The Atheist Evangalist

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 7/11/2016 at 3:20 PM, Pete said:

I have met the mob often.  You have to have a bit of let each to their own and do not care if they disagree.  The more you take on Dan the more he will come back with what we see as more nonsense and people will support his right to say it or throw up a smoke screen. It is often just keeping the status quo on the forum. Just hang on to your own sanity and let it go. It ain't worth it.

Yes.     

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Back to the actual topic.

Atheism is nothing more than a simple lack of belief.  Not a belief in nothing.  A simple lack of belief.

Why are we making this complicated?  Bill Maher had it right.  "The nice thing about being an Atheist is that it takes up so little time."

 

 

"An Atheist is someone who has one less God than a Monotheist."

Source Unknown

Edited July 13, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

Edited July 13, 2016 by mererdog
Mispost

[Key]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

Very true... I tend to think that a regular pacifist is one who just tries to avoid violence, and is reluctant to resolve disputes via physical confrontation.  The extreme version is one who won't retaliate under any circumstances, even self defense. But its up to individuals to label themselves. Whenever I define atheist, agnostic, pacifist, etc, it pisses people off.. What's 'extreme' to one person might be moderate to another, so we're usually arguing semantics. The same goes for Christian fundamentalist, there are degrees of fundamentalism, some extreme, some moderate, some liberal. I'd define myself as moderate, but I'm sure there are others who think I'm a radical s.o.b. 

I didn't mean to cause a ruckus, I just chimed into this tread to say; "I don't think its possible to respect something you dislike or hate". I believe the volatile response I got lends credibility to my opinion . Tolerate  what you hate, yes... but speaking for myself, I can't respect what I hate.

Interesting. Some may say Jesus is an example of extreme pacifist according to the one version you state. Yet, you clearly still respect Him, though.

[Key]

54 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Back to the actual topic.

Atheism is nothing more than a simple lack of belief.  Not a belief in nothing.  A simple lack of belief.

Why are we making this complicated?  Bill Maher had it right.  "The nice thing about being an Atheist is that it takes up so little time."

 

 

"An Atheist is someone who has one less God than a Monotheist."

Source Unknown

True. Misconception plays because there is no kind of mission statement for the atheist's belief.

Also, I find the lack of need for "convert or slay" mentality that a few fanatics seem to demonstrate.

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, Key said:

Interesting. Some may say Jesus is an example of extreme pacifist according to the one version you state. Yet, you clearly still respect Him, though.

Some do say Christ was a pacifist, but I obviously don't see it that way.  While he encouraged the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9),  he never asked followers to be willing victims of violence. His disciples owned weapons which conflicts with the idea that Jesus was a pacifist (Luke 22:38).  While Jesus did suffer and die without resistance, it was unique to him in fulfilling a greater purpose. His Truth is controversial; "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).  And reading the OT,  God is not a pacifist when it comes to defeating evil.  As Solomon put it; "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:  A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;   A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace" (Ecclesiastes 3).  I'd just ask anyone who thinks Christ is a pacifist to read Revelation 19; 11-16, it sure isn't describing a pacifist. 

[Dan56]

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 If I don't say something, Dan gets to crap all over the board without opposition. Are you kidding, I'm the only Christian posting here, every opinion has been in opposition.  If I do say something,  I'm intolerant and picking on poor Dan.  Saying something isn't your problem, its what you say that screams intolerance.  It's strictly a no win for me. A complete hatred of Christianity isn't a win for anyone. On reflection, I've had enough.  Somebody else can do the shovel work.  I'm tired of it.   Sounds like someone missed their nap time? 

 

 

[Pete]

As I said the more you talk to Dan the more you get what we call nonsense and occasionally  you get nastiness and some wish he would take a nap. This topic is about Atheism and not what he thinks of Jesus or what he has to say on gods behalf.   I personally do not think Dan speaks on his gods behalf, more like Dan thinks he is god but does not want to admit. 

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

As I said the more you talk to Dan the more you get what we call nonsense and occasionally  you get nastiness and some wish he would take a nap. This topic is about Atheism and not what he thinks of Jesus or what he has to say on gods behalf.   I personally do not think Dan speaks on his gods behalf, more like Dan thinks he is god but does not want to admit. 

I made one post about what I thought about tolerance/hate.  Since then, many have asked questions or responded to my opinion,  so I've stuck around to respond. The best way to get rid of me is to stop bringing me up.  I've said nothing nasty, you keep saying that without quoting anything I wrote (straw man).  Lets look at nastiness;  Dan said 'extreme pacifist' instead of 'pacifist', he's a liar... Dan craps all over the board... Dan thinks he's God, etc..  There's your nonsense! And I don't think I've written anything  provocative enough to warrant all the whining.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 hours ago, Key said:

True. Misconception plays because there is no kind of mission statement for the atheist's belief.

Also, I find the lack of need for "convert or slay" mentality that a few fanatics seem to demonstrate.

There is no mission statement because there is no mission.  Neither is there "atheist's belief."  It is lack of belief.

"Fanatics?"  I think you have Atheism confused with "anti-theism."  They are not the same.

[Key]

53 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

There is no mission statement because there is no mission.  Neither is there "atheist's belief."  It is lack of belief.

"Fanatics?"  I think you have Atheism confused with "anti-theism."  They are not the same.

"Fanatics" was an allusion to a few other major religions, not to atheism.

[cuchulain]

12 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Some do say Christ was a pacifist, but I obviously don't see it that way.  While he encouraged the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9),  he never asked followers to be willing victims of violence. His disciples owned weapons which conflicts with the idea that Jesus was a pacifist (Luke 22:38).  While Jesus did suffer and die without resistance, it was unique to him in fulfilling a greater purpose. His Truth is controversial; "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).  And reading the OT,  God is not a pacifist when it comes to defeating evil.  As Solomon put it; "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:  A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;   A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace" (Ecclesiastes 3).  I'd just ask anyone who thinks Christ is a pacifist to read Revelation 19; 11-16, it sure isn't describing a pacifist. 

It is interesting to me that so many people follow a religion who's patron specifically says he is not to send peace, but a sword.  Sounds a little more like a violent religion to me.  In terms of being a season for everything, that must mean there is a season for pacifism as well, yes?  Regardless, the bible is something that(so far as I know) few atheists accept as true.  

I see nothing wrong with telling other people in the world I am an atheist, and peaceful.  I see nothing wrong with any atheist advertising that they would like to start a group of like minded people, in terms of peaceful gatherings.  I see nothing wrong with an atheist telling others via billboard that they can celebrate the mainstream holidays, which are mostly Christian based, without being Christian.  

And in terms of personal experience, I have encountered MANY Christians who, in my opinion, should be "talked down".  That is, they should be converted AWAY from the religion, as they are taking things entirely too far.  And that is my opinion as well as many others, some of whom are Christian.  When a Christian professes we should rise up and slay the Muslims, and brags about interrupting a veterans day parade because it had a Muslim float, and talks about killing the homosexuals because they are an abomination, there really should be a little white padded room for that fellow, and an atheist to preach the peace.  Again, just my opinion.  But just so you know, I have encountered this guy.  He's been to jail many times for domestic violence because he saw his wife as property, till they got a divorce.  Then he went to jail for stalking, because he didn't believe in divorce.  Finally he got a clue to leave her alone, but then decided to start picking on others.  I realize I sound like I am blaming Christianity, but I understand it's all in this particular crazy guys head.  It's just that he needs deprogrammed from religion, which has clearly brought him harm.

[cuchulain]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I made one post about what I thought about tolerance/hate.  Since then, many have asked questions or responded to my opinion,  so I've stuck around to respond. The best way to get rid of me is to stop bringing me up.  I've said nothing nasty, you keep saying that without quoting anything I wrote (straw man).  Lets look at nastiness;  Dan said 'extreme pacifist' instead of 'pacifist', he's a liar... Dan craps all over the board... Dan thinks he's God, etc..  There's your nonsense! And I don't think I've written anything  provocative enough to warrant all the whining.

You did say something nasty...when you called us schoolgirls.  So, yeah.  That's a flat out lie, friend.  Or maybe you just forgot that part?  Either way, I agree with your sentiment, to a point.  You have as much right to post in opposition to our ideas as we do yours.  As I said prior, I apologize for allowing my emotions to get the best of my posts.  

For the record however, you brought up I was a pacifist.  I asked what was wrong with that.  You detailed what was wrong with extreme pacifists and said you weren't referencing pacifists in general, then later said you didn't know there was a difference.  You are way all over the place on your opinions of the pacifist, extreme or otherwise.  I mean, if you don't know the difference, why bring up a difference at all?  And yes, I consider it the straw man argument, you don't.  I would like to think we could let that go.  

[Pete]

Of course Dan can join any topic. I just wish it was just the topic. It seems that no matter what the topic is, be it EMC2 or the quality of ones whistling, this time atheism,  it always ends up with Dan and his view on the bible or faith. I too have once beeen called an extreme pacifist.  I am not, just that war or killing is not my preferred choice, but given no choice I would step up. One is a pacifist or not, there is no extreme. I am not one but I respect those that are. Now can go back to atheism please.

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

  It's just that he needs deprogrammed from religion, which has clearly brought him harm.

That is a dangerous assumption to make. It is never a good idea to think you know the cause of, and therefore the cure for, another man's violently antisocial behavior. I've seen too many women think that once he gets off the booze it will all be better, only to find that sobriety just makes him a more efficient abuser. My personal suspicion is that absent the religious justifications for his acts, he would simply adopt secular justifications. People who want to be violent can always find ways to convince themselves they are in the right, you know?

[cuchulain]

37 minutes ago, mererdog said:

That is a dangerous assumption to make. It is never a good idea to think you know the cause of, and therefore the cure for, another man's violently antisocial behavior. I've seen too many women think that once he gets off the booze it will all be better, only to find that sobriety just makes him a more efficient abuser. My personal suspicion is that absent the religious justifications for his acts, he would simply adopt secular justifications. People who want to be violent can always find ways to convince themselves they are in the right, you know?

Yeah, I know.  It's the same debate as with books, or violent movies, or Dungeons and Dragons.  It isn't the idea itself, or the book, or whatever.  It's the person who is broken.  It just gets frustrating sometimes, seeing things done in the name of religion, and therefore having nothing done about them.  

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I see nothing wrong with telling other people in the world I am an atheist, and peaceful.  I see nothing wrong with any atheist advertising that they would like to start a group of like minded people, in terms of peaceful gatherings.  I see nothing wrong with an atheist telling others via billboard that they can celebrate the mainstream holidays, which are mostly Christian based, without being Christian. 

I don't see nothing wrong with any of that either.

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You did say something nasty...when you called us schoolgirls.  So, yeah.  That's a flat out lie, friend.  Or maybe you just forgot that part?  Either way, I agree with your sentiment, to a point.  You have as much right to post in opposition to our ideas as we do yours.  As I said prior, I apologize for allowing my emotions to get the best of my posts.  

For the record however, you brought up I was a pacifist.  I asked what was wrong with that.  You detailed what was wrong with extreme pacifists and said you weren't referencing pacifists in general, then later said you didn't know there was a difference.  You are way all over the place on your opinions of the pacifist, extreme or otherwise.  I mean, if you don't know the difference, why bring up a difference at all?  And yes, I consider it the straw man argument, you don't.  I would like to think we could let that go.  

I didn't call you school girls per se, I insinuated that you were crying like schoolgirls. Maybe a little crude, but I honestly don't see how that analogy is "nasty"? My point of asking the difference between a regular and extreme pacifist was to illustrate that people define it different ways. From what you wrote, I'd define you as somewhat extreme, but how others define 'extreme' is not my call. Just as I define myself as a conservative fundamentalist, others might classify me as extreme. You should care-less how others label you, you know who you are.
 

[Pete]

I like that Dan. You insult people and its their fault.

[mererdog]

9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I didn't call you school girls per se, I insinuated that you were crying like schoolgirls. 

Dan, it is true that you did not call them a schoolgirl. What you did was use the analogy of a schoolgirl to unfavorably characterize them as being weak and overly emotional. You were not only personally attacking them, but also engaging in casual misogyny. Regardless of how justified you may feel in doing it, it is what it is. And what it is is against the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up for the forum. What's your word worth, Dan?

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

12 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I didn't call you school girls per se, I insinuated that you were crying like schoolgirls. 

Dan, it is true that you did not call them a schoolgirl. What you did was use the analogy of a schoolgirl to unfavorably characterize them as being weak and overly emotional. You were not only personally attacking them, but also engaging in casual misogyny. Regardless of how justified you may feel in doing it, it is what it is. And what it is is against the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up for the forum. What's your word worth, Dan?

I don't look at it as any kind of attack, but an accurate characterization of the responses I got. The consistent complaining about every little word or how I phrased something was ridiculous. How do you tell people about that without hurting their feelings? They would have complained about any euphemism I used, its always the end result of having no argument.  Would "childlike behavior" have been more polite?  I've noticed that when people hate my opinion, they inherently begin knit-picking about how I expressed it. In any event, there was no name calling, so I don't think forum decorum was violated.  An insinuation like"acting like schoolgirls" was mild in comparison to things like "Dan gets to crap all over the board".  

But you are essentially correct, comparing the maturity level of others to schoolgirls was unnecessary. I usually try to rise above the fray,  I make my point and move on, leaving the snide commentary to others. But sometimes, returning a little sarcasm is hard to resist 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Dan56