but seers...having seen.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 23, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> It can't be the Christian. A Christian does not assume Christ.
> 
> It is telling though.


Your statement is very similar to one from the Tao. I will have to look it up.

To your point though, Christians do experience Christ. So would it be the lack of having this experience that spurns this childish jealous auto-response in non-believers?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Your statement is very similar to one from the Tao. I will have to look it up.
> 
> To your point though, Christians do experience Christ. So would it be the lack of having this experience that spurns this childish jealous auto-response in non-believers?


Wouldn't the monkey wrench in that theory be that to be jealous of not experiencing Christ...…… wouldn't you have to believe that Christ exists to experience?
That pretty much leaves A/As out and your perceived observation that they are jealous inaccurate.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Wouldn't the monkey wrench in that theory be that to be jealous of not experiencing Christ...…… wouldn't you have to believe that Christ exists to experience?
> That pretty much leaves A/As out and your perceived observation that they are jealous inaccurate.


Only if the A/A were not obsessed with maligning Christians with every other breath. In this case it would appear more as denial.


----------



## Israel (Jun 24, 2018)

My (to some) invisible friend has given instruction. How and in what manner others receive this He has made plain to me is none of my business. In fact, in truth, if _I want_ trouble, or more of it, one sure way is to be overly concerned about how I believe I am being perceived, or received. But this has been my instruction. His instruction to me.

We can go to chapter and verse, if need be, but we also know the manual is of little use to those who have not undertaken their part _in it. Under_ taken.
Assembly is in the Master's hand. And_ The Assembly_ in particular.

To say, or repeat a thing is of little consequence _without conviction_. _(_Which is an interesting term if one considers matters of guilt and innocence) But, I am satisfied presently with what understanding I am allowed on this path of rebuke and chastening, to comprehend it in the fashion I have am formed to, now. Guilty parties are also allowed time in the witness seat to testify.

Unlike courtroom dramas in which the defense counsel strongly advises against putting the accused on the stand for fear of what a good prosecutor may elicit in cross examination, my advocate has none such fear. I am (if I be the only needing to learn this is also of no consequence, my needs, are after all, _my needs_) being taught _cross examination_ is all I am fit for. I even believe my advocate has purposed this. For even the Prosecutor is under His capable control. The Master holds...the winnowing fork. Even, and, specifically.

I have been guilty. Guilty of past offense. Specifically found in doubt of this: "All authority in Heaven and Earth has been given me...therefore go..." One may see the "therefore go" instruction is predicated upon the first part of that; a going without knowing that upon which the "go" is predicated is learned to be a fool's errand. And I am surely guilty of being _that fool_. But, the Master is wise beyond comprehension; fully knowing the substance of man, being One, of _all_ Light.

The _sent_ One knows how to expose (in all patience of instruction) the fool that is so full of "go" he cares not what he carries in his own going, believing he is doing the Master's will in simply...going. But, if he carries not the conviction of that which upon his go is predicated, frustration _to a perfection_ is the thing he is appointed to learn. The Master, who is all of order, (His head being God) knows that second things cannot be learned apart from first things being learned...first.

Things_ subject to _frustration...must be _frustrated_. Perfectly. Until we may cry out, (if that be our only true prayer of sincerity ever uttered) "save me out of this".

And, frustration has a voice. A timbre and cadence, and its own lexicon. The "they" is frequent in use. The _they_ is found to be of issue. The _they _are found to be...provocational. The _they _are a _problem. _The _problem. _A problem to be solved. And if our own maths are not sufficient to it "come, let us multiply our wisdom by putting our heads together". And here then..."heads" are clearly shown.

One man, clearly knowing he was not the Head, marveled not at the apparent (and _appointed_) opposition _without_, but rather at the immaturity manifestly displayed..._within_.

We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain, because you are dull of hearing. Although by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to reteach you the basic principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food! Everyone who lives on milk is still an infant, inexperienced in the message of righteousness.

That man is very bold. Obviously he cared little for appearing an offense. I have no doubt he was subject to his own _cross_ examination. I am convinced his Advocate, no less than ours...made sure he was "up for it".

It's easy to blame. "The woman YOU gave me" (it's called a twofer) if a man refuses to recognize he is receiving to himself the consequences of what "comes out from him". But, frustration_ must come out_. Till only what is of not frustration, Who cannot be frustrated, remains.

Goers _must_ go. There's much "go" in man that the cross effectually...stops. But the One who sends, because He Himself submitted to being sent into _all resistance _knows very well with what and _by what_, He was sent_. _He said it,_ Himself._
It bears repeating..._even_ by a convict.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And, no less:

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

What remains in sight as the "they" is to a man's own convenience, and the Sender knows this having been made willing to take the they...as His own. We...are the "they".

And now made not sorry to be so.

I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one— I in them and You in Me — that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved _them_ just as You have loved Me.

Are any sorry to be the they?

Perhaps only if we are not convicted of this:
 
just as You have loved Me.

Do any still wonder at the depths of the Father's love...for the Son? Do we...doubt?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Wouldn't the monkey wrench in that theory be that to be jealous of not experiencing Christ...…… wouldn't you have to believe that Christ exists to experience?
> That pretty much leaves A/As out and your perceived observation that they are jealous inaccurate.



It is "experiencing Christ" that determines whether one is a believer or nonbeliever.  Is that not why some nonbelievers deny the experience of the believer and declare that he is a defective person (the lifeblood of the AAA sub-forum).


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Only if the A/A were not obsessed with maligning Christians with every other breath. In this case it would appear more as denial.


Not sure how you equate maligning with denial.
Do Conservatives malign Liberals? Do they do it because they are secretly jealous? Do Liberals malign Conservatives?  
As far as A/As maligning Christians at every breath I'll post the same Pew research poll results I did in the other thread -


> In the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, self-identified atheists were asked how often they share their views on God and religion with religious people. Only about one-in-ten atheists* (9%)* say they do at least weekly, while roughly *two-thirds (65%) say they seldom or never discuss their views on religion with religious people*. By comparison, *26%* of *those who have a religious affiliation *share their views at least once a week with those who have other beliefs;* 43% say they seldom or never do.*


Do I hang my hat on poll results? No.
Does the data clearly suggest you might have your observation backwards?
Yes.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure how you equate maligning with denial.
> Do Conservatives malign Liberals? Do they do it because they are secretly jealous? Do Liberals malign Conservatives?
> As far as A/As maligning Christians at every breath I'll post the same Pew research poll results I did in the other thread -
> 
> ...


I thought we were talking about our immediate environment, here on this forum, not nationwide or worldwide.  Was I mistaken?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> It is "experiencing Christ" that determines whether one is a believer or nonbeliever.  Is that not why some nonbelievers deny the experience of the believer and declare that he is a defective person (the lifeblood of the AAA sub-forum).


Are you claiming that every kid who has been brought up to believe and does so, is because they experienced Christ?


> declare that he is a defective person


That's just ridiculous.
If you can put your sensitive feelings aside, you will observe that A/As are arguing against the REASONING/LOGIC that is given by "the other side" on this one particular subject.
Are there rabid A/As ? Of course.
Are there rabid Christians? Of course.
Are there rabid Muslims? Of course.
Are there rabid...………..


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Are you claiming that every kid who has been brought up to believe and does so, is because they experienced Christ?
> 
> That's just ridiculous.
> If you can put your sensitive feelings aside, you will observe that A/As are arguing against the REASONING/LOGIC that is given by "the other side" on this one particular subject.
> ...


You need to read more discriminately, or perhaps take your blinders off.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I thought we were talking about our immediate environment, here on this forum, not nationwide or worldwide.  Was I mistaken?


You mean here on this forum where A/As and Christians have gotten together and gone fishing and hunting together?
You mean here on this forum where the regular A/As have chased off the occasional rabid A/A who comes in only to insult?
You mean here on this forum where we have A/As who love and respect family members and friends who are Christians?
That the forum you are talking about?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> You need to read more discriminately, or perhaps take your blinders off.


Feel free to point out what you think I missed.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure how you equate maligning with denial.
> Do Conservatives malign Liberals? Do they do it because they are secretly jealous? Do Liberals malign Conservatives?
> As far as A/As maligning Christians at every breath I'll post the same Pew research poll results I did in the other thread -
> 
> ...


Apples and oranges and overall generalizations. 
I never stated ALL Atheist do it. Just some, which renders your Pew research insignificant and rather smelly.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You mean here on this forum where A/As and Christians have gotten together and gone fishing and hunting together?
> You mean here on this forum where the regular A/As have chased off the occasional rabid A/A who comes in only to insult?
> You mean here on this forum where we have A/As who love and respect family members and friends who are Christians?
> That the forum you are talking about?


Obfuscation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Apples and oranges and overall generalizations.
> I never stated ALL Atheist do it. Just some, which renders your Pew research insignificant and rather smelly.


Of course you think its insignificant and smelly. Thats no surprise. It paints a different picture than the one you are painting.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course you think its insignificant and smelly. Thats no surprise. It paints a different picture than the one you are painting.


Actually it doesn't, and the crux of my response was dry sarcasm. Sorry you are missing the majority of the point on this subject. It is totally unlike you and as if something or someone has you agitated of late. You are typically much more rational in your responses.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Obfuscation.


You claimed we think Christians are defective.
I gave examples that clearly show the opposite. Don't know about you but I don't go anywhere with people who I think are defective who are carrying a firearm.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Actually it doesn't, and the crux of my response was dry sarcasm. Sorry you are missing the majority of the point on this subject. It is totally unlike you and as if something or someone has you agitated of late. You are typically much more rational in your responses.


Its very possible Im missing the point. I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
I just think "I didn't say ALL Atheists" is kind of weak.
If I generically say "Christians walk around with signs that say our service members deserve to die", the implications are just that.
"Oh I didn't mean all Christians" wouldn't cut it with me either.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Actually it doesn't, and the crux of my response was dry sarcasm. Sorry you are missing the majority of the point on this subject. It is totally unlike you and as if something or someone has you agitated of late. You are typically much more rational in your responses.


One more comment  -


> as if something or someone has you agitated of late.


While this may sound hypocritical, its really not. This type of stuff does get my blood pressure up (yes I realize it wasn't your post)-


> some nonbelievers deny the experience of the believer and declare that he is a defective person (the lifeblood of the AAA sub-forum).


First -
Yes this sentence does start with "some believers". However it also ends by qualifying who is included in "some"  -


> the AAA sub-forum)


So that would mean -
Bullet believes his sons, who attended/taught in Christian schools.. are defective.
That Ambush believes his daughter, whom he allows to go to church with her Christian friends.... is defective.
That I believe my mother and grandmother, who were/are devoutly Christian... were/are defective.
That Atlas whose father was a holy rolling preacher.... was defective.
Every A/A in there has a similar story.
To claim that we think these people are defective is frankly insulting and born from nothing but ignorance.
There is a huge difference in "I think your reasoning/logic is defective and heres why" and "I think Christians are defective people".
In the bigger picture, if perpetuated (like on a forum where people read and form opinions) how do you think that affects the overall relationship between believers and non believers?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 24, 2018)

Walt,
As I recall, the first conversation you and I ever had (could be mistaken about it being the first) was about your claim that, in the given situation, a believer had a choice between two options:
1) Deny his faith
2} lie
Someone who would willfully continue in that condition would have to be in some fashion defective.

Similar, and more denigrating claims here are as common the deer who see me without me seeing them.

That's all from me, for now, here on the Christianity & Judaism forum.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Walt,
> As I recall, the first conversation you and I ever had (could be mistaken about it being the first) was about your claim that, in the given situation, a believer had a choice between two options:
> 1) Deny his faith
> 2} lie
> ...


What was the given situation? Kind of makes a difference.
I don't remember it. Post it up. Im confident that if put in context it was factual.
If it shows I made an ignorant comment then so be it and I will admit it.
I aint skeered.


----------



## Israel (Jun 24, 2018)

This is all of the disciple's sojourn here. Deny the faith of the Son of God, or be found a liar by the world.

We thank God alone through Jesus Christ that _we know_ every man's testimony _is being_ heard and tried. There is no provision for truth, nor faith, _in the world. _



The world cannot receive it.

He_ must be _sent into it.

The world will gladly make room for religions, for they are _no threat_ to it.
But the faith of the Son of God testifies of all its _undoing_ and_ torment._

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

The world makes a great show of _hating lying _to the point of swearing to what it calls the truth. It _must_ "make a show" lest its foundations be revealed. Actors get paid considerable sums for being the most sincere skilled of liars.

But, believers live for free.

Jesus preceded him, saying, What think you, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Peter said unto him, Of strangers. Jesus said unto him, Then are the children free.
However,_ lest we should offend them_, go to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first comes up; and when you have opened its mouth, you shall find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and you.


Who, O man, is King of the earth?
And who is His Son?

Be wise now therefore, O you kings: be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Its very possible Im missing the point. I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
> I just think "I didn't say ALL Atheists" is kind of weak.
> If I generically say "Christians walk around with signs that say our service members deserve to die", the implications are just that.
> "Oh I didn't mean all Christians" wouldn't cut it with me either.


Then perhaps you should go back and read my opening post.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 24, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Your statement is very similar to one from the Tao. I will have to look it up.


It would be similar to one from many philosophies.


Miguel Cervantes said:


> To your point though, Christians do experience Christ. So would it be the lack of having this experience that spurns this childish jealous auto-response in non-believers?


I would say so.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Then perhaps you should go back and read my opening post.


I did, Its talking about a tiny portion of Atheists.
No different than lumping Christians in with Westboro Baptists.
Remember the Pew results you said smelled?
2/3rds report not even discussing their nonbelief with religious people. If they don't even talk about it, odds are they aren't renting billboards or challenging monuments or bullying anybody or anything else. 
Its nothing but an article with a few facts blown out of proportion and the rest propaganda.
Its crap in the same way a number of Atheist sites are crap.


----------



## Israel (Jun 25, 2018)

I often marvel in myself at the cost I seem willing to pay to play the victim card. In what seems to the gaining of some advantage there is ultimately revealed a more pernicious undermining of stature.

The victim card is always a reactive response, and as such, by its adoption locks one into a position of all reactivity where all previous appearance of liberty evaporates plainly. Now _locked in_ to being all solely of reaction.

The "why are you this way?" is succinctly reduced to "because you (the world) are _that way_ to me" And I do not think it takes much mining for any to see there seems an ever present question to the soul of man while in this world..."who are you?" that we seek to provide response to by showing who, or what, we are.

The world is in that sense a "show place". And since I begin to see of it being all of "a wash" so to speak...(really a loss/loss situation) I also perceive the total un-tenability of it. And so I also begin to perceive the attraction (though false) of that victim maneuver. It provides seeming respite to the soul of being under compulsion to be actor _with reason to role_, but finding such reason always eventually undermined by the world's more than sufficient opposition.

It is all that Jesus Christ undoes. But not merely for that sake of opposition to a "system" (yes, I once loved Jesus as ultimately victorious  "rebel"). There is revealed in Him a _submission_ that _is apart _from the apparent end to which submission in this world is_ only able_ to imply...defeat.

His was and is a fully and complete devotion to _role of reason, _in total and joyous representation of Him who is _reason of all. _Yes, Jesus conquered death completely in and through Himself, but not merely through stance of opposition. He always complied to life against which no compulsion to "make reason for itself" can be exerted.

We...seek to live. God is simply above any and all form of requirement.
Yet, He can be pleased.
And is completely so with His own work.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 25, 2018)

Israel said:


> We...seek to live. God is simply above any and all form of requirement.
> Yet, He can be pleased.
> And is completely so with His own work.


He is pleased to make an Atheist to be a co-heir. 

I am pleased that He does.


----------



## Madman (Sep 8, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> They are angry that you assume a moral superiority



Just like they assume intellectual superiority.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 8, 2018)

Madman said:


> Just like they assume intellectual superiority.


I believe the OP is quite clear in it's use of the word 'Some'.


----------



## Madman (Sep 8, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I believe the OP is quite clear in it's use of the word 'Some'.


Yes I stand corrected.

Just like some assume intellectual superiority.

There fixed it.


----------

