Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Thumper]

Thumper said: ↑
I would say that it shows a very inquisitive mind. After all it is the skeptical thinker that expects evidence before consideration of a position.
Atheism does not claim that god doesn't exist. Atheism claims that evidence for god doesn't exist.
Nothing more can be said that defines atheistic thought. You might as well try to lump together all those who claim that there is no evidence for fairies (a-fairiest?).

paarsurrey said: ↑
I don't think it is a sign of an inquisitive mindset. Just proving others wrong is not enough, it would denote slackness if one then doesn't make a research and comes with a positive evidence.

Did one ever see a positive evidence for non-existence of God? Please
Regards

Tell you what. Why don't you show me your positive evidence that Shiva doesn't exist and I'll use that.

(Or Odin, or Thor, or Ra, or fairies, or invisible pink unicorns? ... you pick.)

 

[Thumper]

The fact that you mistake love for illness is yet another reason to reject the atheist worldview.

Love covers many sins. Love transforms, empowers, enables. Love and forgiveness free the abused and the burdened. Don't you know that those who carry unforgiveness in their hearts also remain in thrall to their abusers?

Love for enemies is a sign to the unbelievers that they shall be destroyed and to the believers that they shall have eternal life.

That you have enemies is a sufficient reason to reject your world view.

There are people who don't agree with me. There might even be people who would wish me harm for my atheistic Humanism. That's their problem and nothing I can do about that. I have no "enemies."

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact that you mistake love for illness is yet another reason to reject the atheist worldview.

Tis not love in general, but love of all enemies which is mental illness.

Love covers many sins. Love transforms, empowers, enables. Love and forgiveness free the abused and the burdened. Don't you know that those who carry unforgiveness in their hearts also remain in thrall to their abusers?

To forgive perpetrators of all wrongs, no matter how heinous strikes me as wrong.
Unforgiveness is both practical, & a lot less work than forgiving malefactors.

Love for enemies is a sign to the unbelievers that they shall be destroyed and to the believers that they shall have eternal life.

Your love is a sign of my destruction?
That doesn't seem so positive.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Love. A Christian loves their enemies. The atheist is unable, literally unable to do so. It proves the difference in spirit.

As a Christian, you would have a different conception of love than I do. The Bible refers too love, but it doesn't really define it. In Christianity, the concept of love is tied to blood sacrifice.

John 3:16 defines love thusly: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."


That same god that loves us so much is willing to keep the dead conscious just to torture them for not submitting to a book and the will of a priesthood.

As for loving your enemies, most Christians come nowhere close. "I hate the sin but love the sinner" has played out. Those words are justification for bigotry, especially homosexuals and atheists. Your own post expresses a bit of the latter.

My concept of love is nothing like that. Psychologically speaking, love is expanding the terrain that the self-loving instinct provides us. We begin by loving ourselves, and ourselves alone.

Love expands when we bring others inside of this circle of self and consider them as one does himself. If you love a wife, "I" becomes the two of you, and you do for her what you would for yourself, often putting her ahead of the singular self.

If children come along and you love them, too, you would treat them as the selfish and unloving treat only themselves. The circle of "I" expands further.

As one grows morally and spiritually, the circle expands further, perhaps including neighbors, other species, and strangers.

It's not just a rosy feeling. It's an incorporation of the other into the circle of self, and the protective and sacrificial behavior that follows from that conceptualization.

There is no place for blood sacrifice or torture there.

Would you like me to assemble the scriptures that show the love of atheists in your Bible, or the quotes from prominent Christians that belie that claim? You might agree with those scriptures and quotes, but it will undermine your claim that Christians love their enemies.

You also mentioned differences in spirit. Would you like to compare Christian and secular spirituality? It will be the same outcome. Up for it, or did you just prefer to make outlandish, unkind, marginalizing and demonizing comments about atheists?

Then we can move on to mercy and justice Christian and secularist style.

 

[viole]

Sometimes when you write, I'm not sure you love you.

Well, everybody includes myself.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

Care is not love. Love for your enemies is one character change of God's Spirit, and a witness of the love of Christ to us both.

Would you let your Mom or Dad jump in front of a Bus in order for me to go to heaven?
A child a loved one? This is what God wants from you?

How sure are you that this is want God wants? How far will you go? How much are you willing to sacrifice?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Repeating. Christians who are born again are able to love their enemies, their persecutors, their torturers.

That sounds nice, doesn't it, but it's foolish, and terrible advice - the kind you would expect a Roman Emperor looking for a state religion that served him and not his subjects to sanction, along with advising you to turn the other cheek, to be meek, and to be glad of your poverty.

Those are doormat ethics - things people that want to exploit you advise. They serve those that want you tolerate whatever they do to you and come back for more.

People that care about you advise you to find such people unacceptable and dissociate from them, not love them. The best that enemies should hope for is that their transgressions are overlooked without retaliation. It's fool that loves his enemies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"So what you're saying essentially is, is that along with infinite space which extends beyond perpetual bigness there's also infinite smallness?" Arnold Pointdexter


Interesting.

I don't see the connection between that and my post, but I would agree with it.

Infinite doesn't refer to a quantity, but to a condition - the state of being unbounded or unlimited. There is no limit to how many times one can double or halve a number.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Did one ever see a positive evidence for non-existence of God? Please

Regards

Finding positive evidence for the nonexistence of gods has been as elusive as finding it for vampires and leprechauns. We're just going to have to make our decisions without it. What do you recommend? Belief or unbelief?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Care is not love. Love for your enemies is one character change of God's Spirit, and a witness of the love of Christ to us both.

So we can judge the power of Christ's love by the amount of love Christians show for their enemies? I think that I already do that.

Care is not love? Maybe if you're paying for it isn't. Care for others offered freely is love. Why don't you know that? Could it be because you're not an atheist?

 

[Curious George]

I don't see the connection between that and my post, but I would agree with it.

Infinite doesn't refer to a quantity, but to a condition - the state of being unbounded or unlimited. There is no limit to how many times one can double or halve a number.

It is from a movie. It related, but in an esoteric way. Still thinking about your quote though.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Don't you know that those who carry unforgiveness in their hearts also remain in thrall to their abusers?.

Wrong.

Don't you know that one can become indifferent to others that have been malicious, for example, without either forgiving them or seeking revenge? Why would I want to forgive such people?

Nobody is fooled by this lip service you give to love and forgiveness. Look at how you feel about and treat atheists.

Love for enemies is a sign to the unbelievers that they shall be destroyed and to the believers that they shall have eternal life.

Seriously? Love for enemies is a sign to me that I shall be destroyed?

Incidentally, I see that you declined to take me up on my offer to compare Christian and secular spirituality, mercy, and justice, nor bothered to reply to my post comparing the Christian and secularist versions of love.

Good choice. Passive-aggressive, drive-by attacks on atheists dressed in the language of love is probably right for you.

Sorry, but I can't use any of your ideas. I think I do better without them, and prefer being the person I am over what you offer.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That you have enemies is a sufficient reason to reject your world view.

There are people who don't agree with me. There might even be people who would wish me harm for my atheistic Humanism. That's their problem and nothing I can do about that. I have no "enemies."

1. The gospel is polarizing. I don't ask for persecutors but I've experienced them.

2. Would you like a list of 100 world-changing persons who had enemies due to jealousy and other reasons? To do the right thing, biblically speaking, is to incur enemies. Your "objection" is invalid.

 

[paarsurrey]

Tell you what. Why don't you show me your positive evidence that Shiva doesn't exist and I'll use that.

(Or Odin, or Thor, or Ra, or fairies, or invisible pink unicorns? ... you pick.)

Does one mean that to believe in Odin, or Thor, or Ra, or fairies , or invisible pink unicorns is mythical or superstitious only because their believers don't have any positive evidence of their existence ? Please
Regards

 

[Thumper]

1. The gospel is polarizing.

That's an understatement!

I don't ask for persecutors but I've experienced them.

The only time I have been physically threatened was by Christians. Go figure. But even that wasn't my "enemy", just someone with issues.

2. Would you like a list of 100 world-changing persons who had enemies due to jealousy and other reasons? To do the right thing, biblically speaking, is to incur enemies. Your "objection" is invalid.

Your definition of "enemies" is very loose.

Again, I don't see other humans as "enemies". If you feel the need to divide people that way, that says a lot about you, and none of it good.

 

[Thumper]

Doe one mean that to believe in Odin, or Thor, or Ra, or fairies , or invisible pink unicorns is mythical or superstitious only because their believers don't have any positive evidence of their existence ? Please
Regards

You should look up the definition of the word "myth".

But to get back to your original question -- you asked for "positive evidence" that your particular god does not exist. This is not how evidence works. You're the one making a claim that something exist, I am merely asking for evidence before I consider this existence statement.

To try and help you understand this point, I would again ask you to provide "positive evidence" that Shiva or any of the primary Hindu gods don't exist? Should you even try to consider this question, I would hope you would note that there is exactly as much evidence for your particular god as there is for a Hindu god -- none.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As a Christian, you would have a different conception of love than I do. The Bible refers too love, but it doesn't really define it. In Christianity, the concept of love is tied to blood sacrifice.

John 3:16 defines love thusly: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."


That same god that loves us so much is willing to keep the dead conscious just to torture them for not submitting to a book and the will of a priesthood.

As for loving your enemies, most Christians come nowhere close. "I hate the sin but love the sinner" has played out. Those words are justification for bigotry, especially homosexuals and atheists. Your own post expresses a bit of the latter.

My concept of love is nothing like that. Psychologically speaking, love is expanding the terrain that the self-loving instinct provides us. We begin by loving ourselves, and ourselves alone.

Love expands when we bring others inside of this circle of self and consider them as one does himself. If you love a wife, "I" becomes the two of you, and you do for her what you would for yourself, often putting her ahead of the singular self.

If children come along and you love them, too, you would treat them as the selfish and unloving treat only themselves. The circle of "I" expands further.

As one grows morally and spiritually, the circle expands further, perhaps including neighbors, other species, and strangers.

It's not just a rosy feeling. It's an incorporation of the other into the circle of self, and the protective and sacrificial behavior that follows from that conceptualization.

There is no place for blood sacrifice or torture there.

Would you like me to assemble the scriptures that show the love of atheists in your Bible, or the quotes from prominent Christians that belie that claim? You might agree with those scriptures and quotes, but it will undermine your claim that Christians love their enemies.

You also mentioned differences in spirit. Would you like to compare Christian and secular spirituality? It will be the same outcome. Up for it, or did you just prefer to make outlandish, unkind, marginalizing and demonizing comments about atheists?

Then we can move on to mercy and justice Christian and secularist style.

You have a number of missteps in your syllogism. One isn't penalized for disbelieving a book and priests. Hell comes for people who are self-aware they sin against conscience, "I know I shouldn't do this, but I really want to do it" and do not seek God, redemption and eternal life.

Love in the Bible is knit into the word agape. You have the blood sacrifice right, but not the self-sacrifice. I would lay down my life for an atheist to trust Christ.

Your concept of love is rooted in what basis? You wrote, "My concept of love is nothing like that..." - from where does your concept derive?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, everybody includes myself.

Ciao

- viole

Christ died for you and you are worthy. But what makes you worthy of love in your own opinion. Surely, causing religious people pain through online mockery isn't a loving act.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Would you let your Mom or Dad jump in front of a Bus in order for me to go to heaven?
A child a loved one? This is what God wants from you?

How sure are you that this is want God wants? How far will you go? How much are you willing to sacrifice?

How much should I be willing to sacrifice for Him who gave all for me?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That sounds nice, doesn't it, but it's foolish, and terrible advice - the kind you would expect a Roman Emperor looking for a state religion that served him and not his subjects to sanction, along with advising you to turn the other cheek, to be meek, and to be glad of your poverty.

Those are doormat ethics - things people that want to exploit you advise. They serve those that want you tolerate whatever they do to you and come back for more.

People that care about you advise you to find such people unacceptable and dissociate from them, not love them. The best that enemies should hope for is that their transgressions are overlooked without retaliation. It's fool that loves his enemies.

You've just called my Lord Jesus a fool. He is no fool who trusts Jesus for salvation.

Quite the opposite, actually.