My Problems with New Atheism

Anyone that calls you out hates you. I have known people like that. You would just feel safer if we left you alone on a public forum. I, of course, have not held myself as superior to you or anyone. I have told you we are all in the same boat. We fall short. It is you that say you don't need God because you are a "good person" by your own standards. I've got news for you lady....

 

I've seen BLM signs in the same parades that chant the slogan.

 

And I'm not but "family" is the building block. I lived in a neighbor hood where if I got out of line neighbors would take me to task. My family would back them up. Families supported each other.

 

The Resurrection does not necessarily imply nor 'prove' His pre-existence. But it does indirectly as it proves He was who He said He was. To be the son Of God was to be the equal of God with all those implications. One cannot deny the Judeo meaning of son nor the mashiach or messiah prophecy. Jesus said many things unmistakable to His claim to being the messiah. I AM. Before Abraham I AM. The Father and I are one. When asked by the High Priest He confirmed He was the Messiah. The Jews threatened to stone Him for his claims to such on several occasions.

The Trinity and His Pre-Existence with the Father and Holy Spirit is best addressed by study of theology.

Not sure what you mean by existence. Most theologians including other faiths agree to the existence of the historical Jesus. Then the question returns as always to who was he. Crazy? A con man posing as a prophet? Or the Messiah? The latter is a stumbling block for many. Even if you can't get by the Resurrection you will understand Christian theology.

 

What makes you think they don’t today?

 

What you all fail to reckon with is that the rise among non-religiosity has been precisely among the "modern" Christians, the mainline denominations that offer nothing but a watered down gospel, weak and insipid. The hardline denominations, the Baptists, etc., have been holding their own and remain 25% of the population, the same as it was 50 years ago. And the hardline denominations DO interpret the Bible literally rather than figuratively.

 

I live in a small town. I know many many kids and how many broken homes they come from. I work with kids and understand their situations. They gravitate to my wife and I because we teach together and represent a Mother/Father figure they don't have at home. When I was young, I grew up in a community as I described. Of all the kids I knew in my neighborhood and school, only one was from a divorced family.....He was my best friend. In spite of that fact, his mother did a fine job. My own Dad was like an icon to him and Bill admired him greatly and tells me that to this day. Families supported each other. No Renee, I have been around enough to see the contrast. Broken homes and mobile, unstable family life have been highly encouraged since the late sixties......and many think they are just "enlightened.

 

You could also recognize the non-denominational, or loosely federated, evangelical , Bible based Churches that keep life going and vibrant in the Body of Christ.

 

Actually, there are millions of people throughout history who have claimed to have been healed by, been spoken to by, and seen God (and various saints & angels). That seems like a lot of evidence to me. Why isn't the onus on atheists to prove every single one of them lied, was mistaken, was invented, etc.? After all, if even one person actually did see and speak to God, then atheists are wrong and God really does exist.

I'm sure you meant the opposite here, but you're correct, atheists do indeed care what you believe in, and want you to stop it.

Right, because atheists want to impose their beliefs on theists. But of course, that's fine and dandy.

 

As I have pointed out in the past...atheism IS Secular Humanism and it is defined by the Supreme Court as a religion. You are right on Smitty, so keep on truck'n!

 

Thanks, but I'm a living contradiction to your statement... I'm an atheist who is not a secular humanist. I was a fundamental Baptist myself some time back, and I'm still sympathetic to Christianity, so I usually end up arguing with the atheists rather than the Christians. But I do agree with you, secular humanism is indeed a religion.

 

To be, or have been.

I believe that the man we call 'Jesus' was a real person who existed in history.

With my observation, you quoted, I was simply disagreeing with the idea that belief is proof of fact.

 

Please explain to me why you are not a SH. With what values do you differ specifically?

 

That doesn't make it a policy of BLM.

The same thing goes in Charlottesville. Those coordinating the event weren't necessarily promoting Nazism.

 

Yes.

It takes a village!

 

From Wikipedia: "The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making."

I disagree with "social justice". I believe in actual justice, which social justice tends to trample upon since people are not equal, and the only way to achieve equality in outcomes is to violate the rights of people who have done nothing wrong except to achieve greatly.

"Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good..."

I'm not so sure they are. And I do assume that humans are inherently evil, defining evil as "impelled to commit acts which harm their fellow humans." Which makes me believe that some kind of religious restrictions are necessary to get people to behave.

"Many secular humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality."

Utilitarianism is the worst possible source of morality or ethics, at least for the minority.

From the Wikipedia entry on "science of morality": "The norms advocated by moral scientists (e.g. rights to abortion, euthanasia, and drug liberalization under certain circumstances) would be founded upon the shifting and growing collection of human understanding."

I disagree with ALL of those.

 

A village perhaps but intact families foremost!

 

I've never met or read anyone of ANY merit that thought "equality in outcome" was a valid objective. More specifically, "social justice" does not mean "equality in outcome".

There is a difference between what people are willing to do for themselves and what they recognizes as legitimate limits.

I don't see a real reason for religion as a requirement for that. In fact, the civil law that is represented throughout the bible accepts law which is absolutely criminal by today's standards - standards set by secular progression in governance. Suggesting the bible is a source of superior law is ridiculous.

In fact, that major advances that came with the founding of America had nothing to do with any of the Abrahamic religions.

 

That is the best explanation of differences so far, but I almost find the differences as "denominational" to the overall belief/non-belief.

 

If you take the book of the Apocalypse at its face value, it's a man describing a nightmare, nothing more. And considering that at the time of its writing, ten of the twelve disciples had been executed and John himself exiled, and the Christian movement under severe repression, nightmares were probably a common occurrence for John.

For Christians, the letters of Paul are far more important for understanding how to live a Christian life than are the gospels.

 

Of course!

"It takes a village" does NOT mean that family is less important.

And, YOU know that from how your own "village" operated - including mutual support between families.

I know the right wing pitched "village" VERSUS "family". But, that was purely a right wing partisan political maneuver. It had NOTHING to do with what "village" implies.

You got USED by your party. Don't let them do that to you!

 

The time of its writing is probably 250 A.D. It is a fake.

 

Your source for that is less reliable than the internal clues that indicate it was written around 70 A.D. and revised around 90 A.D. From Wikipedia again: "Early Church tradition dates the book to end of the emperor Domitian (reigned AD 81–96), and most modern scholars agree, although the author may have written a first version after Nero's Great Fire in Rome (AD 64) under Vespasian (AD 69–79) and updated it under Domitian." More convincing that it was not the John of the gospel of John is the difference in writing style.

 

Actually it was Hillary Clinton using "village" as a partisan political maneuver, implying that the state knows best, not the parents. HRC was in no sense arguing for intact communities of mutually supporting families, she was arguing for the supremacy of the state to act in the best interests of children.

 

As we see today with the "our father" and the Pope another of the problems here is the multiple levels of translation.

In fact, we hear these words not as a direct recording of what Jesus said, but as Matthew (for one) presenting the prayer to his people.