The Atheist Evangalist

[cuchulain]

I find it interesting that you, Dan, use the term pacifist as if it were a dirty word.  I have no problems embracing the pacifist way.  If someone attempts to strike me, I will try to dodge and ask why.  If they continue, I have no problem fleeing the scene.  Call this cowardice if you will.  I do not fear personal injury, but injuring them in turn does me no good.  I talk on the small scale because I do not personally face terrorists bent on killing me, well...ever.  Really, not a lot of people do, unless they have signed on for it.  Sometimes people are bombed, but that isn't face to face.  

In any event.  What positive action have you personally taken with hate as a motive?  You specifically say hate leads to action, and liken that to positive or desirable action.  Can you name an instance when hate has led to good?

A principle of Satanism, if you are interested:  If a man slaps your cheek, smash him on the other.  I think you are sounding more aligned with satanism, Dan.

Edited July 7, 2016 by cuchulain

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 7/2/2016 at 10:05 PM, Child of God said:

If the evangelical atheist

1.  converting people to atheism finds himself wrong about Christianity, he and his followers will suffer the ruinous spiritual condition known as hell. Anyone who has witnessed an evil spirit has witnessed hell. On the other hand, if the christian is wrong, nothing happens.

2.  Take it from someone who has seen the truth. Jesus is the way.  Ignorance is no excuse.

1.  Nobody "converts" to Atheism.  They awaken to reality.

2.            

[scottedward]

On 6/28/2016 at 3:45 PM, Child of God said:

God would see the atheist evangelist as a liar and a spiritually murderous heathen.

On 7/2/2016 at 6:04 PM, Child of God said:

It is the human and angelic condition that we are evil and in ruins without God in the afterlife. Upon the death of the body, Jesus restores the soul of the believer with His powers before going to heaven to be with God, the angels, friends and family. This is why Jesus died on the cross...the salvation of souls...to be His...our Creator...forever.

On 7/2/2016 at 9:05 PM, Child of God said:

If the evangelical atheist converting people to atheism finds himself wrong about Christianity, he and his followers will suffer the ruinous spiritual condition known as hell. Anyone who has witnessed an evil spirit has witnessed hell. On the other hand, if the christian is wrong, nothing happens. Take it from someone who has seen the truth. Jesus is the way.  Ignorance is no excuse.

Hubris annoys me...
It should be pointed out that the conceits above shall not push me into a pointless debate.  This forum was never one of the undeniable, or of unyielding facts set in marble.  We speak only from our hearts.  Discussions of thought, of concepts meant to give us warmth or comfort in a frigid reality.  We speak of our faiths, and of our Hopes.  We're meant to offer comfort where it might be needed, but there are some who act as though comfort is not readily available.  They're referred to as the hopeless, but these souls are never lost.  As always, I will pray to my deity;  as always, I shall meditate and pray that these individuals receive what they need, and become of good intention, rather than just bluster and noise.              

 

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by scottedward

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, mererdog said:

Read John 4 lately Dan? It kinda looks like the Bible is calling you a liar...

The bible must not be my accuser, because I found nothing in those 54 verses that supports your conclusion?

16 hours ago, scottedward said:

This is nothing new for me.  Honestly.  My suggested way of approaching things has been criticized a time or two before.  Twice before it had to be pointed out that I've never implied we do nothing, or that we confront the person with a knife and attempt to 'hug it out'.  All I've ever said is that hate is a hopeless emotion, and it will only lead to additional suffering.  We can take the steps to protect ourselves without hatred acting as our emotional 5-Hour-Energy.  It takes strength to do what might be necessary, but neither your deity or mine will give us said strength if it leads to additional suffering.  We can hurt others without help, and we can cause them great pain or sorrow, but it will not be because our creator wished for it. 

Well, its good to know that you wouldn't confront a maniac wielding a knife with a hug . In a perfect world, hate might be a worthless emotion, but where good and bad exist, most people support what they love and reject what they hate. Saying you can only love and not hate is like saying you can only be happy and never sad.

11 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I find it interesting that you, Dan, use the term pacifist as if it were a dirty word.  I have no problems embracing the pacifist way.  If someone attempts to strike me, I will try to dodge and ask why.  If they continue, I have no problem fleeing the scene.  Call this cowardice if you will.  I do not fear personal injury, but injuring them in turn does me no good.  I talk on the small scale because I do not personally face terrorists bent on killing me, well...ever.  Really, not a lot of people do, unless they have signed on for it.  Sometimes people are bombed, but that isn't face to face.  

In any event.  What positive action have you personally taken with hate as a motive?  You specifically say hate leads to action, and liken that to positive or desirable action.  Can you name an instance when hate has led to good?

A principle of Satanism, if you are interested:  If a man slaps your cheek, smash him on the other.  I think you are sounding more aligned with satanism, Dan.

Its true, I have little regard for extreme pacifism.The bible says that a man who refuses to take care of his family is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8). You wrote; "People are bombed, but that isn't face to face". Do you really think that matters to the people being blown to bits? I'm not advocating violence as a cure-all solution, or suggesting that you shouldn't try to defuse a volatile situation, but there might be times when you can't run away and need to man-up.

[mererdog]

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

[mererdog]

So, the Bible math seems fairly simple, Dan.  You only hate if you fear. You only fear if you do not live in love. If you do not live in love you will not love your neighbor and cannot love God. And therefore one who claims to be a Christian yet hates his neighbor is a liar.  See it now?

[scottedward]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Well, its good to know that you wouldn't confront a maniac wielding a knife with a hug . In a perfect world, hate might be a worthless emotion, but where good and bad exist, most people support what they love and reject what they hate. Saying you can only love and not hate is like saying you can only be happy and never sad.

 

I never said that, either.  I'll put it simply. 
One cannot know love without knowing hate.  One does not exist without the other.  Dark cannot exist without light, as an example.  We cannot know warmth without cold.  Hate has always been a part of my arsenal, but I choose not to use it.  Also, it was never suggested that Hate was a worthless emotion.  If I have at some point, I apologize.   I've called it a hopeless emotion, because it can lead to suffering.  There are more than just two categories in life, and they aren't only Good or Evil.  hopeless things aren't always worthless.  People who are hopeless can change.  They can become better people.  They aren't always hopeless.  They can be Hopeful again, and do good works. 

It would appear to me that you like to take what you're told to the extreme, but that's okay. 

Edited July 8, 2016 by scottedward

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, mererdog said:

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

I see your point, but I just have a broader outlook. Jesus preached to people who shared the same faith, so a brother or sister was looked upon as we would view a fellow member of the same church today. So I don't think Jesus was inspiring us to love an enemy who's about to chop your head off, that's not your neighbor. God hates sin, wickedness, rebellion, etc, and God himself gets angry. Jesus got angry and chased the money changers out of the Temple with a whip, but I actually see that as an act of correction being done in love for their sake's. If you see a man about to stab a woman to death, you hate the crime but you act out of love. You intercede to stop the would-be murderer because you 'hate' what he's doing, whereby saving him from the death penalty, and you fearlessly act out of compassion (love) to save the victim. A pacifist would not have gotten involved, they would have been shaking like a frightened bunny and watched the show from the sidelines.

Remember that Jesus instructed his disciples to buy a couple of swords, and it wasn't to chop wood with. He also said; "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6). And Paul wrote; "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Romans 12:20). Nice guys eh? I believe vengeance is God's, but self-preservation is ours.    
 

1 hour ago, scottedward said:

I never said that, either.  I'll put it simply. 
One cannot know love without knowing hate.  One does not exist without the other.  Dark cannot exist without light, as an example.  We cannot know warmth without cold.  Hate has always been a part of my arsenal, but I choose not to use it.  Also, it was never suggested that Hate was a worthless emotion.  If I have at some point, I apologize.   I've called it a hopeless emotion, because it can lead to suffering.  There are more than just two categories in life, and they aren't only Good or Evil.  hopeless things aren't always worthless.  People who are hopeless can change.  They can become better people.  They aren't always hopeless.  They can be Hopeful again, and do good works. 

It would appear to me that you like to take what you're told to the extreme, but that's okay. 

Admittedly, I can be a tad extreme in how I explain my pov. If you hate crime and called 911 to report a crime in progress, your motivation is your 'hate' of illegal activity, which causes you to get involved and take action. The police respond to your call and arrest the perpetrator. The thief is caught and your neighbors property is safe. So the result of your hatred of crime did not lead to suffering, but kept your neighbor from being violated and losing their stuff. Imagine if someone saw Timothy McVeigh building a bomb and turned him in because they hated what he was doing, whereby preventing the Oklahoma bombing. Hate is not always a hopeless emotion, it can actually stop suffering. Being ambivalent and not caring about the bad things people do (pacifism) can be much more detrimental. How do you think refusing to hate Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden would have benefited society? Should we have refused to hate those evil doers with the hope that "People who are hopeless can change. They can become better people". How many more people would of had to die while you gave them the benefit of doubt? I believe its okay to hate injustice, refusing to do so means that your endorsing the bad along with the good. Hate is just the dislike of the bad and nasty things people do. A person who's incapable of hating evil is probably deprived of any moral compass themselves. That's just how I look at it. 

 

I should apologize for posting bible verses in an Atheist topic..  I 'hate' when that happens

Edited July 8, 2016 by Dan56

[cuchulain]

Dan has a habit that others, including Johnathan and Pete, have pointed out repeatedly.  And, repeatedly, they get backlash for pointing out Dan's habit.  His habit?  Putting words in people's mouths that aren't there, summed up.  He likes to read what we write, interpret to his own agenda, then rephrase it to make us look like our argument is flawed.  I believe, and I may be mistaken, that this is called the straw man?  He claims every single time(and there have been numerous occasions) that it wasn't intentional.  But I am starting to see the pattern myself.  And I have defended him in the past for being misunderstood.  But, at some point, someone who is misunderstood SO OFTEN should ask themselves and be honest if they aren't doing it deliberately.  Regardless, I believe it to be deliberate.  It's the only way he can manage to hold his own in a debate.  So I choose to stop confronting Dan at this point, knowing he won't do anything remotely resembling actual logical debate and will instead twist words around to produce the "straw man" that he CAN attack and win against.

A last point to Dan:  You are advocating hate, while at the same time saying hate is bad when others use it.  That is double standard.  Beyond that, who began the hate?  You are reading the results of hate and saying they are good, but they are the middle of the story.  It's like taking the middle of a book and saying the rest is good based only on that, or deciding what the plot or theme is based strictly on the middle.  We responded to 9/11 which was an act of hate, but what act of hate precipitated 9/11 on their side?  No, I am not saying it was justified.  I am saying, under YOUR logic, it WOULD be justified.  If they were allowed to use hate as a motive, as you advocate US doing, then they weren't wrong by your own reasoning.  I doubt you will consider this side of the argument, you will probably write it off after I pointed out your straw man tactic, but maybe you will reconsider.

Jesus preached to people of the same faith?  So it was an exclusive club?  Glad to know I won't be invited to such hate mongering.

Edited July 8, 2016 by cuchulain

[scottedward]

51 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

Admittedly, I can be a tad extreme in how I explain my pov. If you hate crime and called 911 to report a crime in progress, your motivation is your 'hate' of illegal activity, which causes you to get involved and take action. The police respond to your call and arrest the perpetrator. The thief is caught and your neighbors property is safe. So the result of your hatred of crime did not lead to suffering, but kept your neighbor from being violated and losing their stuff. Imagine if someone saw Timothy McVeigh building a bomb and turned him in because they hated what he was doing, whereby preventing the Oklahoma bombing. Hate is not always a hopeless emotion, it can actually stop suffering. Being ambivalent and not caring about the bad things people do (pacifism) can be much more detrimental. How do you think refusing to hate Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden would have benefited society? Should we have refused to hate those evil doers with the hope that "People who are hopeless can change. They can become better people". How many more people would of had to die while you gave them the benefit of doubt? I believe its okay to hate injustice, refusing to do so means that your endorsing the bad along with the good. Hate is just the dislike of the bad and nasty things people do. A person who's incapable of hating evil is probably deprived of any moral compass themselves. That's just how I look at it. 

I'll try to be clear.  Life is not black or white.
You keep reading things I write and have taken them as far to the extreme right as you can.   Please knock it off.  Common sense plays a role in determining which of the hopeless are safe and which of them are freakin' Adolf Hitler or Bin Laden.  The hopeless could simply be someone without hope.  They might be someone without means, who can be driven to doing something extreme to make an important or desperate point.  These unfortunate people can be shown.  They can learn that we regain our Hope simply by offering the same to another.  They can be guided in a better direction.  It is for this reason that I continually stress that 'hopeless' and 'evil' are two completely different labels.  I find that Evil is too simple.       

Edited July 8, 2016 by scottedward

[mererdog]

Sorry, Dan, but your excuses do not make sense, in terms of broader Biblical context.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[a] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

I  noticed how you shifted from talking about hating people to talking about hating sin, as if the two are the same. They are not. 

And, for the record, atheists talk about the Bible too.

Edited July 9, 2016 by mererdog

[mererdog]

As an aside, it is a little disconcerting that people get so upset about someone misunderstanding them. 

"How dare you suggest that something I said cannot be perfectly understood by everyone! How dare you think I meant something other than what I did! The nerve!"

Its just odd. I understand wanting to correct the error, but there is so much hostility some times....

Edited July 9, 2016 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

How many times does the dice need to roll 6, mererdog?  An example of the straw man?  I said pacifism, and Dan quotes me and responds by saying he does have a problem with EXTREME pacifism.  I didn't say extreme, it was added in to make Dan's argument more palatable.  How many times does Dan do this?  How many times do you need to see the die roll 6 before you think something is fishy?  I simply choose to believe that Dan is not that illiterate, but if he wants to acknowledge that he is, that's fine.  I will accept that and tell him his interpretation of the bible is flawed because he clearly cannot comprehend basic writing without adding in little bits.  Seems pretty evident to me, though I fully acknowledge I could be wrong.  And yes, that is hedging my bet.

Edited July 9, 2016 by cuchulain

[mererdog]

12 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

How many times does the dice need to roll 6, mererdog?

As in, how many times can someone misunderstand things before you start to suspect that they aren't very good at understanding things? Fifty.

If you want to get into the number of times you have accused me of saying something I never did, and all the horrible things about your personality I could be assuming as a result.....

Incidentally, is it that the truth is a coward, or that  we run when it gets too close? I still don't remember...

Edited July 9, 2016 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

I don't see me running.  I don't think anyone else does either, though I could be mistaken.  In the beginning of my time on this forum I misunderstood you a lot, that is true.  Recently I have tried to correct that, I would hope that has been observed?  If not, oh well.  Dan on the other hand has had this very topic pointed out repeatedly.  Without any alteration, or attempt at alteration, that I and many others can see.  If you dislike my pointing this out, oh well.  It is mine to do or not do.  I believe I have every right to point out to another member of this forum that they engage in something like the straw man argument on a regular basis, and to tell them my response to them doing so.  Disagree?  File a complaint.  

For the sake of clear communication, what precisely did you mean by the last statement of truth and cowardice?  I do not wish to misinterpret you, and so would appreciate it if you would state it clearly.  If not, oh well.

[Brother Kaman]

And how many times do you engage Dan in discussion only to wind up listing his short commings, knowing way ahead of time how he will respond? And why are members discussing members in the first place? Are we not here to discuss ideas?

 

[cuchulain]

The discussion of ideas is fine, I like that.  The problem is when one particular member repeatedly misrepresents what someone else said in an effort to swerve around the point.  But hey, if you don't like that, that's your right.  You are right on one point.  I know how Dan will respond.  Dishonestly.  So maybe I should simply stop responding to Dan.  Something for me to consider.

[mererdog]

17 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

For the sake of clear communication, what precisely did you mean by the last statement of truth and cowardice?  I do not wish to misinterpret you, and so would appreciate it if you would state it clearly.  If not, oh well.

There are things that cannot be communicated clearly. You can only allude to them and hope people pick up what you're putting down. There are other things that cannot be communicated to specific people. They simply will not pick up what you are putting down. Its partly about   bias and partly about personal perspective. And partly about how we learn the meanings of words.

Is it that we don't want to know, or that we are incapable of knowing? Or do those even mean different things? Does the tiger chase his tail or run from the mouth that bites at him?

Edited July 9, 2016 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

11 minutes ago, mererdog said:

There are things that cannot be communicated clearly. You can only allude to them and hope people pick up what you're putting down. There are other things that cannot be communicated to specific people. They simply will not pick up what you are putting down. Its partly about   bias and partly about personal perspective. And partly about how we learn the meanings of words.

Is it that we don't want to know, or that we are incapable of knowing? Or do those even mean different things?

I could accede the point that certain things cannot be communicated to specific people, but I don't believe this to be the case on this particular point.  It occurs to me now that I have fallen into the trap that Pete and Johnathan often fell into, and into which I often criticized them over as well.  I think this is where I bow out of this particular portion of the debate, as it is clear that any PERCEIVED attack against Dan will be met with this, regardless of the facts of the debate.  I will tell you all that I was not attacking DAN, but rather his methods.  If he will change that method...but no, he won't.  Suffice it to say that I will simply refrain from debating with Dan from now on, due to his use of the straw man.  Have a good night, mererdog and Brother Kaman.

One last point for mererdog.  I believe you read emotion into a statement that had no emotion attached to it, way up at the beginning, when you used quote marks around a statement that I did not say.  I interpret the quote marks around the words as putting words into my mouth, because I did not say those words.  Quote marks should be used accurately, or not used, in my opinion.

Edited July 9, 2016 by cuchulain

[mererdog]

11 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I I will tell you all that I was not attacking DAN, but rather his methods.  

You attacked him personally by asserting that his methods are motivated by dishonesty. This is the same accusation you repeatedly leveled at me, based on the same sort of proof. At the time, I was vacillating between taking you at face value and assuming you were just mad because you kept losing debates on points. I ended up giving you the same benefit of the doubt I am giving Dan.