08 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are fundamentally two reasons I continue to post in and read this forum; to call out the JWs on their dangerous craziness and to listen to the more moderate atheists. As a theist myself, really don't see athiesm/atheists* as a problem or challenge, the problem is/are the loony extremist religionists of all ilks.
It is complicated because the existence of atheists is seen as a threat by some theists. They therefore go to great lengths to try and convince themselves and others that the atheists they are afraid of, do not exist, and that in reality atheists are something quite different (and presumably less threatening).
*moderate, non anti-theist, non aggressive types.
08 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo the extent that topics themselves factor in the pace of arriving at the truth, it's understandable that conversation defines itself as a process as opposed to an event; honest and dishonest disagreement may certainly co-exist among friends.
I am sure we would arrive at the truth that way. However, what we have here is dishonest disagreement.
08 Feb 14
Originally posted by divegeesterI realise that, which is why atheism doesn't see so complicated to you. It is only theists that feel threatened who despite being told over and over by atheists what they believe and do not believe and what they mean when they call themselves atheists, continue to deliberately mischaracterize atheism and atheists.
As a theist myself, really don't see athiesm/atheists* as a problem or challenge, the problem is/are the loony extremist religionists of all ilks.
08 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWell I generally do not call 'friend' someone who like you, conducts all conversation with such deliberate premeditated dishonesty. Nor do I expect us ever to arrive at the truth via such conversation.
To the extent that topics themselves factor in the pace of arriving at the truth, it's understandable that conversation defines itself as a process as opposed to an event; honest and dishonest disagreement may certainly co-exist among friends.
08 Feb 14
Originally posted by divegeesterHowever, there are those extreme atheists that want to destroy Christianity. A plain theist may not care about that, but I assure yout that we true Christians do.
There are fundamentally two reasons I continue to post in and read this forum; to call out the JWs on their dangerous craziness and to listen to the more moderate atheists. As a theist myself, really don't see athiesm/atheists* as a problem or challenge, the problem is/are the loony extremist religionists of all ilks.
*moderate, non anti-theist, non aggressive types.
08 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOut of curiosity, in what ways is what you have written here conceptually different from what you would have written prior to your 2+ month long "investigation".
[b]One Christian's understanding of atheism:
First, my thanks to the dozens of atheists who have patiently or impatiently listened to numerous questions and comments and replied to the best of their ability. Since Thanksgiving, 2013, lights have gradually come on to illuminate the previous darkness shrouding the topic. My vocabulary has also bec ...[text shortened]... istence of a supreme being and accountable for a personal choice for or against god) says, 'no'.[/b]
08 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSo we can have a point of reference, who here in this forum would you regard as contextually representing what you term an "extreme atheist"?
However, there are those extreme atheists that want to destroy Christianity. A plain theist may not care about that, but I assure yout that we true Christians do.
08 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
Well I generally do not call 'friend' someone who like you, conducts all conversation with such deliberate premeditated dishonesty. Nor do I expect us ever to arrive at the truth via such conversation.
"Well I generally do not call 'friend' someone who like you, conducts all conversation with such deliberate premeditated dishonesty. Nor do I expect us ever to arrive at the truth via such conversation."
Your peremptory judgments of another conscious entity's motivations and/or veracity in no way alter the reality of the validity of John Locke or John Hughes suggested pragmatic modus operandi or points of view. Please note again the simplicity of my understanding. If one or more categorical friends react emotionally the conversation becomes blurred.
"I believe an atheist at the point of god-consciousness (becoming aware of the possible existence of a supreme being and accountable for a personal choice for or against god) says, 'no'." (OP's concluding sentence)
08 Feb 14
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneReplies and tone of meaning provided new information which I assimilated then summarized my understanding. As I've said before, "Like the Vermont Farmer I take my milk from many cows and then make my own butter". Thanks for participating.
Out of curiosity, in what ways is what you have written here conceptually different from what you would have written prior to your 2+ month long "investigation".
08 Feb 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't recall saying he was a militant atheist. I believe I put him in the category of an extreme atheist, who would wish to abolish Christianity, but not necessarily by violence, even though I doubt he would object if others took that route.
It's my opinion that, while sonhouse might be somewhat 'militant' in his thinking, I doubt he would be quite so 'militant' in action. I don't expect him to be firebombing churches any time soon.
08 Feb 14
While I agree that there is a large proportion of atheists who wish
religion did not exist I think many of those same atheists (myself included) would defend the right of anyone to hold any belief.
Certainly the atheists seem to take the side of minorities when
they are being bashed on this forum.l