Christians Endorse God's Hatred

[Esquilax]

So your days of soul-searching have now come to an end?

No, of course not! But to characterize this whole process as one that we haven't even started before today is incredibly dishonest, especially when the inference you're trying to make is that we have secret, less than pure motivations for believing as we do.

My personal journey to where I am now took years, ditto for many of my peeps who went through far more suffering and religious doubt than I, and that's why it's so frustrating when christians breeze on in with this "atheists only believe like they do because they want to sin!" shit, or any of the other host of reinterpretations of what we actually believe. There's no possible way to do that, to rob us of our labels and motivating factors, that isn't hostile and insensitive.

But it's worse than that, because we've got to sit here and watch you all go negative, to cover for the fact that you have nothing positive. Evidence convinces, we've all said that over and over again, but all you give is spin, spin, spin. You've got nothing convincing, but apparently you just can't take it or something, because instead of just finding evidence, or actually examining why you can't convince us, like you claim you do, instead you lash out. You poke holes and discredit; this bogus claim, the "atheism=nihilism" lie that's still in your sig, all that shit a few days ago about how we wouldn't believe even with evidence... those aren't arguments. They're ways to make yourself feel better over your complete dearth of compelling material.

That's what's getting such a strong reaction here: your complete refusal to even consider the possibility that atheists might be motivated by anything other than some form of unfair bias.

[Brakeman]

They had forgotten their God, and began practicing religion with other nonexistant gods made of wood and stone, they wanted the sex they thought God was denying them.

How does that work GC? From the stories it appears to be the same generation, so how do they go about "forgetting" a god they know is real?
Is that a common occurrence among christians? Wasn't god talking to them in their prayers?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Wow! you guys are way too sensitive. I'm giving all kinds of qualifiers and caveats about what SOME atheists motivations may be and you take it personally. Maybe you would be less upset if there wasn't a tiny bit of truth to what I've said about feeling some shame.

Fact of the matter is you guys can dish it out but you can't take it. Think of all the signatures presented by various atheists. They believe their signatures are true, no matter how crass. I believe my signature is true. And I stand by it. I don't hide behind cute little pseudonyms. I used my real name because I take ownership of every word I say. You find my signature offensive? Deal with it. Turnabout is fair play.

[Esquilax]

Wow! you guys are way too sensitive. I'm giving all kinds of qualifiers and caveats about what SOME atheists motivations may be and you take it personally. Maybe you would be less upset if there wasn't a tiny bit of truth to what I've said about feeling some shame.

It's not being sensitive, it's being angry at yet another dishonest christian, whose chosen methodology for argumentation is yet more lying and twisting, rather than actually proving anything. And this is justified anger: how could it not be, when facing ranks upon ranks of conmen and snakes?

Fact of the matter is you guys can dish it out but you can't take it. Think of all the signatures presented by various atheists. They believe their signature are true, no matter how crass. I believe my signature is true. You find it offensive? Deal with it. Turnabout is fair play.

I don't find it offensive. I just know it's a lie, and I think you're pathetic for promulgating it instead of actually addressing the meat of our contentions. Nothing's worse than a brash christian, pretending that they know it all about things they can't possibly know.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...I think you're pathetic for promulgating it instead of actually addressing the meat of our contentions.

Well, I think I've been more than reasonable, particularly with you, and stated my case with great care multiple times. Just because you are not convinced (and reasonable people can disagree) you feel compelled to painting me in a negative light, i.e. a liar. Even if he is wrong, someone that speaks with conviction about what he honestly believes is not a liar.

[Brakeman]

Fact of the matter is you guys can dish it out but you can't take it. Think of all the signatures presented by various atheists. They believe their signature are true, no matter how crass. I believe my signature is true. You find it offensive? Deal with it. Turnabout is fair play.

Sure Chad we can take it, those other guys are just trying to convince you that you are wrong, trying to change your mind. I feel pretty sure that a mind as "special" as yours isn't going to be changed with a little reasoned discourse.

Say it proudly, whenever you come up with a good atheist slur!

Anyway, we are simply normal people that are unconvinced of the gods proposed around us.
Your version of god, "Swedenborgian" is the funniest. It sounds like some type of rash that grows on a cat's ass.

You know me, I would happily trade barbs with an idiot like you for the fun, but the other guys still care that you might be a poor sad person that has been so terribly brainwashed and they are trying to help you out of your delusion.
Not me, I think that you like your delusion so much that even if you knew it was fake and a con, it wouldn't change you one bit.

[Esquilax]

Well, I think I've been more than reasonable, particularly with you, and stated my case with great care multiple times. Just because you are not convinced (and reasonable people can disagree) you feel compelled to painting me in a negative light, i.e. a liar. Even if he is wrong, someone that speaks with conviction about what he honestly believes is not a liar.

That's just it, though: you can't have a case for stating someone's motivations are different from their stated ones without knowing the person and gauging their actions. I even took it for an attribution error the first time, showed you that the reversed reasoning makes logical sense when considered from the atheist's point of view, but you wouldn't even acknowledge the point. Being mistaken is one thing, but refusing to let go of a claim when presented with an obviously more viable pathway... what else could that be?

And I've seen people refute you on the claim in your signature, but it never stops you making it. It's just infuriating in general, anyway: every time we engage with theists, eventually it comes to the point where they take it as a given that they can speak for us. Could you imagine taking on conversation after conversation where, after stating your position, your opponent just shakes his head and goes, "no, that's not true. You really believe this because..."

There's just no way to do that that isn't hostile and a little dishonest, right from the outset.

[max-greece]

As much as I try to be liberal about marriage I am afraid to say that I can't be. This is obviously not a God thing. As an atheist I have no justification but my own conscience.

Here's the thing. I genuinely feel that allowing them to marry demeans the value of my own marriage.

This has nothing to do with what holes in the human body they choose to use for sexual pleasure, what positions they prefer or whatever other perversions they enjoy.

I should have used the words paraphilia above but to me it is a perversion.

This is all about the state sanctioning and approving unions that to me are abhorrent.

Apart from the obvious impact on their morality of their chosen lifestyle, and the fact that they get ever more vocal over their "lifestyle" choice I particularly worry over the effect this can have on children. - I am not just talking about their own - and heaven knows they find ways of having them but also those of others who might be persuaded to see this as an acceptable life choice.

So I am sorry to say it here but if I am going to be completely honest I don't think Christians should be allowed to marry.

[Ryantology]

FNM and Esq, I invite you to reconsider your opinion in light of Ryanology's profile GIF and his comments. I think it is safe to say those count as evidence that my speculation about motives applies, at the very least, to Ryan.

I am married, and I have always been stridently monogamous in all of my relationships (though, my wife and I have mutually agreed that we could both handle an extra party on rare occasion. This has not yet actually happened). The number of sexual partners I've had in my lifetime is in the single digits. This has never had to do with satisfying a god's demands, even when I was a Christian. It is how I've decided to handle my own love life, for my own reasons. Key words being, "I've decided".

If other people decide to do things differently, and it doesn't involve children, animals or force/coercion, then it is none of my business. I would never marry a man or have multiple spouses, for what, I feel, are very good reasons. The thing is, I recognize that I have no right to presume that my reasons apply to anybody else, nor do I have the right to help force anybody to abstain from such relationships. After all, I would be extremely upset if enough people decided that the specifics of my marriage were 'perverted' that they could attempt to use the legal system to make it so that I could not be married.

I am loudly in support of marriage equality, even though the legalization of gay marriage has no material benefit to me whatsoever. I support sexual freedom even though I have voluntarily closed so many of those doors to myself through marriage. The reason I am vocal about sexual freedom is a reason that you and many other Christians seem to completely not get: it is called 'empathy'.

[Zen Badger]

The wrong interpretation? Or the one you don't like.

Well, if you don't fancy throwing the stones at the kids, we could always throw the kids at the stones

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"

What's the correct interpretation of that one?

You give me an interpretation of the stoning of children that disobey.

The verse you are using, trying to make God look like the bad guy is in actuality a cry from a distraught Israelite who was anguishing over the disaster of his people.

GC

And what about the other bits I quoted?

Are you just going to ignore them?

And keep in mind I was responding to the comment about homosexuality not being biblical with some rather nasty bits that are biblical.

Without any reference to god.