I just wanted to clarify something out about Atheist

[Starwynd]

Atheists can’t believe that this “hate the sin not the sinner” behavior is possible because it’s NOT possible for them, because the “faith” of atheism REQUIRES that “sins” and “sinners” be an IDENTITY!

Okay, a very heartfelt and enthusiastic…

HUH?

It’s Christianity that can not distinguish a difference between thought and action. For example, if you think adultery you are an adulterer. You think the sin you do the sin. There is no difference between thought and action.

Most so-called atheists “worship” that aspect of God which is “orderly (scientific)”,

And again, HUH?

I guess this post is an example of if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance dazzle them with baloney.

And all this proves is that Christians will always be hostile to atheists and hate them.

 

[JimO]

Most Christians don’t understand what an atheist is because of their constant demonization and utter hostility of them. And most of them don’t care about what the truth is either.

I’ve had the opposite experience. I work with quite a few atheists and the hostility is in my direction. I don’t discuss my faith unless asked about it and it seems to bother the most outspoken atheists in my office that I could be a scientist and a Christian. I often get pulled into debates, that usually start with something political, where my intelligence is questioned simply because I am a theist.

Personally it’s still hard for me to fathom why God is such a needy parent and won’t allow us to grow away Him.

God doesn’t need us. He loves us, and more deeply than we can imagine.

But I’ve heard that it’s not God that makes demands on us to worship Him, but human beings. And I’ve heard this from protestants.

God desires our attention for our sake, not His. Worship and prayer draw us closer to God, which is what He desires.

 

[Starwynd]

I’ve had the opposite experience. I work with quite a few atheists and the hostility is in my direction. I don’t discuss my faith unless asked about it and it seems to bother the most outspoken atheists in my office that I could be a scientist and a Christian. I often get pulled into debates, that usually start with something political, where my intelligence is questioned simply because I am a theist.

As a former atheist I’ve personally experienced a lot of hostility from Christians towards me. I’ve been called every insult in the book and was always told that I can never be a good person no matter what and nothing I did would ever be good simply because I didn’t believe in God. Constantly being called a monster for years and years I will always have hostility towards Christians, despite my own faith.

But as a Christian, I’ve recieved a some of that hostility that astheists have. The hostility goes both ways, but it has been the religious that has been harrassing and persecuting and demonizing the non-religious for thousands of years. So is it any wonder that atheists are going to have a lot of hostility towards Christians? That kind of hostility does not come from nowhere.

The only way to truly understand what an atheist goes through is to pretend to be an atheist for thirty or more days amongst a society of Christians. Walk a mile in their shoes as it were.

It is something that goes both ways.

 

[JimO]

It’s Christianity that can not distinguish a difference between thought and action. For example, if you think adultery you are an adulterer. You think the sin you do the sin. There is no difference between thought and action. Christians will always be hostile to atheists and hate them.

First, any Christian who hates another person is in error or, as we call it, sin. The reason there is such a strong link between thought and action is because intent is the issue. For example, if I am driving down the road and hit someone I never saw and they died, that would be different from me getting drunk and unintentionally hitting the same person, which would also be different from me waiting to murder the same person with my car. Objectively, in all three cases the person is still dead. What is different is my intent. In the first case, I am innocent of wrongdoing because there was no intent of wrongdoing of any kind. It was an accident. In the second case, I was foolish, irresponsible, stupid, etc., but I was not intending to kill someone. I am guilty of a crime (and a sin), but not murder. In the third case, it’s murder.

Well, suppose I plan and intend to kill someone, but at the last second I am thwarted, but nobody knows of my intention. In the eyes of God, I am guilty of serious sin. If my intentions were recorded and discovered, I could be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder.

So, linking thoughts (or more accurately, intents) with actions is not unique to Christians.

Many thoughts are nothing more than temptations to sin. It is the intent - what’s in the heart - that counts.

 

[JimO]

As a former atheist I’ve personally experienced a lot of hostility from Christians towards me. I’ve been called every insult in the book and was always told that I can never be a good person no matter what and nothing I did would ever be good simply because I didn’t believe in God. Constantly being called a monster for years and years I will always have hostility towards Christians, despite my own faith.

There is simply no excuse for any Christian behaving this way. It is in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ. Also, as long as there is breath, there is hope. Nobody is beyond God’s grace and anyone who says differently has a very narrow misunderstanding of the magnitude of God and the breadth of His love and mercy.

I am so sorry you have been treated this way. I am ashamed that people who called themselves Christians have behaved so un-Christlike. I would urge you to forgive those people for your own sake. Forgiveness is a spiritual salve and has more power than we know. I know this from experience.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Most atheists don’t know that they are not atheists.

There is no Catholic hostility toward atheists, but only toward their atheistic-inspired ANTI-CATHOLIC behaviors.

I imagine thats why the Church has a history of persecuting non-believers? Nothing says “I Love You” like setting someone on fire.

Any who burned to death, or otherwise put anyone to death was doing so not in the name of the Church, but only in the name of some temporal power. Look it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
We love atheists, but hate atheism, which is an unhealthy “burden” to all (so-called) atheists.

Please demonstrate how disbelief is a burden.

It is a burden on the (so-called) atheist because it is the root of all anxiety and bad judgement. Even when a non-atheist is anxious and/or forms bad judgements it’s because of their lack of belief (the basic principle of the atheistic mind) in God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Most so-called atheists “worship” that aspect of God which is “orderly (scientific)”,

No they don’t.

Yes they do. Would like like to play “The Naked Assertion Game” for $200, Alex?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
and yet fall for a collateral worship of the demon of “relativism” and/or “indifferentism”.

Again, no. Don;t try and stretch the meaning of words. Lying is very unChristian-like

Lying IS very unChristian-like, but VERY VERY atheist-like.

Atheists LOVE to just shout-down those who refuse to bow to the atheist’s God-like omnipotence with the easy-to-yell “LIAR!”

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Atheists can’t believe that this “hate the sin not the sinner” behavior is possible because it’s NOT possible for them, because the “faith” of atheism REQUIRES that “sins” and “sinners” be an IDENTITY!

Okay, a very heartfelt and enthusiastic…

HUH?

R the wurdz tu hard 4 yu 2 git?

It’s Christianity that can not distinguish a difference between thought and action. For example, if you think adultery you are an adulterer. You think the sin you do the sin. There is no difference between thought and action.

Thought IS an action, but a person’s thought (or any other action) is not who that person IS.

The question is not the difference between thought and action, but between a person and that person’s behavior.

Is that going to ellicit another “Huh!?” from you?

Quote:
Most so-called atheists “worship” that aspect of God which is “orderly (scientific)”,

And again, HUH?

I guess this post is an example of if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance dazzle them with baloney.

And all this proves is that Christians will always be hostile to atheists and hate them.

Christians WILL always be hostile to that which is worthy of hostility, which is NEVER any person, but is ALWAYS sins displayed.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

As a former atheist I’ve personally experienced a lot of hostility from Christians towards me. I’ve been called every insult in the book and was always told that I can never be a good person no matter what and nothing I did would ever be good simply because I didn’t believe in God.

Where these persecutors of you-as-atheist Catholics? Were they “good Catholics”?

My guess would be “no” to each of those questions.

Constantly being called a monster for years and years I will always have hostility towards Christians, despite my own faith.

So, you’re not a Christian?

But as a Christian,…

So, you ARE a Christian?!

…I’ve recieved a some of that hostility that astheists have. The hostility goes both ways,…

…but it has been the religious that has been harrassing and persecuting and demonizing the non-religious for thousands of years.

There WERE no “non-religious” until only a couple of hundred years ago!

The ANTI-RELIGIOUS, meaning the “attempted murderers” of God, have been shunned by society because to be so is to be anti-human. That is an extremely criminal act in all societies, and the temporal powers are well within their rights to punish crimes as they see fit (subject to the behavioral rules of God of course, which they often flout).

So is it any wonder that atheists are going to have a lot of hostility towards Christians? That kind of hostility does not come from nowhere.

Atheists who don’t act from criminal atheistic principles have nothing to fear from Christians. Those who do can expect to be challenged. What is your problem with that?

The only way to truly understand what an atheist goes through is to pretend to be an atheist for thirty or more days amongst a society of Christians. Walk a mile in their shoes as it were.

It is something that goes both ways.

A well-behaved atheist would have no trouble whatsoever for 30 years in a society of Christians.

An anti-Christian-behaving atheist would have enormous trouble,… or at least SHOULD have enormous trouble acting that way.

Your comments?

 

[Cath_aholic]

Oh the baloney “don’t hate the sinner hate the sin” junk.

And no, you hate them. All Christians do. I guess Christians must justify their hate in some way so they just call it love, which is twisted and irrational. But just renaming things because a person or group finds it hateful is a time honored tradtition in America. Shades of George Carlin is amongst all walks of life.

Atheists are the most hated people by Christians, even more than those who get and perform abortions.

Simply because they do not believe in God, and don’t believe that He exists. And that’s it.

My boyfriend is an atheist and I am a devout Catholic Christian. I love him very, very much, even though it really saddens me that he doesn’t believe in God anymore. I LOVE him. I hate that he has lost his faith and no longer has the Truth. It is because I love him that I hate the fact that he doesn’t believe in God.

It is not true that all Christians hate atheists.

 

[ateista]

A well-behaved atheist would have no trouble whatsoever for 30 years in a society of Christians.

In the US there are states where a self-proclaimed atheist cannot be elected to a public office, cannot even obtain a notary public license. Of course, if they would lie about it, they could.

So who is a “well-behaved” atheist? The one who lies about his stance?

 

[Starwynd]

Isn’t a well-behaved atheist kind of like saying the only good indian etc etc…?

Essenitally he seems to be implying that atheists should be seen and not heard.

 

[Isambard]

Any who burned to death, or otherwise put anyone to death was doing so not in the name of the Church, but only in the name of some temporal power. Look it up.

By temporal power, you mean the Church? lol
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

It is a burden on the (so-called) atheist because it is the root of all anxiety and bad judgement. Even when a non-atheist is anxious and/or forms bad judgements it’s because of their lack of belief (the basic principle of the atheistic mind) in God.

How odd. Im alot more mellow now that I no longer have to worry about some invisible deity wanting an excuse to torture me. My judgement has also improved now that I rely exclusively on reason as opposed to really really wanting something and wishing for it.

Yes they do. Would like like to play “The Naked Assertion Game” for $200, Alex?

Main Entry: 1wor·ship
Pronunciation: \ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship
Date: before 12th century
1chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

Now do explain how I as an atheist worship anything, let along science.

Lying IS very unChristian-like, but VERY VERY atheist-like.

Oops, you’ve done it again. Do explain your supposid correlation between lying and being an atheist.

Atheists LOVE to just shout-down those who refuse to bow to the atheist’s God-like omnipotence with the easy-to-yell “LIAR!”

Sorry, I guess you making stuff up and changing definitions wasn’t obvious enough for you.

 

[crowonsnow]

What atheists call “universal law” is the real universal law minus one.

The one “law” that atheists compulsively leave out is the “uncaused cause” law.

The ability of an uncaused cause to affect it’s self-caused creation is NOT “proof” of the invalidity of the uncaused cause!

Is is simply THE answer to the otherwise necessary infinitely regressive “problem” of the “start” (and “end”) of existence.

Proof of God does not prove “universal lawlessness”, and the fact of universal law does not prove the nonexistence of God.

Well, there is no uncaused cause law.

Secondly, if everything needs a cause then so do any alleged gods. If everything doesn’t need a cause there is no need for any gods or any uncaused causes. You can’t have it both ways.

Finally, invoking a double standard is always an admission of a failed argument.

 

[Starwynd]

Hmmm I think Cad’s just messing with us. The poster seems to be only interested in semantic arguments, not the substance of the argument itself.

And BTW, the poster’s initials spell Cad, as in “you cad”.

“a man who acts with deliberate disregard for another’s feelings or rights” (Merriam-Webster)

“a man whose behavior is unprincipled or dishonorable” (American Heritage).

 

[AnAtheist]

Atheists can’t believe that this “hate the sin not the sinner” behavior is possible because it’s NOT possible for them, because the “faith” of atheism REQUIRES that “sins” and “sinners” be an IDENTITY!

Oh, I perfectly understand the concept, hate X not the Xer. One can hate Christianity but get nicely along with Christians. No problem.

 

[luvr]

there is a big difference between evidence for God and evidence for unicorns.

I beg to differ.
However i decide to believe in God since i somehow…feel his presence and i feel that he is answering my prayers and geting me out of trouble when i ask, but that cannot be presented as evidence, those scientists think they know it all… bah it makes me sick.

 

[JimO]

Wow CatsAndDogs, I was going to respond yesterday afternoon to your first two posts in support of a couple of the points you made when I ran out of time. However, after reading what you posted since then, I have to say that it’s hard to see the application of a statement in your first post that we love Atheists but hate atheism.

As far as all the finger pointing goes regarding which group (Christians or Atheists) is more intolerant of the other, let’s be reasonable. There are individuals on both sides who feel equally threatened by the other and who are equally bigoted against the other. If we are honest with one another, there are those on both sides who are perfectly content with their belief system and there are others who deep down are terrified that they might be wrong and can’t cope with the potential consequences. There are Christians whose deepest fear is that one ceases to exist when one dies and there are Atheists who fear what will happen to them if there is a God. If we could just set that aside for a moment, I’d like to address the OP’s orignial point.

The debate over proof of God’s existence or non-existence is often misguided and I have discussed this with many Atheists, some of whom are friends and family. The problem is that before one can attempt any kind of “proof” through logic, the parties have to agree on what is acceptable evidence. Most Atheists will only accept physical evidence. Historical evidence is typically dismissed as contrived or exaggerated accounts of supernatural occurances. Metaphysical data, such as miracles, are dismissed regardless of the physical data supporting them. And, personal experience is dismissed as being rooted in a person’s desire that there is an afterlife and that there is a God and that all will be well when we die. This leaves us with scientific data. Theists point to the order of the universe as empirical evidence that a Designer exists (Intelligent Design); however, this has been found to be insufficient to most Atheists. Finally, some prominent Atheists admit that the universe had a beginning, thus are left with one of three options - matter and energy came from nothing, matter and energy has always existed, or there is a Creator. Most believe that matter and energy have always existed and that we are in one of countless cycles of the universe expanding and contracting that never had a beginning and will never end. This is where the debate usually ends. I find that any of the three options require an equal amount of faith in something that is unknown.

As far as addressing an Atheist who demands proof of God. If they reject historical, metaphysical, and experiential data, then they are like the blind man who demands proof that light exists. If the proper receptor for the evidence is not engaged, then it is impossible.

 

[AnAtheist]

Finally, some prominent Atheists admit that the universe had a beginning, thus are left with one of three options - matter and energy came from nothing, matter and energy has always existed, or there is a Creator. Most believe that matter and energy have always existed and that we are in one of countless cycles of the universe expanding and contracting that never had a beginning and will never end. This is where the debate usually ends. I find that any of the three options require an equal amount of faith in something that is unknown.

1. There are more than those 3 options, e.g. there could be more creators.
2. We know matter and energy exist, we know that quantum mechanics allow for “something to come from nothing”, we know that a total energy amount of 0 and cycling universes are theoretically possible and comply with observations - thus options 1 and 2 require much less faith than the 3rd.
3. And even 1 & 2 required the same amount of faith as 3 - faith in what? In some metaphysical cause is all what can be concluded from the data we have. By no means that must be a personal god or a bunch of them. On top, this could very well be Allah.

As far as I see it:
evidence → [some faith] → your options or other options → [more faith] → particular religion

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t claim to speak for everyone but

The reason someone is an Atheist is due to lack of EVIDENCE. That is the only thing that can lead you to become an atheist.

I don’t claim to speak for all atheists either (especially since I’m not one), but every atheist I have ever talked with always had “God-subsitutes”…i.e. in explaining their rejection of an unobservable God, they will present forth a different, equally unobservable substitute by another name.

 

[JimO]

1As far as I see it:
evidence → [some faith] → your options or other options → [more faith] → particular religion

This simple model assumes that faith is just a filler for the unknown. A small amount of filler for broader possibilities and a large amount of filler for specific possibilities. If it were simply a statistical analysis of the probably that a specific religious belief is accurate, I would agree with you. But, therein lies the problem with you and I even trying to discuss this. I don’t mean to make assumptions, but your world view restricts the discussion to physical evidence or even statistical analysis. You are only engaging the intellect, not the whole person.

We are more than our intellect. We are intellect, will, emotion, physical body, and (I contend) spirit. Just as one cannot intellectualize emotions, “feel” mathematics (forgive the crude analogy), or be rational with our emotions, one cannot engage faith with the mind alone. Faith resides in the will and in the spirit. If you deny the existence of the spirit, then faith is limited to the will - a simple decision to believe - or what is referred to as “blind” faith. The data or evidence that is metaphysical or experiential in nature can be rejected by the intellect when it is engaged in the absence of the whole person. However, these data resonate with the spirit. I believe that God communicates with us primarily through our spirit and not through our mind. Thus, if we deny the spirit, then we can’t “hear” and we reject a whole body of compelling data. For example, you could spend your life researching only well documented “miraculous” physical cures and not even scratch the surface of what is available.

I realize that by definition a true Atheist cannot acknowledge the spirit, so we are stuck and we debate endlessly around the same old tired issues. The blind man goes on demanding proof that light exists…and the response is “open your eyes you aren’t really blind you just choose to keep them closed.”

Finally, I have found that there are two general types of Atheists, those who simply do not believe in God and those who have rejected God. I know a few in the second category and have had one say to me, “if your God exists, I’d spit in His face.” For him, God’s existence is no longer relevent. He has rejected God because he doesn’t like God. It’s easier for him to come to terms with he ceasing to exist at death than having to come to terms with being accountable for his actions or inactions. These types of Atheists often become Atheists not because they conducted appropriate inquiry and decided that the evidence wasn’t there. it is often that they were Theists until their belief system came into direct conflict with something they wanted. For example, I know former Catholics who are Atheists because they didn’t want to be told that it is wrong to sleep around with women or because they had an abortion or because they are living a homosexual lifestyle. It’s impossible to have an civil discussion of the matter with this type of person. At least the Atheists in the first category I have found willing to discuss the possibilities.