RE: Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion
November 1, 2015 at 2:02 am
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2015 at 2:04 am by TheRocketSurgeon.
Edit Reason: Punctuation!!
)
I like how he tells me (and all the rest of you just like me) that I don't understand Christianity, that I wasn't "really" a Christian, etc.
Like I don't know exactly what I am. I'd match my theology up with anyone. No, that's not an invitation; I don't think you are an honest enough person to bring the necessary degree of dual-sided evaluation it would take to truly discuss any issue without letting your biases cloud your judgment. You'd be fired from your first debate squad in a week.
Yes, I know you have already said that it is we who have the bias, and we who don't understand... but the fact is that, whether or not we had the details of the faith "correct", we have been where you are, thinking and talking as you do.
We know your point of view. Do you really know ours? I have never seen an example of the bad arguments to which you always refer; I only ever see quibbling details, or you just plain ignoring when people get your ideologies just right while you seek for anyone who says anything wrong. I believe that objective evaluation would find that you are the one approaching each element of this place and the discussions had here with a filter that changes the way you take in and process our information.
I think, in short, that you are seeing phantoms where none exist, or at least allowing your observer bias to "count the hits and ignore the misses" so you think that the tiny fraction of people here are in fact the majority. Many, many here know as much as you or anyone you know, about the history and scholarship of religion, especially Christianity. I am not claiming to be among them, by far, and yet I know I have never seen you state one thing that I do not already know about Christianity, barring minor doctrinal differences.
Like I don't know exactly what I am. I'd match my theology up with anyone. No, that's not an invitation; I don't think you are an honest enough person to bring the necessary degree of dual-sided evaluation it would take to truly discuss any issue without letting your biases cloud your judgment. You'd be fired from your first debate squad in a week.
Yes, I know you have already said that it is we who have the bias, and we who don't understand... but the fact is that, whether or not we had the details of the faith "correct", we have been where you are, thinking and talking as you do.
We know your point of view. Do you really know ours? I have never seen an example of the bad arguments to which you always refer; I only ever see quibbling details, or you just plain ignoring when people get your ideologies just right while you seek for anyone who says anything wrong. I believe that objective evaluation would find that you are the one approaching each element of this place and the discussions had here with a filter that changes the way you take in and process our information.
I think, in short, that you are seeing phantoms where none exist, or at least allowing your observer bias to "count the hits and ignore the misses" so you think that the tiny fraction of people here are in fact the majority. Many, many here know as much as you or anyone you know, about the history and scholarship of religion, especially Christianity. I am not claiming to be among them, by far, and yet I know I have never seen you state one thing that I do not already know about Christianity, barring minor doctrinal differences.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
