Atheism: The Death Of Hope.

[The Pixie]

I said Pixie if I followed your reasoning, in the post in question, you certainly sounded more agnostic. But on further review I do not think you were honest at all. You are as bias as they come.

Interesting that you accuse me of bias, when you express the view that I must be biased because I am an atheist.

Listen, if I call you an idiot or you call me a fool in the heat of a debate - that is one thing. That back and forth has little effect - but we are speaking of men that have a big megaphone - who influence tens of thousands, and attempt to change laws. And the child abuse thing is part and parcel of attempting to marginalizing people of faith, to remove their opinion from the public square.

Nevertheless it is a long way from flying planes into buildings or burning people at the stake. That is real fanatism.

Is it okay for a Christian to say his enemies will suffer eternal torture in hell? Or do you think that might be trying to marginalise non-christians?

You can start here with Dawkins, and his thousands of sycophants.

I was not aware of that. As I said, I do not follow Dawkins at all.

You don't have to fly planes into buildings to be fanatical. So stop the nonsense.

There are degrees of fanatism. The flying planes into buildings and burning people at the stake is a degree to which these so-called "militant atheists" have yet to stoop. So far they are only at the level of the Christians who threaten their opponents with hellfire.

And they are not followers of a man who preached love...

[seer]

Interesting that you accuse me of bias, when you express the view that I must be biased because I am an atheist.

Yes, I have concluded that you are a hope stealer, IMHO.

Nevertheless it is a long way from flying planes into buildings or burning people at the stake. That is real fanatism.

No, by definition you don't have to fly planes into building to be a fanatic.

Is it okay for a Christian to say his enemies will suffer eternal torture in hell? Or do you think that might be trying to marginalise non-christians?

Two things, first not all Christians believe that scripture teaches an eternal hell (I don't for instance), we do however all believe in a future judgment. Second, we want you to escape that judgment, and enjoy eternal bliss with our Creator. We are offering something positive - hope and eternal life. The militant atheist wants to take away, takes away hope, hope in the future.

There are degrees of fanatism. The flying planes into buildings and burning people at the stake is a degree to which these so-called "militant atheists" have yet to stoop. So far they are only at the level of the Christians who threaten their opponents with hellfire.

You mean like the militant atheists that followed Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao - they killed literally millions and millions. And Christians are not threatening you with judgment, we are warning you. We really want you to avoid it.

And they are not followers of a man who preached love...

But Jesus it the one who taught about this future judgment, there is very little in scripture apart from His teachings.

[The Pixie]

Yes, I have concluded that you are a hope stealer, IMHO.

I got that from the OP.

No, by definition you don't have to fly planes into building to be a fanatic.

Of course not.

Would you say Dawkins fanatism was comparable to flying planes into buildings fanatism or burning people at the stake fanatism? I am claiming Dawkins supposed fanatism is mild compared to that.

Two things, first not all Christians believe that scripture teaches an eternal hell (I don't for instance), we do however all believe in a future judgment.

I have no idea how that makes Christians who preach hellfire on non-Christians in any way less fanatical than Dawkins. Care to explain?

Second, we want you to escape that judgment, and enjoy eternal bliss with our Creator. We are offering something positive - hope and eternal life. The militant atheist wants to take away, takes away hope, hope in the future.

Again, no idea how this relates to whether Christians who threaten with hellfire and fanatics.

You mean like the militant atheists that followed Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao - they killed literally millions and millions.

They were certainly fanatics, but they fanatism was for communism (or arguably personal power).

And Christians are not threatening you with judgment, we are warning you.

Dawkins, when is expressing his opinion that putting the fear of hell into children is child abuse, does so to protect those children from that abuse.

But Jesus it the one who taught about this future judgment, there is very little in scripture apart from His teachings.

Odd that he preached love, but his message was of judgement.

[seer]

Would you say Dawkins fanatism was comparable to flying planes into buildings fanatism or burning people at the stake fanatism? I am claiming Dawkins supposed fanatism is mild compared to that.

They were certainly fanatics, but they fanatism was for communism (or arguably personal power).

No, I didn't suggest that Dawkins fanaticism was equal to the fanaticism of flying planes into buildings. What was even worse was the militant atheism that attempted to remove all vestiges of religion from their various communist countries.

I have no idea how that makes Christians who preach hellfire on non-Christians in any way less fanatical than Dawkins. Care to explain?

So any Christian who preaches what Scripture teaches, a future judgment, is a fanatic?

Again, no idea how this relates to whether Christians who threaten with hellfire and fanatics.

You are just being dishonest now. The Christian message, at bottom, is a positive one, a hopeful one. Everlasting life. The message of a Dawkins, in the end, only offers hopelessness and death.

Dawkins, when is expressing his opinion that putting the fear of hell into children is child abuse, does so to protect those children from that abuse.

Then Dawkins is a liar. If I teach my kids to be wary of the traffic, is that child abuse? No, it is what a good parent does.

Odd that he preached love, but his message was of judgement.

The two are not mutually exclusive, like my signature shows.

[Sir]

I'm jumping off a thread in Natural Science that linked this article:

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_t..._a_joke-139982



So spiritual beliefs seem to both offer hope and help humans cope. And that these beliefs are deeply ingrained. So one wonders why militate atheists seek to destroy this natural coping mechanism, why do they want so to kill hope?

Is that what atheism does? Or could it also be likely that atheism has nothing at all to do with the removal of hope, and only to do with the legitimacy of supernatural claims?

[seer]

Is that what atheism does? Or could it also be likely that atheism has nothing at all to do with the removal of hope, and only to do with the legitimacy of supernatural claims?

And with out the supernatural what is left? Hopelessness and eternal death. Motivations may vary, but the end is the same.

[The Pixie]

No, I didn't suggest that Dawkins fanaticism was equal to the fanaticism of flying planes into buildings.

Then we agree there. Great.

What was even worse was the militant atheism that attempted to remove all vestiges of religion from their various communist countries.

Personally I think flying planes into buildings is worse, but I am not here to justify communism.

So any Christian who preaches what Scripture teaches, a future judgment, is a fanatic?

Scripture is wrong - there is no future judgement.

Dawkins' point (I think) is that teaching children that they risk an eternity in hell for putting a foot wrong is child abuse.

Atheism kills hope in some sense, but it also kills fears in the same sense.

You are just being dishonest now. The Christian message, at bottom, is a positive one, a hopeful one. Everlasting life. The message of a Dawkins, in the end, only offers hopelessness and death.

But you just said Scripture teaches a future judgement. The Christian message is both heaven and hell.

Then Dawkins is a liar. If I teach my kids to be wary of the traffic, is that child abuse? No, it is what a good parent does.

If you tell you children to do as they are told or suffer torture that would be children abuse.

The two are not mutually exclusive, like my signature shows.

Sorry, I see no love in that signature.

[seer]

Then we agree there. Great.

Personally I think flying planes into buildings is worse, but I am not here to justify communism.

No, they were atheists, atheists that killed far more.

Scripture is wrong - there is no future judgement.

No, you are wrong - now what?

Dawkins' point (I think) is that teaching children that they risk an eternity in hell for putting a foot wrong is child abuse.

But what does Dawkins know?

Atheism kills hope in some sense, but it also kills fears in the same sense.

No, it kills hope in every sense. Forever.

But you just said Scripture teaches a future judgement. The Christian message is both heaven and hell.

Yes, and? There is hope for any man that chooses it. There is death for any man that rejects it. If you are correct all there is, is death.

If you tell you children to do as they are told or suffer torture that would be children abuse.

No it's not. A good parent warns his child. But I'm glad your true colors are coming out. You are just as fanatical as Dawkins.

Sorry, I see no love in that signature.

The love is the forgiveness of sin and the promise of salvation.

[The Pixie]

No, they were atheists, atheists that killed far more.

I did not say they were not atheists. However, they did what they did in the name of communism. They were fanatics who were atheists, but were fanatics for communism.

Can you see the difference?

No, you are wrong - now what?

We were discussing the behavior of Dawkins. As far as Dawkins is concerned, scripture is wrong. There is no judgement, there is no hope of heaven and no fear of hell.

But what does Dawkins know?

He has his own opinion.

What do you know? Any more than your own opinion?

No, it kills hope in every sense. Forever.

What a ridiculous and overly melodramic claim!

So easy to disprove: It does not kill the hope a kid has that he will get a new bicycle for his or her birthday.

Yes, and? There is hope for any man that chooses it. There is death for any man that rejects it. If you are correct all there is, is death.

Sure. Just throw out rationality...

No it's not. A good parent warns his child.

A good parent warns his child that he will be torured if he does wrong? That is the threat at the foundation of Christianity. You just did it yourself when you said "There is death for any man that rejects it." You threaten, and use fear to pronote your agenda. You are just as fanatical as the rest.

Admittedly yours seems more watered down. Do you think non-Christians merely die instead of being tortured for eternity?

The love is the forgiveness of sin and the promise of salvation.

And the hate is the threat of eternal torture.

And salvation from what exactly? Who was it decided that we need salvation? God. So God is so loving that he has decided that each and every one of us must have salvation or we get eternal torture. Then he decided the rules for getting salvation. Then he tells us he is loving because look, we can achieve salvation!

[seer]

I did not say they were not atheists. However, they did what they did in the name of communism. They were fanatics who were atheists, but were fanatics for communism.

Can you see the difference?

Nonsense, they were also fanatics for their atheism - that is why they tried to remove all religion. Communism as a political system doesn't necessarily have to be anti-religious.

We were discussing the behavior of Dawkins. As far as Dawkins is concerned, scripture is wrong. There is no judgement, there is no hope of heaven and no fear of hell.

He has his own opinion.

What do you know? Any more than your own opinion?

Except Dawkins always claims that he lives by evidence and science, but in reality these are faith claims. He has his faith claims we have ours. He just won't admit it, that is why he is also a hypocrite.

What a ridiculous and overly melodramic claim!

So easy to disprove: It does not kill the hope a kid has that he will get a new bicycle for his or her birthday.

Nonsense, eternal death destroys all future hope. For everyone - no exceptions.

Sure. Just throw out rationality...

LOL, and you think you are rational? Prove it.

A good parent warns his child that he will be torured if he does wrong? That is the threat at the foundation of Christianity. You just did it yourself when you said "There is death for any man that rejects it." You threaten, and use fear to pronote your agenda. You are just as fanatical as the rest.

And you are a hope eater, just like the rest. Just as fanatical as Dawkins.

Admittedly yours seems more watered down. Do you think non-Christians merely die instead of being tortured for eternity?

It is not watered down. It is a belief that goes back to some of the earliest church fathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihil...hers_and_later

And salvation from what exactly? Who was it decided that we need salvation? God. So God is so loving that he has decided that each and every one of us must have salvation or we get eternal torture. Then he decided the rules for getting salvation. Then he tells us he is loving because look, we can achieve salvation!

You really are an ass Pixie. But for the lurkers: If a man wants eternal life he must connect to the thing that is eternal. That is God, and the connection is made through love and faith. That is the spiritual currency. If you don't have that connection you will eventually wither and die. There is no other source for everlasting life, it doesn't exist. Feed off God or starve and die.

[NormATive]

I did not say they were not atheists. However, they did what they did in the name of communism. They were fanatics who were atheists, but were fanatics for communism.

Can you see the difference?

We were discussing the behavior of Dawkins. As far as Dawkins is concerned, scripture is wrong. There is no judgement, there is no hope of heaven and no fear of hell.

He has his own opinion.

What do you know? Any more than your own opinion?

What a ridiculous and overly melodramic claim!

So easy to disprove: It does not kill the hope a kid has that he will get a new bicycle for his or her birthday.

Sure. Just throw out rationality...

A good parent warns his child that he will be torured if he does wrong? That is the threat at the foundation of Christianity. You just did it yourself when you said "There is death for any man that rejects it." You threaten, and use fear to pronote your agenda. You are just as fanatical as the rest.

Admittedly yours seems more watered down. Do you think non-Christians merely die instead of being tortured for eternity?

And the hate is the threat of eternal torture.

And salvation from what exactly? Who was it decided that we need salvation? God. So God is so loving that he has decided that each and every one of us must have salvation or we get eternal torture. Then he decided the rules for getting salvation. Then he tells us he is loving because look, we can achieve salvation!

Well said, Pixie.

You can tell when you've beaten Seer. He starts calling you names.

NORM

[The Pixie]

Nonsense, they were also fanatics for their atheism - that is why they tried to remove all religion. Communism as a political system doesn't necessarily have to be anti-religious.

Many communists saw religion as their enemy for political reasons. Marx famously considered religion to be the opium of the masses; it was a way that the ruling elite controlled the worker class (through the carrot and stick of heaven and hell). In Tzarist Russia, the orthodox church strongly supported the Tzar, and so were next in line when the revolution came.

Except Dawkins always claims that he lives by evidence and science, but in reality these are faith claims. He has his faith claims we have ours. He just won't admit it, that is why he is also a hypocrite.

What exactly do you mean by "faith claims"? How much evidence do you need to believe something without faith?

Dawkins presumably feels there is sufficient evidence against the Christian God (and the Muslim God) to be reasonably sure he does not exist and I would agree (though I would be less sure there was no God at all).

Nonsense, eternal death destroys all future hope. For everyone - no exceptions.

So explain how it destroys the hope of the kid for a new bike.

LOL, and you think you are rational? Prove it.

I do not think that that is possible. I do not think it is necessary to this argument either.

And you are a hope eater, just like the rest. Just as fanatical as Dawkins.

And a fear eater too, do not forget. Just as atheism supposedly destroys all hope, so too by the same logic it destroys all fear.

It is not watered down. It is a belief that goes back to some of the earliest church fathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihil...hers_and_later

Are you saying that because a small minority of early church fathers held the view it is not watered down? I would love to know the logic there.

Anyway, for the purpose of this argument it is enough to point out that most Christians believe in hell, most teach their children they will suffer eternal torture for God if they are not good. This is what Dawkins is calling child abuse, not you personally.

You really are an ass Pixie. But for the lurkers: If a man wants eternal life he must connect to the thing that is eternal. That is God, and the connection is made through love and faith. That is the spiritual currency. If you don't have that connection you will eventually wither and die. There is no other source for everlasting life, it doesn't exist. Feed off God or starve and die.

But the point is that God set up the system like that. He made a conscience choice to create us so that we had needed his feed off his love, and would starve to death if we did not get it. That takes narcissism to whole new level.

Perhaps you can explain to the lurkers why he chose to do that, seer.

[seer]

Many communists saw religion as their enemy for political reasons. Marx famously considered religion to be the opium of the masses; it was a way that the ruling elite controlled the worker class (through the carrot and stick of heaven and hell).

Yes, they were anti-religious, Just like Mao, Pol Pot, Castro - they were atheists and wanted religion gone. You simply can not divorce their atheism from all this.

What exactly do you mean by "faith claims"? How much evidence do you need to believe something without faith?

Dawkins presumably feels there is sufficient evidence against the Christian God (and the Muslim God) to be reasonably sure he does not exist and I would agree (though I would be less sure there was no God at all).

You are correct, he "feels." And what is his "sufficient evidence?" He defines the terms then claims victory.

So explain how it destroys the hope of the kid for a new bike.

We are not speaking of bikes Homer. We are speaking of destroying hope for all of humanity.

I do not think that that is possible. I do not think it is necessary to this argument either.

So you can't prove that you are rational, and it is necessary if you go around suggesting that believers are irrational. So I'll take that your claim of rationality is without foundation.

But the point is that God set up the system like that. He made a conscience choice to create us so that we had needed his feed off his love, and would starve to death if we did not get it. That takes narcissism to whole new level.

Perhaps you can explain to the lurkers why he chose to do that, seer.

Yes Pixie, He set up a system where men can freely choose to love Him or not. Love that He returns, salvation that He offers through the sacrifice of His Son. You may call that narcissism, I call it wonderful...

[firstfloor]

I'm jumping off a thread in Natural Science that linked this article:
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_t..._a_joke-139982
So spiritual beliefs seem to both offer hope and help humans cope. And that these beliefs are deeply ingrained. So one wonders why militate atheists seek to destroy this natural coping mechanism, why do they want so to kill hope?

It is perhaps that a person who thinks he will never really die, never really lives?

[seer]

It is perhaps that a person who thinks he will never really die, never really lives?

Bull, I have been in both worlds - this one is better.