Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[robvalue]

It is all fucking ridiculous, but it makes me very sad at the very real hold it has over some people. I have read of people being thoroughly miserable all through their childhood because they thought it was all true. And the threat parts really do work. As if something that is true needs threats to back it up.

[Ben Davis]

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic too. Very much so in fact.

But 'militant' agnostics, like a certain new member whose user name cuts a little close to home, tick me off. Please tell me what it is you think you know about what these god-things are that makes you argue so vociferously against non-belief in them.

I get agnosticism. I don't get anti-atheism. What is that about? Personally I have no more trouble with agnostic theists than I do agnostic atheists. These are my peoples.

Anti-atheist agnostics, like their brethren atheist anti-theists, carry around huge axes to grind. Both talk proudly of reasoned argument and evidence. But both are obviously more animated by emotional bile than any reason they actually own up to. Both are obviously working through issues which cloud their judgment.

[/vent]

---

On thread, the mechanisms for the existence of anti-atheists are like those of antidisestablishmentarians: they're a natural cycle of our defensive mechanisms. It's often born from the fact that the composition of most theisms are so obviously mythological that the simple existence of atheism is a direct and serious threat; sometimes it comes from the (mistaken) belief that atheism = antitheism. Whatever the cause, theism has an 'opponent'. If someone opposes theism then we can expect someone to oppose those who oppose theism. The arguments themselves are largely irrelevant, defense of sincerely held belief is human nature.

Re. vicarious redemption, all I have to say is John 3:16. All denominations of Christianity agree on this:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

Arguing about whether there was 'sacrifice' or not is beside the point: the redemption is vicarious by definition.

Drich, your attempts to sidestep the issue are disingenuous in the extreme. You would not be a Christian if you didn't believe John 3:16. Your apologetics fall flat in the face of your own scripture.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...all I have to say is John 3:16. All denominations of Christianity agree on this:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

Arguing about whether there was 'sacrifice' or not is beside the point: the redemption is vicarious by definition.

It matters a great deal; however, whether the state of redemption is based on substitionary atonement, appeasement (propitiatory), or victory. The first two are rightly considered heinous by most reasonable people. I find the last to be proper and loving response of a God that reaches down into His Creation and lifting out of ignorance and error.

[FatAndFaithless]

Redemption is based on victory? What?

[The Grand Nudger]

Over death, in some conceptions F&F. In others there is a long and drawn out spiritual interpretation of this or that that still pretty much amounts to death.

I find the last to be proper and loving response of a God that reaches down into His Creation and lifting out of ignorance and error.

If our ignorance and error is such that we are undeserving (conversely, if we deserve this punishment -because of ignorance and error....a troubling concept but I'll run with it), I'd hardly consider it proper (one might make the argument that it is loving, but I have a higher ideal of how love should express itself - one which I would, granted...have a very difficult time in following were it my child).

As examples. Do we stay the hand in the punishment of a murderer simply because he is ignorant or in error - even if he "repents"? No, we do not. Can a judge cut his child loose from charges on the basis of his love and still fulfill the duties of his office? No, he cannot. Can any of this be accomplished in any way by the actions of a third party - on the merits of those actions by the third party? No, it cannot.

-Would you prefer to change any of these things, perhaps to be more in line with what you consider to be a "proper and loving response"? If so, why so- if not, why not?

[Ben Davis]

It matters a great deal; however, whether the state of redemption is based on substitionary atonement, appeasement (propitiatory), or victory.

Nope, it only matters that the redemption is vicarious. The mechanism of vicarity in no way changes the vicariousness of the redemption. Any such claim to the opposite is misdirection, deliberate or otherwise.

The first two are rightly considered heinous by most reasonable people. I find the last to be proper and loving response of a God that reaches down into His Creation and lifting out of ignorance and error.

And this is your justification? That's all you've got? You want to believe in this type of "proper and loving" God so you find a way to ignore the immorality of the central tenet of doctrine in order to justify your belief? Don't you care about the continuous ethical pollution this avoidance of responsibility grinds out?

[Whateverist]

On thread, the mechanisms for the existence of anti-atheists are like those of antidisestablishmentarians: they're a natural cycle of our defensive mechanisms. It's often born from the fact that the composition of most theisms are so obviously mythological that the simple existence of atheism is a direct and serious threat; sometimes it comes from the (mistaken) belief that atheism = antitheism. Whatever the cause, theism has an 'opponent'. If someone opposes theism then we can expect someone to oppose those who oppose theism. The arguments themselves are largely irrelevant, defense of sincerely held belief is human nature.

Interesting idea. Of course I can understand why theists would oppose those (atheists) who oppose theism. I"m less clear on why someone who calls himself agnostic would react against against atheism in the same way. But I agree with you that an incorrect definition of atheism most likely plays some role.

When I say I have no dog in the fight between theism and atheism it is primarily because the terms of the debate are so ill-defined that it always seems both sides get way too animated over what is unknown and possibly unknowable. Agnosticism, for me, leads me to assign less significance to the details of the debates. It would be like becoming animated in an argument over what unicorns prefer to eat. WTF?

[The Grand Nudger]

Peppermints, next question.

[Whateverist]

I heard it was Lucky Charms. What's your source?

[FatAndFaithless]

Cinnamon Toast Crunch master race.