Are Atheists Just Abused Christians?

Recently, one of our regular commenters on this site told me the reason I am not a believer must by due to abuse I had at the hands of my parents or others.  This conclusion is somewhat amusing because it is so commonly made to people like myself.

Once it came up at a gathering of Freethinkers. It struck a cord with people there because many had been told that by Christians. 

Somehow in the logic of believers, when they ponder why there are nonbelievers, the most logical conclusion is nonbelievers arrived at their status, not through an intellectual process, but by an emotional one.  Belief is the more rational route, they seem to reason, so it had to be an irrational emotional.

They do not apply the same reasoning to themselves.  That is, they do not conclude they are believers because they had an abusive experience with atheists.

On the day we Freethinkers discussed this, no one in the room recalled their previous lives within the faith as unpleasant.  To the contrary.  They recalled mostly fun times and good memories as practicing believers. 

What many describe is one day simply being unable to believe the tenents of the faith.  Now, they may have encountered unpleasant people along the way, but they are among both believers and nonbelievers.

For myself, I recall mostly pleasant memories of my decades as a practicing Christian. The doubts just kept coming.

————————————

Come to the Red River Freethinkers Conference, Sept 24.  Great speakers. A great debate, “Theism vs Atheism: Which is the more reasonable view.”  August Birkshire, Pres. MN Atheists vs Ronn Johnson, Northwestern College.  www.redriverfreethinkers.org

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Are Atheists Just Abused Christians?

  1. Wanna B Sure says:

    Jon; I can believe that you are pretty well spot on for many folks.
    There are those however, that have been involved in some “cults” in the disguise of Christianity that are severely controlling, both in teaching, family, and community. Many of their former members after leaving are so burned out with the mind controll and manipulation, that they disregard anything relating to faith, or belief. They just want to be left alone. The documentation of these are bountiful. After time, some return to some faith traditions, but they are very “gun-shy”, and won’t be manipulated again. I suspect some of them become atheists, or at least agnostic.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      I also may add that quite often those who have left groups of a “cultish” nature, have shown symptoms of delayed stress syndrome. Many of these people wouldn’t even join the Freethinkers, even though they became atheists. They would go “under the radar”, and you wouldn’t be aware of them. Some of these people have self created support groups among themselves, or joined already existing groups, Christian or not.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Wanna 12:23 Yes, there must be abused people around–they don’t seem to show up at Freethinker meetings. Whether abused people “quite often” show signs of stress syndrome, I’m not sure we know enough to make that conclusion.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Re. “quite often”; I read that 4-5 yr ago. It may have said “not uncommon”, or “a large number”, or something like that. Anyway, you get the picture. It wasn’t my idea. I feel comfortable with “quite often”. I am sure many suffer in silence, and probably some never become normalized, who and how would anyone know?

  2. Henry says:

    “On the day we Freethinkers discussed this, no one in the room recalled their previous lives within the faith as unpleasant.”

    You could hardly believe that by reading this blog. In my opinion, there seems to be a little bit of a disconnect here.

    • entech says:

      The main disconnect I find is between Henry and reality. Everything he says is just an attempt to annoy people, I usually resist but sometimes?

  3. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    Jon, there is a very similar school of thought regarding sexuality. I am 48 years old, have a gazillion gay friends and know of only one who had an experience he considered questionable as a child, and that took place when he was 5 and his neighbor kid was 7.

    That’s it.

    Also, don’t really know of anyone who had horrible father/controlling mother issues to speak of. Some did when they came out, but that’s a different topic.

    It’s always stuck me curious that people can’t be ‘different’ w/o some horrible reason as the ’cause’.

  4. k says:

    only a treat like Lindgren would attemp a last shot in the spotlight like this.

  5. Bob says:

    My wife says she became an atheist through a slow process of resenting and wondering why it all seemed to be women’s fault in the bible, and also that men were all in the position of power and women marginalized for the most part. She started to research the history of the bible because it really bothered her about the men/women discrepency in christianity. She finally came to the conclusion it was all bullshit, a way to keep women down. We teach little girls if naughty bad eve hadn’t eaten the apple, we’d still be living in parardise. If that isn’t abuse, what is?
    Most of the people at your Fargo Freethinker meeting must be men Jon not to have thought of that.
    “Now that’s abuse on half the population for millenia.” my wife.

    • Henry says:

      “We teach little girls if naughty bad eve hadn’t eaten the apple, we’d still be living in parardise. If that isn’t abuse, what is?”

      We? Again, speak for yourself. I haven’t heard a church teaching that.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Henry 12:59 “I haven’t heard (of) a church teaching that.” My first reaction to your statement was that you never attended Sunday School. But, I’m sure the problem is something else. You heard all the stories of the inferiority and harmfulness of women but never noticed how women were referred to.

        • Henry says:

          The church has always taught me it was Adam’s fault along with Eve. The church has also always taught me that it wasn’t necessarily an apple, which is more misinformation from Bob.

          You boys sure do go to some interesting churches.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 1:47 “The church as always taught me it was Adam’s fault along with Eve.”

            You must go to one of those misguided liberal churches. Adam would not have sinned without a temptation to sin. The Evil Eve tempted him. Please explain why the story is told with Eve tempting Adam to sin instead of the other way around?

          • Henry says:

            Eve ate the forbidden fruit first. Perhaps that would explain why the story is told that way.

            Also, if you didn’t notice, scriptures pointed out that Adam was there during that entire time. Sciptures also noted Adam’s further sin of accusing Eve (who he indicated God gave him) of deceiving him.

            You boys sure are tricky, taking scipture and adding a little twist here and there. I’d really like to know where you go to church to learn what you’ve learned.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 2:39 So, you are catagorically denying that Eve tempted Adam and saying that Adam tempted Eve?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Henry; They go to “conferences” to hear of new ideas and methods that can be used to win an argument, and for self validation. Kind of like going to a Joel Osteen concert. I’m sure they take notes too.

          • Henry says:

            “So, you are (categorically) denying that Eve tempted Adam and saying that Adam tempted Eve?”

            Nope. Didn’t say that.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 2:57 “Nope, didn’t say that.” Then, I really don’t understand what you did say, or, the peculiar way you seem to think. I mean, Eve was active in the story. Eve ate the apple. Then, Eve offered it to Adam. Adam didn’t eat the apple first, then, then offer it to Eve. Adam was passive. You imply the original sin was equally the fault of Adam. That’s a stretch. But, that’s the beauty of the Bible. People can say, “What this means is….” is spite of quite obvious evidence to the contrary.

          • Henry says:

            Wanna: “They go to “conferences” to hear of new ideas and methods that can be used to win an argument, and for self validation.”

            I go to “conferences” too, generally about once a week, not necessarily on Sunday. However, self validation is not discussed.

          • Henry says:

            “Then, I really don’t understand what you did say, or() the peculiar way you seem to think.”

            Let me help you boys out. I’ll repeat: The church has always taught me it was Adam’s fault along with Eve. This means to me that Adam is responsible for his own sin. His passing the buck to Eve didn’t go well for him.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:46 If it was really also Adam’s fault, the story would have been told like this: “There was fruit. God said, ‘Don’t eat the fruit.’ Adam and Eve each took an apple and they ate them.”

            But, of course, the story was not told in this way because its purpose was to show women as evil. It’s self evident this is the case.

          • Henry says:

            Jon, it very well could have said that, but it doesn’t.

            Your point was the Adam/Eve story was told in a manner meant to represent women as evil. To the contrary, the scriptures do not represent man in the Adam/Eve story as being upstanding either. In fact, it impartially displays the sin of both sexes. Your point is unfounded.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 1:01 “…it impartially displays the sin of both sexes.”

            Henry, anyone can see it doesn’t!!!! Never mind. I give up.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Bob 12:20 You are correct that the treatment of women drives many women, and men, from the faith. I have blogged several times about the treatment of women and wondered why any women stay in the faith. As to our Freethinkers, we have several women who are members. For the last several years, I have been the only male on the executive committee. The stories of how women lost their faith varies from those like your wife, who first saw the lower status of women in the Bible stories and then concluded it was all bullshit, to those who went directly to the bullshit.

    • Brad Campbell says:

      People can read a passage or text and get completely different meanings out of it.

      Reading your posts on these subjects is like enduring a confrontational salesman. Thinking your are right does not make it so.

      You and your wife think the Bible is “bullshit”; well you are entitled to your opinion. IMO, it is one of the greatest books ever written. I have read the same book and have never been overrun with the impression that it is …..”bullsh**”.

  6. Bob says:

    Christians teach the eve story to kids Henry. And its wrong.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      And that is the start of Rib Fest in Fargo. Evidently the Garden of Eden. Ole-Gary was the first promoter. (lots of Norgefolk up der ya know)

  7. Bob says:

    up der? Where are you from Wanna? The Cities?

  8. Bob says:

    Jon 1:18, well shit.

    Vulgarity and cussing is so much fun.

  9. Bob says:

    Oh, my wife wants me to comment that she’s thinking of starting up an atheist group just for women. She says its because women’s issues are different than mens. And she says often men (atheist and non-atheist) don’t want to hear what she has to say, or don’t recognize women’s issues in regards to religion and such, but other women do.

  10. Bob says:

    Wanna 1:58, “Denomination”
    “A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.”

    If you mean denomination as in just a group, perhaps. But the above definition of a women’s atheist/freethinker group would not be it. Denomination usually means you believe in some kind of doctrine or dogma, which we don’t.

    What’s up with religious people always wanting to put atheists in religous terms?

    There’s always an undercurrent of defensiveness and desperation in this claim, as if one’s own faith is invalidated by the existence of a genuinely different approach to life and the universe. In making their convoluted arguments, people who conflate atheism with religion actually weaken the foundations upon which their own belief is built. Atheism simply cannot be a religion unless that term carries essentially no meaning.
    First: There is no god in atheism.
    Second: There is no common belief.
    Third: There are no rules.
    Fourth: There is no church or Ritual.
    Fifth: There is no unified conception or spirituality.
    There is no scripture.
    There are no priests.
    There are no traditions. No holidays, no concept of an afterlife, no identifying clothing, no creation myth.

    Despite our differences,
    we have the constitution in common.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Just wait, Your spouse’s group may multiply. They will have a name, and commonality. They certainly could be called a “denomination”. There are nondenominational churches; essentially “no-name churches”.
      Oh—by the way you used just one of several applications to the term “denomination”. (to support your defense).
      nameno, latin,, name. If memory serves.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      So what you are saying is that you are a loose association of nothing.

  11. Bob says:

    Wanna 3:02 You are a typical religious person, convoluting the truth.

    I commented, “If you mean denomination as in just a group, perhaps.” Tell truth Wanna.
    Truth is, you have no proof of the existance of anything, anything, anything at all of anykind of supernatural identity anymore than the existance of Father Christmas, elves, pixies or unicorns.

  12. Bob says:

    But a necessary one, that you can’t defend.

    Why can’t religious people just admit it, that they don’t know. Oh wait, your text of choice won’t let you. BECAUSE YOU WILL BURN IN HELL IF YOU SAY YOU DON’T KNOW. Sickening, and boring.

    We atheists know we don’t know. But we also know there’s more than likely no Santa, or fairys, or elves, or unicorns, or Jesus, or Allah, or what the frak whatever. A necessary segue.

  13. Bob says:

    One of three Abrahamic texts, the bible. Based on your past comments, I don’t think you are a torah or koran follower, the other two of the Abrahamic texts.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Book, chapter, verse please.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Bob; Let me refresh your memory. “…your text of choice won’t let you. BECAUSE YOU WILL BURN IN HELL IF YOU SAY YOU DON’T KNOW.”
      Specifically, what is that text; book, chapter, verse.

  14. Bob says:

    “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind … nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

    “[The Jews] both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets,and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.” 1 Thessalonians 2:15

    “Stone disobedient children” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

    1 Timothy 2:15 says only women who have children will be spared hell

    Men are worth more than women – Leviticus 27:1-7 actually provides dollar comparisons!

    “Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted [sic] , brokenhanded [sic], Or crookbackt [sic], or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.” (Leviticus 21:17-21)

    Men aren’t allowed to trim their beards or shave their heads (Leviticus 21:5)

    Wearing clothes intended for the opposite sex is forbidden (presumably making today’s unisex clothing ‘abonimable’):

    “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deuteronomy 22:5)

    Clothing made of more than one type of fabric (e.g. nylon stockings) fare no better:

    “Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee” (Leviticus 19:19).

    The Bible says that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9)

    Matthew 13:10-14 suggests that Jesus doesn’t want everyone to understand what he’s saying, so he speaks in parables to his disciples and most of the rest will go to hell.

    “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seeth among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and remain in thine house . . . And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

    “If a man also lieth with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13)

    Prostitution is punished by burning the woman alive according to Leviticus 21:9

    Leviticus 25:44 tells Jews to enslave surrounding tribes

    “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus 21:20-21).

    Exodus 21:7-10 says men can sell their daughters into slavery

    Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and everyone else who is not Christian will all go to hell “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18)

    “Censuses are immoral – and God killed 70,000 innocent counted Jews to punish David for counting them… “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel, And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. . . . And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. . . . So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men” (1 Chronicles 21:1-14).

    God killed every living thing in Soddom and Gomorrah for engaging homosexual acts in Genesis 19:24-25

    Sexual immorality merits an eternity in flames, according to Jude 1:7

  15. Bob says:

    And a kick in the butt to Adam, that sniveling, finger-pointing, pusillanimous, brain-dead excuse for a husband.

    Genesis 3:12
    The man said, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      And after all that; no verse about “knowing”, doubt or faith.
      Nothing what you said is related to the topic at hand. Out of context.
      Thrashing around with the Old Testament ceremonial, and civil law, and the result.
      Well, If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS. Another unccessful segue.
      I fully expect vulgarity shortly. That’s OK. I’ve heard it before

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Did you get all this info at a “conference?” or in a book about great comebacks
      A great analogy today would be; If a man comes to you, and he asks you how to clean a fish, you tell him how to fix a watch.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      I will have to agree though that I am thankfull those Old Testament things are now past, and satisfied through the Christ, and faith in him.

  16. Bob says:

    New testament, talking about going to hell in Mathew.

    Matthew 13:10-14 suggests that Jesus doesn’t want everyone to understand what he’s saying, so he speaks in parables to his disciples and most of the rest will go to hell.

    Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” 10:34-36

    Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. 11:20-24

    “He that is not with me is against me.” 12:30

    “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.” 12:31-32

    Jesus often called people names. One of his favorites was to call his adversaries a “generation of vipers.” 12:34

    Jesus will send his angels to gather up “all that offend” and they “shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” 13:41-42, 50

    Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite woman’s possessed daughter, saying “it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to the dogs.” 15:22-26

    The ever-so-kind Jesus calls the Pharisees “hypocrites, wicked, and adulterous.” 15:2-3

    “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Whoever falls on “this stone” (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder. 21:44

    In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn’t have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and “cast him into the outer darkness” where “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 22:12-13

    Jesus condemns the Jews for being “the children of them which killed the prophets.” 23:31

    Jesus blames his the Jews (who were then living) for “all the righteous blood” from Abel to Zecharias. 23:35

    The servant who kept and returned his master’s talent was cast into the “outer darkness” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 25:30

    Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an “everlasting fire.” 25:41

    “His blood be on us, and on our children.” This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. 27:25
    Mark

    Jesus becomes angry at those who said that he had “an unclean spirit,” so he announces the unforgivable sin: “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.” 3:29

    Any city that doesn’t “receive” the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

    Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a “dog”. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil. 7:27

    If you’re ashamed of Jesus, he’ll be ashamed of you. 8:38

    Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don’t will be damned. 16:16
    Luke

    Those who fail to bear “good fruit” will be “hewn down, and cast into the fire.” 3:9

    John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned “with fire unquenchable.” 3:17

  17. Bob says:

    If you don’t see the point of what I’ve posted, no one can help you Wanna.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      The point is; You have no valid point.
      The point is; You refuse the point. The oness is on you.

    • Brad Campbell says:

      LOL

      Bob you can google anything and get whatever passage you want to quote. You “cherry pick” passages and just right enough to make your point. Go back to every one of your quoted passages and keep reading on.

      As a believer it is about faith through Jesus. I can make any point I want by just quoting finite parts, like tib-bits here and there and not quoting the whole sentence, paragraph or whole chapter to get the whole meaning that was intended.

      Keep up the partial work.

  18. Bob says:

    What the frak…you make no sense.

  19. entech says:

    WannaBSure. May I suggest you look back through your more recent posts and consider your position? For one comment Henry said “I agree” and in fact you are starting to argue like him – this should be a cause for concern.
    Actually you seem to be becoming more Sure, sure that your version of Christianity is the only true one – but I can’t quite follow your thought that the other views aren’t wrong they are simply in error.
    And no I can’t give a collection of quotes this is just an impression of the direction you seem to be heading and InMyHumbleOpinion it is a retrograde step.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Re. cause for concern; The dryness of your understanding is understandable in relation to your concern. We’ve been dancing around this before, and you have not remembered anything. That is understandable. I however am not concerned. The more is shared with you, the more disagreeable you are. So much for “Pearls”.
      The fact that you” can’t quite follow”, is also understandable, and acknoweleged. I have thoroughly explained the reasons, but again you did not listen, read or comprehend. I won’t explain it again.
      Whatever understanding of Christianity (error or not) you percieve or not, is not your real concern. I believe your emphasis is ANY kind of Christianity is invalid. Again, that is not my problem.
      You have feigned a willingness to examine all sides of the argument, but I don’t believe it. So you know a lot of big words, so do I. That isn’t the point.
      Re. your IMHO; You have not revealed a humble opinion, nor humility to listen, even when something was carefully explained. Always ready with a typically arrogant response cloacked in a deep phylosophical game. You are equally adept in the “dazzle/baffle” game. Not impressive. How many paragraphs would it take you to tell someone how beautiful a sunset is, while quoating Ole Issendorf?
      This is not a retrograde, this is clearing the air of a lot of European style of stuffyness. That may have impressed some in the “empire”, but here in the “colonies”, that and a nickle will get you a five cent cup of coffee.
      Now then, Go have a Twinings Earl Grey, and a short walk.
      And–Oh yes—-Have a nice day.

      • entech says:

        In case you think I am avoiding I wrote this a day or three ago and am traveling for a day two.

        Henry, 1:27 am. I can see your thought about the guilt by association fallacy, and if it is possible to plead partly guilty, or perhaps not quite guilty or innocent then I will. The real point was the comment I made at Aug.25 1:18 which is that I think you tend to deliberately misconstrue commentary and simply try to annoy people, I could be wrong and overly sensitive in which case I apologize. Further the suggestion that the fallacy shows a weakening of the atheist argument may or may not be true, it is simply irrelevant, as I do not push the atheist barrow.
        Wanna 1:10am following on from my reply to Henry almost your entire response to Bob was along the lines of – so what if you can quote a line or two to support what you said I will ignore it and say “so what is your point?, you are an atheist and therefore must be wrong.” This to me seems to be deliberate provocation for the sake of it. As I said to Henry if wrong I apologize – it seemed that you had no valid response and resorted to deliberate misinterpretation or distortion – it is saddening because I know you are better than that.
        To start at the end, I know IMHO is a pretty trite and cliché bit of stuff and I do concede that I am not terribly humble, but to suggest arrogance for doubt and questioning that your version of reality is the absolute and total truth seems to be putting the horse before the cart. Retrograde was meant in the sense of resorting to being argumentative against presenting a good argument. Colonialism was always evil and the American Independence movement was totally honest and justifiable and I don’t like Earl Grey, far to flowery for my taste. A short walk is all I can take with the arthritis – could explain a bit of grumpiness. Every day is nice in the sun, discussing the meaning of Ramadan with some of my Muslim friends and bemoaning the hypocrisy of people waiting with spoon in hand for ice cream as soon as the sun sets and the fact that more food is consumed during this month due to the nightly feasting.
        Pearls, Pearls before Swine? That is not polite. But leads to the part of your comment about my understanding or lack of it. I never thought we were dancing around any subject, when I wrote about, say, Adoptionism or even Gnosticism I was trying to discuss seriously a view that was seriously held by many in the early church. I do not think you have “thoroughly explained” very much, if anything, whenever a discussion reached an interesting point you would go off on a tangent and start playing word games about rivers in Egypt or something similar, segue is a word you introduced in your words against Bob – I think you are a master of this and not just from your music. As for sharing I don’t think you share anything just pontificate from a distance and declare other views to be not wrong but in error. The main problem is that although everything is obvious from your position and beliefs you have not been very convincing, at least I have not thought so. I think you find this frustrating, which is why you say things to suggest that not to believe is to be in denial or that it must be a deliberate rejection of an obvious truth.
        I was not feigning interest in all sides of the argument, although inclined towards a negative view of Christianity I was not confirmed in that belief until recently, but don’t take all the credit Dinesh D’Souza got me a long way along the path (while I was less than convinced by Hitchens arguments I did love his style, my dear! But Dinesh is a definite negative for Christian apologetics)

        I am still not sure of my position on creation/creator but as I have said I don’t think a trinity is the answer. I am rather fond of the Hindu idea of a cyclical universe but whether it is some form of the dream of God or a natural phenomena I do not pretend to know.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Entech; Glad to see you are still with us. I actually was concerned.
          I am disappointed that you don’t understand my past statements in the aggregate. All together, I do think I have been quite clear, even when one considers all the twists and turns of the subjects. I have never expected you to accept them however. Oh Well, so it goes.
          I am just slightly aware of Denish. scanned a little bit of him, and was not terribly impressed. I can’t say fairly one way or another. There are so many that pop up these days, and their early writing is not always consistant with their later, (a trend with everyone back through time.) That being said, the last several years have not proven to be a good provider of anything substantial. More along the line of “sweet nothings”.
          It has been said that” phylosophy is like softwear for the mind”. It helps one to arrange thought in an understandable order, so as to be able to seperate sense from nonsense. I don’t pretend to be a phylosopher, nor do I particularly care for the gymnastics used by some that do. Phylosophy in my understanding should be a tool used to arrive at something, rather than the subject arrived at. I get the impression that for you, the journey through phylosophy is more important than the arrival of an answer. Forgive me if I am wrong, but consider that appraisal a considered possibility. I have seen this before, and others before me have seen it also, even among themselves. Some get past it.
          There, the Vicadin is starting to give some relief. Don’t want to dwell on it, but I have chronic lower back problems, (which the specalists don’t want to operate on), something about 60-40 chances of getting worse. Usually can’t sleep more than 2-3 hours without getting up and walking around a little b/4 re-retiring. Makes it a challenge to play the accordion for any more than a half an hour at a time. Once I have it on, I can balance it pretty good but fatigue sets in with spasms and pain from the middle of the back to the tip of my toesie wosies, after a while. (that was a joke). That is my excuse for being grumpy. Sometimes we need an excuse.

          • entech says:

            Saw a back specialist myself s couple years ago, he sent me back to the physiotherapist saying I didn’t need him and that I should learn some clinical Pilates. careful not to get some athletic type that would make it worse – could be worth asking your Doctor.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Been there, done that. The MD and Specialists prescribed the therapy, and the group. Helped some. Continue to do non-injuring exercises. More for prevention of further injury/damage, and pain management.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Thanks.

    • Henry says:

      “For one comment Henry said “I agree” and in fact you are starting to argue like him – this should be a cause for concern.”

      Things must be looking down for the home team (atheists). Entech, the well educated man has resorted to the logical fallacy of guilt by association. I am a mere layman, however I find it interesting when a more sophisticated man has the need to employ his appeal to emotion in order to try to sway the argument. Therefore, I can only conclude things are looking down for the home team.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>