Conversation with muslims allows athiest to slaughter me...

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

Perhaps you’re correct. Maybe there was absolutely nothing that could have been done during ‘free’ time to benefit the employer. No files to straighten or update; no floors to sweep; no phone calls to be made or customers to contact for a courtesy call; no planning ahead for the next day or next busy period. Then, I guess it would be alright to pull out the Qur’an, bibles and checkerboards. Then it would not be a sin. I should have thought this through more completely.

Seriously Justin, if I don’t get a call out that day I can do nothing except sit in the office.

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

…to get back on track, the point is this; the argumuents revolve around Christ’ divinity. eg, Christ was just a good guy but not the Son of God and certainly not a sacrifice suitable to forgive all our sins.

But if Jesus was not who he claimed to be, then the trinty has to go out of the window all together. If Christ was not who we believe him to be then that means we are still in a state of original sin and much much more…

 

[Zatzat]

On the other hand, there is a bunch of atheists who have no concept of this God whatsoever

Interesting that you didn’t consider the very real possibility that perhaps the Atheist is a former Christian or Muslim, who made the decision to reject theistic beliefs.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Strawberry jam,

I probably wasn’t making much sense, I’m sorry but it was tearing me to pieces.

Don’t be sorry. I’ll try to help here.

I don’t think this problem is about athiests, but about the theology of Islam, and the questioning of the divinity of Jesus? Am I correct?

Christians have many good apologetics to refute Islam. Atheists have objections that go well beyond the divinity of Jesus, and then some.

You should not be surprised that a believer in the Abrahamic God would be anything but supportive of your position even if it was drastically different in theology.

It would be theological suicide for theists in the Abrahamic God to argue their differences in front of a non believer- but they do it all the time.

Not realizing, that in doing so they create more objections than the non believer had to begin with.

 

[buffalo]

In my office there are many muslims whom I have become very fond of lately. They seem like great people and I am starting to really enjoy their company. I love talking about our differences in beliefs regarding the bible and quaran… I often take the quaran from our book shelf and speak about it with them. But I refuse to take out the bible before them and speak of that. That I reserve to myself.

But there is a big problem now. The athiest in my office often listen to our conversations and have begun to but in and say some terrible antichristian things… It’s not the muslims but it is the athiest which have been abusive to me so much that I often leave work very depressed everyday.

Atheists love to read - have them read this:

The Irrational Atheist

 

[StrawberryJam]

Atheists love to read - have them read this:

The Irrational Atheist

I refuse to read any piece titled in such an ill mannered and uncharitable way.
I am willing to overlook his appearance, and many many other things I scanned in his “opus dei” but I refuse to take anyone seriously that comes out of the gate with such supreme arrogance, unwarranted.

 

[Aleii]

Atheists love to read - have them read this:

The Irrational Atheist

Is there something in particular from here that you find particularly poignant? I’ve read the first 70 pages, and so far I’ve seen these “points”:

The book starts out with a pretty appalling first sentence of “I don’t care if you go to Hell.” from someone who professes to be a Christian, and then goes into the following topics

-some talks about prison/professor statistics, and the author states some confusion about how people identify themselves in terms of religion/spirituality, The author seems to see things as a lot more black and white than the general population does and seems frustrated when people say i.e. that they are not religious but believe in an afterlife, or are spiritual etc.

-statements that atheists are more argumentative and arrogant than agnostics, as well as less social and possibly autistic/having a mental disorder, talks that democrats are less intelligent than they are made out to be (The point of this?)

-talk that Dawkins is vague or not black and white on certain topics such as not being a strong atheist, and that seems to surprise the author

-talk that religion has not yet killed humanity but science may, “While the jury is still out on the precise nature of the threat caused by global warming,(I note that I am a global warming skeptic myself. ) there can be no doubt that the scientific method is at least in part responsible for it, along with the threats supposedly posed by overpopulation, pollution, and genetic engineering. Religion simply cannot be held accountable for any of those things, not even overpopulation.(Yes, religious people breed faster than the non-religious. But they breed slower now than they were when overpopulation was not a problem; to the extent overpopulation is a genuine threat to mankind, it is a threat entirely created by the use of the scientific method in extending average lifespans and lowering death rates.)” (p50)

wow… so especially after reading that last absurd “point”, can you tell me if there is anything in the next 200 pages (or in the first 70 pages that I missed) that actually make some worthwhile points to discuss? If this is a book merely stereotyping atheists as a group instead of debating the actual points made by atheists, then its not something I find useful to continue reading/debating (nor would I find a book that stereotypes the personalities of theists interesting either).

Maybe those points I’m looking for are somewhere in the next 200 pages? I very quickly skimmed to see if the topics were changing, and got this “2) Logical error. In Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris borrows from Stephen F. Roberts in challenging Christians with a variant of the One Less God argument.8 He informs Christians that they reject Islam in “precisely the way” that Muslims reject Christianity, which is also the same reason he rejects all religions.9 So, either Harris believes that the Christian God exists and is a powerful spirit of evil or he doesn’t know what is almost literally the first thing about Christian theology. Christians WORSHIP the one Creator God, but they BELIEVE in the supernatural existence of many spiritual beings that are often worshipped and are legitimately described as gods. Harris has not read the Bible very closely if he is under the impression that Christians do not believe in “the god of this age,” “the prince of this world,” or any of the rulers, authorities, and powers mentioned in Ephesians 6:12.10” (p116)

Umm…?

So, to save me another few hours and frustration, can you point to the thoughts about atheism (not about stereotyping the people), that you feel actually make a sensible argument? Or maybe I’m in just the completely wrong thread here, which is also a possibility. I’ve never read Harris and maybe stereotyping theists is what he talks about too, which would be an equal waste.

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

Don’t be sorry. I’ll try to help here.

I don’t think this problem is about athiests, but about the theology of Islam, and the questioning of the divinity of Jesus? Am I correct?

Christians have many good apologetics to refute Islam. Atheists have objections that go well beyond the divinity of Jesus, and then some.

You should not be surprised that a believer in the Abrahamic God would be anything but supportive of your position even if it was drastically different in theology.

It would be theological suicide for theists in the Abrahamic God to argue their differences in front of a non believer- but they do it all the time.

Not realizing, that in doing so they create more objections than the non believer had to begin with.

Yes strawberry jam,

…it is almost impossible to have a debate with a muslim infront of non believers, especially those who hate religions as a whole. You seem to get the point here though, it was difficult for me to explain but you seemed to manage it better than I did.