An unusual view of the neo-atheists

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do have a positive belief that god does not exist, and I will admit that that is a leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cared to read past that quote rather than being lazy and misrepresenting the one thing I said that might go for you, you would understand what I meant.

Seriously, you think that misusing that one quote gets you off the hook for the numerous errors you made??? No.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
None of these groups resemble what the typical Christian describes as "Satanists." Splendour is talking about people who share her beliefs, but who choose Satan instead of God. Left-hand path sorts who use Lucifer as a symbol are a different story.

Of course, I suspect Splendour's view of satanists goes a step further - to the types illustrated in Chick tracts, the baby-sacrificing unholy orgy evil-worshipper cults, which are clear myths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah those, yeah myths and urban legends. Quite interesting to see how they have been used politically by churches though, which is probably also where the myths come from in the first place.

Its quite interesting that Satanists don't even top the charts of the group that gets accused the most of dark rituals and blood sacrifice - that 'honor' goes to the jews.

And to top it all of who do anyone think was accused of ritualistic murder, sinister rituals, evil practices and killing babies the most in 100-200 in the known world? That's right, the Christians! Ding ding ding.

So what we are seeing then is basically cultural persecution of Satanists, tsk tsk.

[Splendour]

Quote-Its quite interesting that Satanists don't even top the charts of the group that gets accused the most of dark rituals and blood sacrifice

Maybe not they've only been officially around since 1969.

But it looks like a disciple of LaVey's Marily Manson is catching quite a lot of bad press right now. Journalists have been linking his music and imagery to the Columbine Shooting and another suicide-shooting in Cleveland.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote-Its quite interesting that Satanists don't even top the charts of the group that gets accused the most of dark rituals and blood sacrifice

Maybe not they've only been officially around since 1969.

But it looks like a disciple of LaVey's Marily Manson is catching quite a lot of bad press right now. Journalists have been linking his music and imagery to the Columbine Shooting and another suicide-shooting in Cleveland.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on missing the point so completely that I don't even know what end to start in.

Let's just leave it at the fact that accusations of satanic practices are thousands of years old (yes much older than christianity, you guys didn't invent satan) so 'since 1969' is completely meaningless.

The quote you made completely out of context refers to the fact that persecution of religious beliefs one fear is common, to the point of accusing them of diabolical practices - Christians were once believed to eat children you know.

The point on LaVeyan Satanism you made is an example of such a persecution, since it would seem you have very little knowledge of what that belief is about but still make connection between that and a heinous crime.

It is quite like saying Christians eat babies.

[kurto]

its clear you don't understand what I said. Either I was unclear or are not getting it. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt except that another poster also saw that you were putting words into my mouth.

Regarding the "divine mystery of faith" -- I merely said it may not be a mystery. And to label it 'divine' is to label it without a quality you have no evidence to label it so.

One does not need to resort to the Divine to explain the feelings of faith.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I think kurto was just pointing out that because we can easily explain religious behavior without invoking the divine, it's not valid to talk about a "mystery."

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do have a positive belief that god does not exist, and I will admit that that is a leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cared to read past that quote rather than being lazy and misrepresenting the one thing I said that might go for you, you would understand what I meant.

Seriously, you think that misusing that one quote gets you off the hook for the numerous errors you made??? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing is, I don't see how he feels his case is won. Even if he was right about you, that would prove that what he believes about all neoatheists is correct?

another simplistic logical fallacy

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
its clear you don't understand what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's the other way around.

[ QUOTE ]
you were putting words into my mouth.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think you have it backwards. Notice I quoted you word for word.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the "divine mystery of faith" -- I merely said it may not be a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like you are the one putting new words in your mouth. What you said was, as I quoted before,

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PTB -
I think it's possible that "Faith" is just as much a divine mystery as divinity itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kurto -
There's nothing particular mysterious about the human ability to delude themselves into believing what they want to believe. To label it a divine mystery is just ridiculous.


[/ QUOTE ]




All I did was suggest the possibility that there is a divine mystery of faith. You responded to that suggestion by rejecting and dismissing the idea as ridiculous. I did not argue that faith must be a divine mystery. Only to consider the possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
One does not need to resort to the Divine to explain the feelings of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course if you assume faith is a natural feeling with natural explanations then you can explain it according to that assumption. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if faith is a divine mystery? What if God does exist and does play a role in faith? If that is the case then the person who experiences God in the mystery of that faith is being much more reasonable in his appeal to that faith as reason for his belief than the neoatheist who insists the believer's appeal to faith must be irrational and a "disgrace".

For the neoatheist to claim certainty on that issue he must have a positive belief that your assumption is the correct one and the one I suggest is false. The neoatheist shows himself to have the positive belief that there is no possibility of a personal God. He shows himself to be a strong atheist.

I posted my argument originally in detail, and have now clairified it twice. You have misrepresented both my argument and your own. I suggest you think about it some more. I don't see much reason going further with you on it. I think we're just spinning our wheels.

PairTheBoard

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's the other way around.


[/ QUOTE ]

considering another restated what I said (perhaps better then I) I have to leave some room for misunderstanding at your end.

[ QUOTE ]
All I did was suggest the possibility that there is a divine mystery of faith. You responded to that suggestion by rejecting and dismissing the idea as ridiculous. I did not argue that faith must be a divine mystery. Only to consider the possibility.


[/ QUOTE ]
First off... it is a bit ridiculous. Primarily because its rathar self serving. I could suggest the possibility the your Faith is given to you by aliens beaming it into your help from Saturn...

It would also help if you defined more precisely what you mean... are you suggesting that people who have faith in ANY and all Gods are experiencing the Divine? And how does one distinguish divine faith from run of the mill human nature?

[ QUOTE ]

Of course if you assume faith is a natural feeling with natural explanations then you can explain it according to that assumption. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if faith is a divine mystery? What if God does exist and does play a role in faith? If that is the case then the person who experiences God in the mystery of that faith is being much more reasonable in his appeal to that faith as reason for his belief than the neoatheist who insists the believer's appeal to faith must be irrational and a "disgrace".


[/ QUOTE ]

But there's nothing rational about adding another layer of nonexistant unproveable evidence.

If I say that you're being manipulated by Aliens to feel the way you do about God... Certainly its a possibility. Does that mean it would be irrational for us not to give it serious consideration?

Certainly IF God existed he could touch you in a way to give you Faith and make you believe. But having Faith is NO evidence for God. (and by the way, your God would have to be imperfect to operate so poorly. He selects some people to give them Faith and save them... the rest burn in hell. Sounds pretty evil. But that's another whole thread)

[ QUOTE ]
For the neoatheist to claim certainty on that issue he must have a positive belief that your assumption is the correct one and the one I suggest is false. The neoatheist shows himself to have the positive belief that there is no possibility of a personal God. He shows himself to be a strong atheist.


[/ QUOTE ]

off you go again. There is No evidence to suggest there is any mystery about Faith. It is easily explained by studying human nature. It would require FAITH to believe FAITH was divinely inspired. There is no more reason to consider it the product of the divine then the product of manipulation by aliens. This does not make me a hard atheist. If there was decent evidence to suggest there was a supernatural being creating Faith, then I would look at it different.

Just because people don't want to give credit to your religious beliefs due to a lack of compelling evidence doesn't make them hard atheists. Just atheists.

By the way, do you consider that your Faith may be simply the manipulation of a psychic? Or perhaps Lodi... he was a trickster God? I assume you give all of these equal weight?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see much reason going further with you on it. I think we're just spinning our wheels.


[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right there... as you're simply suggesting things that you wish to be true but for which there's no evidence to believe.