Thursday, 19 May 2011

What Does Rapture Theology Say About Christians?

Why do some Christians crave for the 'Rapture'? What do they think it'll do for them?

And what does this tell us about their morality and their 'Christian love' for their fellow man?
  • The greatest event they can imagine is their god destroying all life on Earth, especially those humans who don't share their 'faith'.
  • They believe that they alone, of all the humans who have ever lived, and of all the human societies throughout history, have got it right; everyone else, without exception, got it wrong.
  • They believe they will be given a grandstand seat to watch everyone else suffering eternal agony, and that this will be a reward for being such good people.
  • They believe they are such good people that they deserve to have everything for themselves when all the 'undeserving' humans have been killed off.
  • They believe they alone are good enough to occupy an exalted place alongside their god whom they believe is creator and ruler of the entire Universe. No one else is, or has ever been, that special.
  • They know this because they have been told by someone else that it's true and despite the complete lack of any corroborating evidence. They believe it simply because they can't imagine NOT being that special.

They actually think that watching other people, and even their loved ones, suffering unimaginable horrors is a reward!

And these Christians condescend to lecture other people on matters of morality, ethics and love, and demand the right to meddle in our legislatures, our courts, our schools, our science, and in all aspects of our lives, including what we do in the privacy of our own homes...

[Later note] If any Christians feel they've been unfairly tarred with the same brush, perhaps they would explain why they don't believe in the Second Coming of Jesus.





submit to reddit



51 comments :

  1. Rosa,

    Touché, but let me just address a few things.

    1. Not true. What I ache to have is a world without evil. Evil will perish, and yes that means evil people also. There will be no more pain and suffering. Its a good thing.

    2. Wrong. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God. You all know what is at stake here. Which side are you on. Evil's or good?

    3. Wrong again. Well some do believe that but I do not. What you speak of is pre-tribulation rapture. Jesus comes twice (once for his people and then again to judge the world) I do not believe in such a thing as its not Biblical. I am more of a post-tribulation Rapture believer. It just seems to fit better and is certainly more Biblical.

    4. You do understand billions of people have ALREADY died off and YOU are reaping the benefits of that fact today, Selfish. :7) Is this a relativist fallacy?

    5. Not at all! I am certainly not worthy of His grace. But that is the definition of grace now isn't it? Because God gave us grace, there is a way to avoid that situation.

    If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and called the police, and I went to jail, that is justice. Justice is getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, but you did not call the police, and you let me go, that is mercy. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and you not only did not call the police, but you forgave me, and you gave me the bike, that is grace. Grace is getting what you do not deserve.

    The reason God is gracious to us, has nothing to do with what is in us. Instead, it has everything to do with what is in God: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) We receive grace because of God's goodness. It is not because we deserve it.

    6. Complete absence of any corroborating evidence? Are you kidding? Rosa, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain He exists.

    My question to you now is, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    >>And these people condescend to lecture other people on matters of morality, ethics and love, and demand the right to meddle in our legislatures, our courts, our schools, our science, and in all aspects of our lives, including what we do in the privacy of our own homes...

    Because We appeal to our creator instead of some arbitrary subjective morality which is all you have in an atheistic worldview. You cannot say something is "wrong" without invoking or moral law or standard. God is that standard.

    ReplyDelete
  2. IOW, you assume that your evidence-free superstition gives you a superior moral authority to which all other people should defer.

    And you regard THAT arrogance as a moral stance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow D.A.N. Try taking a step back and looking at your assertions through our eyes. They make no sense whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rosa, I think you should avoid asserting that "all" Christians believe these things. Actually very few do. You are only considering the beliefs of the lunatic fringe. Please, do some homework on what the majority of Christians actually believe. You are not doing the cause of atheism any favours by presenting as "facts" so many points that are clearly wrong and evidently not properly researched.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Frances.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to list the main Christian denominations which don't believe in the Second Coming of Christ, please.

    As I understand it, the only difference between them and Harold Camping's cult is over the date.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Philip,

    >>Wow D.A.N. Try taking a step back and looking at your assertions through our eyes. They make no sense whatsoever.

    Yup. I certainly did for years, as an Atheist. The thing is that your argument is not with me, it is with Scripture.

    “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” ~1 Corinthians 1: 18-20

    “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” ~1 Corinthians 2:14

    "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." ~Hebrews 11:1

    ReplyDelete
  7. D.A.N

    Quoting from a book held to be holy by a minority of the world's population, but for which you have presented no supporting evidence that it is anything but mythology, is not a valid argument.

    Please try to confine yourelf to arguing with evidence. Any further spamming of this blog with preaching will be removed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rosa,

    >>Please try to confine yourelf to arguing with evidence.

    Correction, you meant to say: Please try to confine yourelf to arguing with evidence that I am willing to accept.

    Denying evidence because one is resistant to the evidence is not a valid argument. Evidence does indeed exists. Evidence that is denied or ignored is still evidence. Its the same mentality that gets people to bury bodies in their back yard, its evidence that they try to cover up instead of dealing with it. Go and try to deny gravity, see if you float. If not, your reasoning is flawed. You need a much bigger shovel to bury the plethora of evidence for God.

    ReplyDelete
  9. D.A.N

    I'm afraid this blog is not the place to deal with your apparent inability to provide a single scrap of the 'plethora' of evidence.

    However, if you feel confident enough, you could try the honest method for converting Atheists in another blog entry here:

    http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2011/04/do-you-want-to-convert-atheist.html

    It will require evidence and honesty. I think people will understand if you can't meet those requirements though...

    BTW, quotes from your favourite book of myths aren't evidence. If you require help defining 'evidence' let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rosa,

    >>It will require evidence and honesty.

    Yes, Yes, we've heard it all before, Still No Evidence!

    >>I think people will understand if you can't meet those requirements though...

    Biblical requirements are to speak the truth, not to convert people. You want us to do something unbiblical if you wish us to convert/convince you. Besides I thought you were an Atheist. If you are, then its not possible to have evidence for God. Are you trying to play tricky games here? Any evidence presented would be retorted with "Well, that is not evidence for God. Because I have another explanation for all of those things..." Silly Atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  11. D.A.N.

    Don't you get embarrassed having to make so many excuses for not being able to substantiate any of your assertions?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Im a Hindu by birth and an atheist by choice.I dont think in terms of god.I simply believe that theres no 'being' more intelligent than humans in planet earth.Theres nothing a human cant do.To all the believers "IN WHAT ASPECT OF LIFE DO HUMANS NEED THE HELP OF A SUPERIOR BEING(assuming such a being exists)???? " .

    Since im not a very good writer ill post a link.It was a written by a person who died of cancer on the May 4th 2011. He was 42 years old then.
    http://penmachine-bu.appspot.com/2007/02/not-new-thing.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. I do enjoy a solid bit if circular logic '...the bible is the word of God, I know this since the bible says it is, and the bible wouldn't lie because the bible is the word of god...'
    And if I stole a bike, I'd expect to get out of jail eventually, not be tortured forever.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cross-posted with attribution to:
    http://www.bad-religion.info/what-does-rapture-theology-say-about-christians

    Great article.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Roger,

    >>I do enjoy a solid bit if circular logic

    Is 'begging the question' absolutely fallacious? If so, how?

    Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

    >>And if I stole a bike, I'd expect to get out of jail eventually, not be tortured forever.

    If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and called the police, and I went to jail, that is justice. Justice is getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, but you did not call the police, and you let me go, that is mercy. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and you not only did not call the police, but you forgave me, and you gave me the bike, that is grace. Grace is getting what you do not deserve.

    The reason God is gracious to us, has nothing to do with what is in us. Instead, it has everything to do with what is in God: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) We receive grace because of God's goodness. It is not because we deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. D.A.N

    Any further abuse of this blog with preaching will be deleted.

    If you have a compulsion to try to please your imaginary friend, with whom you seem to have an abusive relationship, please do it in a more appropriate place.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rosa,

    You invited me to comment. I commented to what Roger said. What you call preaching is actually a conversation about God. Its your post's subject. If it feels like that water felt to the witch of the east, in the Wizard of O.Z. then may I suggest you pick a different subject. If you wish I stop talking about this subject, stop inviting over to discuss these things. *pshaw

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rosa,

    You invited me to comment. I commented to what Roger said. What you call preaching is actually a conversation about God. Its your post's subject. If it feels like that water felt to the witch of the east, in the Wizard of O.Z. then may I suggest you pick a different subject. If you wish I stop talking about this subject, stop inviting me over to discuss these things. *pshaw

    ReplyDelete
  19. D.A.N.

    You appear not to understand the difference between discussing and irrelevant preaching.

    Posting a random irrelevant quote from an unproven book, as though it's some sort of automatically clinching cover-all magical proof of anything and everything, is not discussing as normal people would understand it.

    If you feel compelled to impress your imaginary friend by prostrating yourself before it, please do so elsewhere. This is not the appropriate place.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What dear old D.A.N. is doing is what all Christians of his calibre do: impose idiocy on themselves.

    It's tragic really, to see otherwise reasonable seeming people flat out refuse to see reason and logic in favour of their superstition.

    D.A.N.'s insistence that the Bible is evidence and that we 'assume' there is no god is so childish it's pathetic to the extreme. He doesn't believe in a great many things, like the pink unicorn in my garage for example and yet sees no problem with accusing the rest of us who don't believe in his fairy god father of having so assume there is no god.

    That there is no god is the default assumption. D.A.N. doesn't believe that the 3000 odd other gods of human invention exist does he? No. There is no god like there is no Santa Clause and until somebody proves otherwise, that is the way it will be. That D.A.N. even tries to argue by stating our assumption about his god is wrong while holding the very same assumption not only for thousands of other gods but literally millions of other things is... why, it's hypocritical. The number one Christian property.

    That D.A.N. would insist that a self contradictory, reality contradictory book of dubious origin is evidence for anything other than bronze age creation myths is also pretty sad and pathetic. I can't help but wonder if he's even read it all himself.

    D.A.N. and his ilk are adults acting like children and should be ridiculed for believing ridiculous things without any evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Onefuriousllama,

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Agreed. A good example, in fact, of the God Delusion, where the sufferer sees no problem with applying a standard of 'reasoning' and logic to his own favourite god which he readily sees as absurd and unreasonable when applied to others.

    And never ever consider that one needs to exclude all possible natural causes for anything before considering the super-natural, and only THEN should one turn one's mind to which particular supernatural explanation of all possible supernatural ones, is the only possible one, if indeed there is only one.

    Nope, the deluded just plunge straight in with their preferred answer to everything, and then spend all their mental energy trying to rationalise that preference by rigorously refusing to consider any other.

    ReplyDelete
  23. D.A.N.

    Evidence. It's what we call 'science'.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rosa,

    As a buddy pointed out, "As far as science goes, science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, or no scientific prediction could be made. Problem is, no atheistic worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science."

    How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant, like reason, mathematics, and laws of logic. On what basis you proceeds with the assumption that they WILL hold?

    While the Christ the Word is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for truths that are absolute, immaterial, universals like the laws of logic and reason.

    With regard to logic, please tell me how your adopted worldview accounts for those laws, how you know they are valid, how you know they are universal, and on what basis you expect them to hold 2 seconds from now?

    ReplyDelete
  25. D.A.N

    In other words, you've managed to rationalise away reality when it doesn't suit you and you see no problem with using an electronic computer to tell people over the Internet that your superstitious guesses trump science.

    And still the refusal to consider that YOU need to prove YOUR implicit claims that:

    1. All possible natural explanations can be ruled out so ONLY a supernatural one should be considered.

    2. That the ONLY possible supernatural explanation, of all possible supernatural explanations, is your favourite god, the existence of which you have never managed to provide a single iota of supporting evidence.

    In fact, all you have done is show us how you maintain your delusion and cope with the inevitable theophobia, by trying to placate your imaginary 'friend' by abandoning all intellectual integrity and hoping it looks kindly on you in appreciation.

    For a grown adult who, presumably still manages to live a normal life, and so IS capable of rational thinking, this infantile compartmentalised thinking would be amusing if it wasn't so proudly displayed and eagerly foisted on the young and vulnerable with such enthusiasm.

    But thank you for showing such a fine example of the God Delusion, the intellectual moral degeneracy which it causes and the mental disorder it relies on to propagate and sustain itself.

    ReplyDelete
  26. >>the existence of which you have never managed to provide a single iota of supporting evidence.

    Your very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God. Now, assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

    >> the intellectual moral degeneracy which it causes and the mental disorder it relies on to propagate and sustain itself.

    Go look up what a relativist fallacy is. You might find it enlightening with this claim of yours. ;7)

    ReplyDelete
  27. D.A.N.

    I'm afraid something plucked out of the air doesn't become evidence for anything just because you assert it is.

    Once again you have shown an example of the intellectual dishonesty you need to use in order to maintain your delusion and placate your imaginary friend.

    I note that you completely ignored the requirement to prove that a natural explanation is impossible before invoking a super-natural one, and that once again you bypassed the step of showing that your favourite supernatural explanation is the ONLY possible one of all the infinite array of possible supernatural explanations.

    This was, of course, entirely predictable.

    Thank you for your co-operation with exposing the infantile superstitions and mental disorders which pass as religions, and the mind control they exercise over their unfortunate victims.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rosa,

    OK, to help you to avoid "something plucked out of the air doesn't become evidence for anything just because you assert it is."

    I have two questions:

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ALSO

    How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis you proceeds with the assumption that they WILL hold?

    ReplyDelete
  29. D.A.N.

    Nice attempt at combining the God of the Gaps, fallacy, the argument from ignorance fallacy and the false dichotomy fallacy.

    Will you even try the honest method and show:

    1. Why no natural explanation is possible.

    2. Why your favourite god is the ONLY possible supernatural explanation?

    Or will you just keep repeating yourself hoping against hope that it'll all come true if you assert it often enough?

    But thank you for yet another example of the intellectual dishonesty upon which your superstitious delusion relies.

    I rather think you've made that point with sufficient force now, albeit unwittingly, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  30. D.A.N.

    By the way, I have produced a handy guide for Christian Apologists which contains most of the tricks and fallacies you use, and added some used by others.

    You might find this useful: http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2011/08/so-youve-decided-to-be-apologist-for.html

    ReplyDelete
  31. D.A.N.

    Forgot to say, make sure you use the Christian version as there is also an Muslim version. The only real differences are that the words God, Jesus and Bible have been changed to Allah, Mohammed and Qur'an, otherwise the 'arguments', 'reasoning' and fallacies are identical.

    ReplyDelete
  32. >>Or will you just keep repeating yourself hoping against hope that it'll all come true if you assert it often enough?

    DUDE!!!!!

    Rosa, You will NOT answer my questions. Its YOUR avoidance that leads me to repeating the question. *pshaw

    Don't go blaming me because you're too scared to address such questions.

    Just answer the questions and we can continue this discussion and I can address your question thoroughly. Otherwise, keep INJECTING your "conspiracy theory" that everyone is against you.

    Everyone here can see that is what you're doing. Let me guess, you will not allow this to go through in your "moderation".

    If you do you will, at least, show some signs of hope in pursuit of truth.

    Whatever, dork. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  33. D.A.N.

    The trick you are now trying of diverting attention from your own failures by demanding answers to an irrelevant question is detailed in that guide book.

    How about adopting honesty and seeing how you fare, or have you ruled that approach out as being counter-productive?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rosa,

    Take your own advice girl:

    How about adopting honesty and seeing how you fare, or have you ruled that approach out as being counter-productive?

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ALSO

    How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis you proceeds with the assumption that they WILL hold?

    ReplyDelete
  35. D.A>N.

    I see you're still relying on the tired old tactic of demanding I answer an irrelevant question to divert attention from your own abject failure.

    Just to remind you, your task is to:

    Firstly, show that no natural explanation is possible so you need to look for a supernatural one.

    Secondly, prove that, of all possible supernatural explanations, ONLY the god you are promoting could have done it.

    I appreciate this is impossible for you so you have to avoid trying otherwise you won't be able to avoid admitting failure even to yourself.

    You see, this is how we know that your 'faith' is just a paranoid delusion which you are too afraid to confront through theophobia.

    Thank you for your help once again but how many times are you going to present that evidence to the world?

    BTW, that guide I showed you has a lot more tricks you can use, if you're also finding your small selection rather tedious.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rosa,

    There you go YET AGAIN. You crack me up. How do you KNOW my "tasks" without accounting for that SOURCE of knowledge? Otherwise, it breaks down to more bare assertions.

    Your comments also reveals a belief in the existence of knowledge, which is certain by definition. How is this possible in an "atheistic" worldview?

    Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?

    Someone once told me that "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing [her] opinion." I guess that was proven true today.

    >>Secondly, prove that, of all possible supernatural explanations, ONLY the god you are promoting could have done it.

    Assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God, because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.

    Rosa, I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

    Its pointless in trying to show you the truth so that you can repent, you will not be able to see the truth UNTIL you repent. Huge difference.

    The most important point here, that you are unable to UNDERSTAND or know the truth UNTIL you repent. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after.

    ReplyDelete
  37. D.A.N.

    Since you appear to believe the last player to leave the field is the winner and since you seem to have made a hobby out of demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty and how your superstition depends on it, I'll let you have the last word.

    I note with quiet satisfaction that you've again avoided dealing with the simple task you need to complete to show you have a credible case, so can I just say thank you again for helping me demonstrate the delusional nature of your infantile Bronze Age superstition, devised as it was by people who hadn't even invented the wheel.

    Thank you. You've been a great help to Atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Well this was my point all along. To show you how illogical your own worldview is.

    Salvation is not just for the next life Rosa - Not only did Christ's death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now. Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ's payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  39. D.A.N.

    Any more gratuitous preaching here will be removed, even if you feel it's the only way you can curry favour with the imaginary friend you obviously fear and feel compelled to placate at every opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  40. It would seem that D.A.N. wants an explanation of how we know what we believe to be fact: i.e., how do we explain that all of "God's miracles" are not just that. There is this thing called Science. And looking for it is not hard to do- just go visit your local library or bookstore, and there are volumes upon volumes of how we come to our conclusion that the world, the universe and everything else has been explained by years of hard work and experimentation in labs, both in man made and natural settings.
    D.A.N. says, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only expressing (her) opinion." The difference in his opinion and an Athiests is ours is not "opinion", but fact, supported by irrefutable evidence, unlike the "opinion" of his fairy tale. It would seem that the friend that he was referring to was speaking about his belief, which is what an opinion is. Ours is backed up by physical evidence- just look in an electron microscope sometime!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Maniacal Mark ,

    >>There is this thing called Science.

    I already pointed out that, science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, or no scientific prediction could be made. Problem is, no atheistic worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science.

    Insistently, William Craig pointed out there are 5 things that cannot be scientifically evidenced, but we're all rational to accept:

    1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math.
    2. Metaphysical truths. Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
    3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value
    4. Esthetic judgments. Beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven
    5. Science ITSELF cannot be justified by the scientific method. Its also permeated with unprovable assumptions.

    You are doing what we call the "cult of science" Science DEPENDS on the peer review right? Well...

    "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~http://bit.ly/3gUcsN

    >>The difference in his opinion and an Athiests is ours is not "opinion", but fact, supported by irrefutable evidence, unlike the "opinion" of his fairy tale.

    Erm, 'evidence' also presupposes ‘logic, knowledge, and truth” care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?

    >> Ours [opinions] is backed up by physical evidence- just look in an electron microscope sometime!

    This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that your knowledge is "backed up by physical evidence". Are you?

    ReplyDelete
  42. D.A.N.

    I was amused to see you using a computer over the Internet to try to fool people that science is all wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Rosa,

    I think your fallacious argument needs examining a bit.

    Science is true because internet works? Really?

    Anyway, you do understand it was believers in God and a Christian that created the scientific method, don't you? All the major Universities were founded by Christians.

    I want to get back to that core belief. Secular science has infiltrated, hijacked, and completely corrupted that system. Rendering it useless. Now, its perverted to its core. I just saw a few documentaries one was "Fat Head" that explained about the corruption in science very well. The other was "Generation RX" which is a perfect example of how Science is corrupted when they regulate themselves, especially when cash is involved. Which is ALWAYS. My point is that all science is not good.

    Science has not moved us anywhere, like Christ Hedges pointed out, "Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history."

    Hedges later added in the interview "That's what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race. I mean, that's not science. It's the cult of science, and I think the New Atheists also make that leap from science into the cult of science, and that's a problem." ~Chris Hedges

    My point is that, science may be your god, but your god is a corrupt system of agendas. Immoral secular scientists take the credit for all of that.

    Principled, morally grounded and God fearing, scientists are not the problem here. The secularization of a sound system was.

    ReplyDelete
  44. When I said "Rendering it useless." that may have been a little bit rantish.

    A better, more rational and honest, position would be "Rendering it untrustworthy."

    Carry on.

    ReplyDelete
  45. D.A.N

    Have you seen the handy guide I wrote for Christian apologists such as you? You'll see it covers most of the fallacies and attempted deceptions of vulnerable and gullible people you normally use. You're welcome to use it but bear in mind that most normal people can see through the sophistry even if you close your eyes and wish really hard that they don't.

    Let me know if there was anything I missed.

    BTW, be careful to download the Christian version as there is an Islamic version too. It's not terribly important but a few of the words are different between the two versions.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Can't we have just one person to sit and think and conclude: "you know what, I can't answer those questions".I can't explain why my god must be the only true one, which means what is one of the others, or none of the others is the right one? What if its none? People need to be honest with themselves before trying to be honest to others.

    ReplyDelete
  47. D.A.N.

    Try explaining to me the difference between the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who has his own Gospel, your version of God, who has his own version of the Bible, Yaweh and his documented "evidence, Allah, who has the Quran, Zeus, Odin, Ra and every other of the 5,000 or so "Gods" that are worshipped today by people with limited imaginations. All of these are seen as creators.
    BTW: Saying "Because the Bible say so" is not an acceptable argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think DAN gave up trying to use dishonesty and evasion to convert people here. He's probably trying his deception on a more credulous audience somewhere.

      Delete
    2. Is FSM part of your worldview John? Or are you speaking of hypothetical worldviews?

      My Atheistic worldview does not allow for FSM. You see, if you bring into the argument hypothetical worldviews then so can I, and we get nowhere. Now, how are you absolutely certain your worldview is the correct one? Feelings? Faith? Hunch? Evidences? Or dogma?

      If you're honest, to yourself more then anyone else, could you be wrong about your worldview that is dirived solely by autonomous reasoning? I am sure you will grant mankind's fallibility so what is making you so certain, to the point of battling and defending it religiously?

      Part two of that question is, how do you reconcile the validity of your senses, memory, and reasoning with your fallibility?

      Thanks

      Delete
  48. Wow. That D.A.N. guy just does not get it....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get what? That you are barely asserting something without evidence? Oh, we get it. That I won't accept your dogma that you all spew out? Well, you might have a valid point there. :)

      Delete

Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers or by known sock-puppet accounts.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics