Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

It is very sad how a few fundamentalist Christians cannot understand that no one attacks their god that does not exist, only the religion that peddles a book which is so obviously written by man, morals from 2000 years ago and a snake oil salvation and afterlife that absolutely no one can promise without being a liar.

 

By the way, allow me to share with you a word of testimony
from a Christian off the web.

"Not too long ago, I was in an atheist chat room for about half
an hour where I was repeatedly insulted, told that I was stupid,
that I couldn't think properly, mocked, cussed at, etc. It was the
usual fare from the atheists. I remained calm and eventually
asked the question, "Why do you atheists hate God?" I knew
the question would get an interesting response. It did. Foul
language, insults, lies, misrepresentations, hatred, condemnation,
and more."___Off the web

Those atheists probably learned their hatred from one of their
little puny gods named Richard Dawkins:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant
character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,
unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser;
a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously
malevolent bully.”__The atheist Richard Dawkins

_______

The little puny atheist god Richard Dawkins postulates
that God exists so he can attack the God-That-Does-not-Exist


``

 

Another (possibly imaginary)christian who fails to understand that no atheist attacks the christian god, he does not exist, they debate the contradictions inherent in the christian religion.

Of course rather than make up what others have said on possibly imaginary forums,( strawman christians and atheists) you could just debate the theists and atheists on this forum, then we would know that they actually existed!

 

So funny I am not very fond of some of the arguments Dawkins offers but to suggest he is a god is silly, to try to insinuate he is puny is so childish I do wonder why you would do it. This is not a schoolyard with "my dad is bigger than your dad" level of arguments!

 

Now what Rubbish are you trying to peddle - You don't need to be an Atheist to know that the depiction of YHWH in the OT is as described above. It is what it is.

If you view the Truth as "Peddling Hate" - simply on the basis of someone stating the Truth - then I would say it is you who is peddling hateful ideology.

You want us to hate Richard Dawkins - and all other Atheists that would dare speak the Truth about the OT depiction of YHWH.

 

Activist-thread-atheists say constantly in treads on the Internet At Large that
the God of the Bible is evil. They postulate for the sake of argument that God
exists so they can accuse Him of being evil. Many have accused the God of the
Bible with inflicting the COVID-19 Virus upon humanity. I had one atheist tell me
not long ago that he became especially infuriated with Christians because the
God of the Bible allowed an earthquake to cause a Christian Church to cave in
upon the worshipers who were in the process of praying to the God of the Bible
when they were all crushed to death from the cave-in. Of course he did not
really believe that God existed --- but this atheist postulated that God DID
exist so that he could take another opportunity to accuse the God of the
Bible of being evil. You know The-God-that-Does-Not-Exist. He said that
God was evil because He allowed that church building to kill all those
praying Christians who were crushed to death from the cave-in. He asked
how can you Christians worship a God that would allow that? He said
the Christian God is "pure evil."

My view is that a significant number of activist-thread-atheists HATE
the God of the Bible -- The-God-That-Does-Not-Exist.

Do some atheists hate the God of Bible? Yes some do. According to my
experience in reading various threads on the Internet At Large where
atheists post, I have to conclude that their regular condemnation of the
God of the Bible, you know The-God-That-Does-not-Exist and their
constant accusations that he is immoral and their speaking evil of him,
clearly demonstrates that they hate the God of the Bible
The-God-That-Does-not-Exist.

The Bible speaks about some humans who hate God , , ,
"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer,
God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy,
murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God,
insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without
understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know
the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death,
they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice
them." Romans 1:28-32

JAG

``

 

If only you could find one on this forum who could substantiate your imaginings, instead you create strawman atheists to argue against and tell tales of other imaginary christians and atheists.

 

Sure. And I also agreed with you that if this imaginary God was all powerful then he'd be responsible for all the good in the world aside from that done by the free will of his creation.
Yes, he would be evil regardless of any such good, because he would need to be held to the highest standard of moral responsibility.

Because "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility"

That comes from the Book of Spiderman, which is morally superior to your Bible.

Also, I note for the record that you quoted me above but refused to answer or challenge what I wrote.

I have asked you before and will now ask you again, do you have any sense of morality other than obedience to power? God being ultimate power in your mind?

If you were convinced God wished it of you, is there any evil you'd refuse to do? Would you be prepared to kill your son as Abraham was?

No, its ok. I don't expect you to actually answer that. Run for the hills my friend.

 

I still can't tell if JAG truly grasps that we actually don't believe his God exists. No atheist claims that a non-existing God is ultimately responsible for anything. We don't blame God for anything. We are merely analyzing a fictional character and what it represents and the fact that some people worship it. That can tell us a lot about those people.

It changes with each believer. Some hippy dippy types never read the bible, aren't even aware of the nasty bits in it, and just want love and peace and see Jesus as a symbol for that. Love thy neighbour etc. Others are Bible literalists and fundamentalists and substitute out their own sense of morality, placing obedience to what they think is God in its place. The former are harmless. The latter are evil.

 

Its good to have a Faith that goes on ignoring what you and your
little tiny band of atheists claim to be facts. Christendom has
literally hundreds of Christian Colleges and Universities that
have thousands of Christian scholars that are smarter and
wiser that the "scholars" claimed by secularism --- and these
Christian scholars who hold earned Ph.D's from Secular
Universities strongly DISAGREE with what YOU incorrectly
call FACTS -- and they have refuted YOUR so-called FACTS.
There is a lot of highly educated Christian scholars that have
written major works in defense of the Bible and its historical
background. YOU are no authority on what is, or is not, a
FACT.

And that is a Fact.

JAG

 

Your God is a fictional character and we can analyze his actions and statements as such, as Dawkins does in that quote. That doesn't mean we actually blame anything on that fictional character.

I also judge Darth Vader and Voldemort as evil. Does that mean I am suggesting the existence of them? No.

 

Then all you have to do is quote them and let us see what they say, but you will not because that would involve evidence rather than assertions, that would involve you actually debating the points.

 

I don't hate Bible God any more than Voldemort, Darth Vader, etc.

What I hate isn't God. "God" isn't even the same from believer to believer.

What I hate is the pushing of obedience over morality. Its the anti-homosexual, racist, misogynistic and other hate among God's believers. And its the other character flaws, backwards "values", bigotries, tribalism, etc that are revealed through a person describing their God (or the Bible doing so). Your God isn't a person who exists, but is a projection of your inner self. And yes, that can evoke a reaction of disgust and dismay from others if that projection is one of evil.

 

I think it is a defense mechanism. To acknowledge that people exist who don't believe as the fundamentalist Christian does is to open the door to doubt. Those people can't ACTUALLY not believe God exists. Surely they are just angry at God, or want to sin. Or something else. Entire libraries of "apologetics" (yes, they really should apologize) have been created for this reason, with all sorts of convoluted "reasoning" to escape basic contradictions in the belief system.

 

You keep repeating this quote from Dawkins without any attempt to address it or refute it.

Has it occurred to you that by doing so you are strengthening rather than weakening what he said?

If you insist on repeating this quote over and over, why not show us why he's wrong.

 

And even if one is not an Atheist - may believe that while a God - or Gods may exist - they don't pay too much attention to Humans - and certainly any human depiction of what God might be can not be anything but fiction..

Or rather - there may be one version that is true - out of the billion different stories - but who knows which one. The gal sitting in front of you in the pew on Sunday has a much different depiction of God than the gal sitting behind you .. and each of their husbands have a different take on what God is than their wives .. never mind someone in the next church down the street

 

In fact, many colleges and universities are now coming round to accepting what I say. So are many priests and ministers. The dropout from the ministry would surprise you. And I know of Priests and ministers who are still practising but do not accept the whole of the Bible. 2 friends of mine have recently retired from the ministry but they never believed everything the Bible says A local Bishop is the same. No, my friend, times are changing. Facts I have quoted are proven facts by history, archaeology. Anyone who denies them, like yourself, are simply deluding themselves. Even many Jews accept that the first part with the Patriarchs are merely allegories. Jewish figures show that over 50% of Jews no longer practise their religion. I don't have to be an authority on anything. History, archaeology etc are the authorities. A PhD means the 'pupil' is taught what to believe. Just like yourself.
It's just a shame you have not refuted any of my facts but just ignored them.

I find it odd that God told Moses to take Israel out of Egypt to escape Pharaoh and to the safety of the Promised Land - Palestine. Your God must have quite confused. Palestine was under Egyptian control - part of their empire. The Merneptah Stele (circa 13th century BCE) records the Israelites.being already in Palestine. An earlier reference has been discovered mentioning the Israelites. I'll bet the Egyptian Governors in Palestine were surprised to see these Israelites. Out of the frying pan into the fire.

The fact is that Israel were already in Palestine. We also know that while Pharaoh was occupied with facing the Hittites to prevent them taking over Egyptian Territory, the tribes in Palestine rebelled against the Egyptian rulers. The Armana letters discovered by archaeology in Armana - Egypt - show the Egyptian Governors pleading with Pharoah for more troops to contain the rebellion. Pharoah needed all his troops and chariots for the Battle of Kadesh, where the Egyptians and Hittites fought themselves to a stalemate. He had no troops to send to Palestine. The rebels threw put the Egyptians and ruled themselves. It's probable that Israel was the strongest tribe and dominated under the tribal leader David.

If Israel were in Egypt the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are wrong. They miss out the 400+ years - 11 generations - for that time. Either they are wrong or the Bible is wrong and Israel were never in Egypt.

The nativity stories taught by the Church go against all the regulations of the day - Jewish, Roman. And they put Joseph and family in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time. Now that's a miracle. If you study the story against the background of the day, of Roman Laws, Jewish laws and ritual that were enforced, the whole story is nonsense. By the way. Under no law was Mary obliged to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem anyway. Women in her condition were given special privileges while pregnant and after birth till the child was weaned. No trip for Mary. Not that there was one anyway. Why go anyway? Luke's excuse is nonsense. David had been dead 1000 years. Bethlehem had been 'through the wars' and most people exiled to Babylon. At least those who had not escaped to other countries like Egypt and North Africa. Many people chose to stay in Babylon. Bethlehem was probably occupied by many strangers. And Joseph certainly had no property there - the reason for taxation census. His property was in Nazareth 3-4 days walk away. He could hardly commute from Bethlehem to Nazareth for work.

Still. carry on believing, carry on ignoring the plain truth. My authority are the historical proven facts and commonsense.

By the way. If Luke is correct in his nativity story then there's no wonder there was no room for them at the 'inn'. Hundreds of thousands of Davids descendants would have descended on Bethlehem and the surrounding countryside. Herod would certainly have known about it a lot earlier that the Wise Men story. And there was no 'Inn' in small villages. The custom was that anyone passing through needing either food or a place to stay would stand in the centre and wait for someone to offer what he needed. That's the custom Jesus used when he met the woman of Samaria.

 

Actually you got this from Matt Slick here,
https://carm.org/atheism/do-atheists-hate-god
Why you did not put a link to it as per forum rules would suggest you did not want your fellow posters on this forum to know the source.

Now again I will quote from your own source the parts you left out.

But woven throughout the numerous insults was the most common answer: "We don't hate what does not exist!"

Interesting you left out that part of the paragraph!

Now at least posters on here can read the full article which you quoted from again without revealing the source.

Matt Slick is a presup he assumes that everybody believes in god, this explains the article you quoted (without showing it)

Here is Matt Slick getting mauled by the excellent Alex Malpass



Perhaps if you watched the video you might understand why Matt Slick is not the best person to learn about logic from! It also shows the flaws in Matt Slicks ideas.

Perhaps in future you will be more honest about the sources you use but hide!

I am guessing you will ignore this post especially as it exposes you for what you are.

 

Followed your interesting posts on this forum since I got here, can you suggest any further reading please?

 

Thanks. Most of my posts are knowledge gleaned from studying the Bible against the time in which it was written and understanding Judaism with it's teachings, laws and rituals of the time. Archaeology has been a great help. I read Biblical archaeology. But that means ignoring any bias towards the Bible. I try to understand Judaism as it is Jews that wrote all the Bible - except Luke's Gospel and the Acts. The early Christians were Jewish apostles and they interwove Judaism with Christianity. You can see it in their teachings, especially Pauls teachings. What people in general do not know is that Paul used Greek Philosophy in his messages. Try this https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/paul-and-his-use-of-greek-philosophy/

My method of study is to look at Bible stories and question them.

Take Joshua and the battle of Jericho. Of course it did not happen. There was no Joshua. If I told people that the city of Jericho - this mighty city - was so small they could walk round it in about 15 minutes they would be surprised. Yes, its walls were strong. Yes the walls fell around that time. Not surprising really when Jericho is in an earthquake zone. I doubt it was the first destruction of Jericho's walls in its very long history.The latest earthquake was in 1926 CE - less than 100 years ago. It shook Jericho and rattled windows in Jerusalem. The Bible describes Joshua destroying 3 cities, including AI, but archaeology will tell you this city had been in ruins for centuries. Archaeology will also tell you that there were many more cities destroyed at the time. Fits in well with the rebellion of the tribes against the Egyptians.

There's far more to the Nativity stories and trial and crucifixion story that make no sense if you know the times, Laws etc. But I won't bore you with misrepresented 'prophesies' regarding Jesus. I believe there was a Jewish preacher who, like many others before and after, dismayed the religious hierarchy, and like the others, paid the ultimate price.

Sorry I can't help you more with reading. I'm 81 now and it's taken me years of study. Religious readings are biased. Atheistic writings are biased. Archaeology tells it as it is found. Judaism gives the background to particularly the OT and some history of the Jews from the era of the Kings can be verified by archaeology - some not. And most of the early part of the Bible - creation, Adam, Noah can be found in most ancient myths in some form.

 

testi

Actually your post exposes YOU for what you are.
And what you are is a poster whose posts are filled with vicious DISLIKE for Christians.
One wonders if your posts are not filled with pure HATRED for Christians?
Your posts are filled with bile and venom and what appears to be pure HATE.
You go out of your way to do all you can to make me look bad.
You make mountains out of mole hills.
So far as I know I am the one and only Bible believing Christian that posts in this Religion section of the Forum.
I am alone here.
I have no friends.
I have zero support from anyone.
I have been viciously mocked and ridiculed in this very thread merely because I am a Bible believing Christian.
Your post up there implies that I was DISHONEST when I posted what Matt Slick said without posting the source.

I was NOT being DISHONEST because my goal was ONLY to make the following point , , ,{bolded blue down below}

JAG Previously Wrote:
My view is that a significant number of activist-thread-atheists HATE
the God of the Bible -- The-God-That-Does-Not-Exist.

Do some atheists hate the God of Bible? Yes some do. According to my
experience in reading various threads on the Internet At Large where
atheists post, I have to conclude that their regular condemnation of the
God of the Bible, you know The-God-That-Does-not-Exist and their
constant accusations that he is immoral and their speaking evil of him,
clearly demonstrates that they hate the God of the Bible
The-God-That-Does-not-Exist.

I also included this to illustrate that point:
Those atheists probably learned their hatred from one of their
little puny gods named Richard Dawkins:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant
character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,
unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser;
a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously
malevolent bully.”__The atheist Richard Dawkins

I also included this to illustrate that same point:
By the way, allow me to share with you a word of testimony
from a Christian off the web.

"Not too long ago, I was in an atheist chat room for about half
an hour where I was repeatedly insulted, told that I was stupid,
that I couldn't think properly, mocked, cussed at, etc. It was the
usual fare from the atheists. I remained calm and eventually
asked the question, "Why do you atheists hate God?" I knew
the question would get an interesting response. It did. Foul
language, insults, lies, misrepresentations, hatred, condemnation,
and more."___Off the web

________________


There was NOTHING , , , DISHONEST , , , about that last quote.
I said it was "Off the web"
But your posts are filled with bile and venom and strong dislike for Christians
and for Christianity and for the God of the Bible and so you "went looking"
for a "mole hill" that you could make into a mountain and find something that
you could use to accuse me of being DISHONEST.

I was NOT being dishonest.
It was a short quote.
It made a specific point.
I gave credit -- I said it was written by a Christian. It was. His name was Matt Slick.
I gave credit --- I said it was "off the web" It was off the web.
There was NOTHING at all DISHONEST about that very short brief quote that I posted.

Its clear that your bile and venom and strong DISLIKE even extends to Matt Slick.
My opinion is that you hate and despise Christians, and that you try to hide your hatred
by claiming that you only dislike their ideas --- what they say and post.

"Here is Matt Slick getting mauled by the excellent Alex Malpass"___Ronald Hillman
"Perhaps if you watched the video you might understand why Matt Slick is not the best
person to learn about logic from! It also shows the flaws in Matt Slicks ideas."___Ronald Hillman

It is clear that you are happy and glad that the Christian Matt Slick is "getting mauled" by one of your fellow atheist.

_______________

I have you on my Mental Ignore List and do not read your posts, but your video caught my eye and I did
read your post up there where you accused me of being DISHONEST -- and I wrote this post
to defend myself from your FALSE accusation that I am DISHONEST -- which is an attack
on my character and my person.

____________

I have never even one time "gone looking for you" to give you any grief whatsoever.
I even one time asked that we just "live and let live" -- but you said no to that offer.
I would have left you alone if you had not went out of your way to accuse me of being DISHONEST.
At this point I do not plan on replying to your response to this post. You can have the "last word"
unless you make more FALSE accusations against my character.

So , , ,
Get your bile ready , , ,get your venom ready , , , muster up your hatred and your strong irrational DISLIKE
of me and Christianity and go ahead and make your reply probably with more false accusations.



```

 

That is an attack on my character, isn't it?
Is that your way of saying that I am DISHONEST?
Is that your way of saying or suggesting that I am "not a good person"?

You do that all the time.
So does other posters here.
Many of them will quote one of my lengthy posts or one of my lengthy OP's and then
totally IGNORE the entire post and post a snippy snide ugly one-liner reply that is
insulting. Or mocking pictures. Or other means of mockery and ridicule. Yet you NEVER
write a post and correct your fellow atheists for doing ugly stuff like that. Why not?
Why don't you stand up for truth in that area, Trevorw? Is is because "birds of a feather
flock together"? This thread has a lot of their mockery and ridicule of me as a Christian.
Its all back there in this thread.

That is a incorrect.
I explained that to you.

JAG Previously Wrote An Explanation To Trevorw
{1} I believe in keeping it simple.
{2} I believe Christianity is a Faith.
{3} I believe Christianity is true.
{4} Christianity is NOT an intellectualized philosophical system built on
Empiricism and Rationalism --- rather it is built upon Faith.
{5} So? So I look at the 66 books of the Protestant canon as being assembled
by the Providence of the Sovereign God. They are what God wanted us to have.
{6} So I disregard how the books were assembled because it does not matter
since I believe 1,2,3 4, 5 and 7
{7} I believe the finished product is all that matters and not how the finished
product was assembled or what sources were used to finish them.
________

{8} You will probably say that my 6 and 7 are irrational and illogical.
{9} But you will ALSO probably say that my 2 and 3 are ALSO irrational and illogical.
(10} So? So its not unusual for non-believers to believe that Faith is irrational and illogical.
{11} Or that Christianity is irrational and illogical.

________

I never said that I looked at facts in a different way.
My 1 - 7 up there explained what I believe.
My 1 - 7 up there is honest and it is the Christian orthodox way of looking at the Bible.
See 2 Timothy 3: 12- 17 on the Christian orthodox view of Scripture.
I told you that I do NOT agree with "your facts."

JAG

 

This whole persecuted Christian trope that JAG is demonstrating here always seemed a bit odd to me.

Earlier in the thread JAG was speaking turn or burn. You either choose to believe (is that even possible?) and worship his God or you have an eternity of hellfire and suffering waiting for you. That is a very hateful thing to say to somebody. Then JAG is all offended when somebody points out he failed to attribute a source. It is insinuated that he purposefully failed to do so in order to avoid points within that source that contradict his view. Yet he doesn't address any of those points, anything I have written, or any points anyone else has made that don't agree with his view.

JAG is just one small example of this and other Christians have gone much much further. The whole gay marriage debate comes immediately to mind, wherein we had Christians genuinely claiming it to be an attack on them that two gay guys they never met and will never meet are getting married and that marriage will be recognized by the state.Disregarding bigotry against homosexuals is somehow spun as an attack on Christians. It can get really silly.

However, I do again want to say that not all Christians are like this and that there are many Christians who don't try to play the victim.

 

You quote Matt Slick again. Never heard of him until now and certainly not bothered by what he says. Dawkins Ditto. My learning is from studying the Bible. I have no interest in 'hating a none existent god'. What does concern me is that you are telling everyone that you 'have faith' a god exist and use a book that is obviously the work of man and proveably so. You refuse to accept that the book Christianity has relied on fo keep its people 'in control' is now being revealed as mostly a storybook. Even the biggest church in the world who has controlled its people for centuries is having to accept this fact. A recent Pope acknowledged that much of the Torah is myth and allegories and be treated as such. You may not like the Roman Catholic Church but it is at last coming up-to-date. As are other denominations.

Let me give you a quote by the 'puny atheist god Richard Dawkin'.
'Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful'

Richard Dawkins in the Guardian 2011.

 

This is an interesting claim. I think it illustrates how JAG thinks more than how atheists do. Perhaps he came to his beliefs by learning them from others rather than forming them for himself.

There may be a few, but I doubt there are many Dawkins converts. I doubt many read anything he wrote and became atheist or anti-theist based on that. Every atheist I've personally spoken to already had their views against the literal fundamentalist sort of Christianity. I also have never met an atheist who hates the God character.

It isn't God that we are concerned about JAG, it is those who conjured up that God and those who worship and endorse that God.

If you tell me (as some of my more liberal Jewish and Christian friends have) that your God is about love and peace and wants you to have freedom and to question authority, including himself, and stand against it when need be, I would then see you as a peaceful loving freedom loving person. On the other hand, if your God says homosexuality is an abomination then I would see you as bigoted against homosexuals. And if you tell me your God will have us all burn in hell forever for not worshiping and obeying you, and yet you endorse and support and worship that God, then I would see you as a hateful authoritarian follower. The God described and supported doesn't have to actually exist for us to see this, good as well as bad, in the God believer.