Does atheism poise a safety risk to Christians?

We can talk about anything we want to within the forum rules.

I am looking at this question as a non-secular question as to the poll. No "thought" poses danger. People pose danger. Thus it is a social psychological question, not spiritual one.

In that context, I would readily agree that until about 3 or 4 decades ago, Christians posed a far greater danger to atheists - by far. However, now I believe it the other way around. An analogy would be antifa, some who see violence and threats to silence ideas and words they do not like. The same happens on college campuses - but 100% of the time from the left, and in that I believe more from atheists. Can you give any current example when conservatives have shouted or rioted a liberal off the stage?

The media/press constantly beats down militant or protesting Christians or conservative with intense coverage and attacks, far less than the other way around.

While not of absolutely, I do believe in reality atheists pose greater dangers to Christians if religion/spirituality is a factor, even though atheists are in the minority. That is not a claim over which one is "right" in terms of their beliefs. A person who believes something correctly can still be far more danger to someone who believes the opposite inaccurately.

 

The OP is 100% relevant in terms of current society. You are mixing apples and oranges. Past mixed with present. Reality mixed with words in a book. Ideology mixed with actions. Philosophy mixed with psychology, rather than direct comparisons.

Again, as specific examples. There have been at least 3 mass murders in recent years by atheists specifically murdering Christians for being Christian - and no mass murders the other way around. You claim there is nothing relevant to any discussion about that?

 

I can't think of any significant numbers of atheists who pose a threat today.

 

I will agree to "significant number" as a total percentage.

 

Communism might even work if all the participants were active "believers" in the Body of Christ". It's not that way.

 

Oh, no, don't get me wrong, I have serious doubts about voluntary communism. It seems to chiefly work in monastic life and pre-agrarian hunter/gatherer societies. There's a reason I prefer capitalism. Even my own religion, which places a heavy emphasis on monasticism, depends on business-minded laity to keep the enter enterprise afloat. Christian monastics often relied on wealthy donors as well. Just pointing out that communism doesn't necessarily mean government authoritarianism or violent revolt. Marxism does, but there were plenty of communists who argued against Marx. I have a soft spot for Kropotkin, especially since he only advocated a peaceful, voluntary version of communism and actually poked holes in Marx's critique of capitalism. His main failure was actually a Trump-like insistence that we produce everything ourselves instead of trading with others, when capitalism has already shown it is more efficient to trade.

 

I can think of quite a few conservative terrorists in recent years who murdered specifically based on their far-right ideology. More than 3. Does that mean conservativism poses a safety risk? Of course not. And honestly, I can think of two of your examples in which it was highly doubtful they were murdering Christians just for being Christian. Regardless, they are extreme outliers. 3 examples hardly constituted "atheist psychology".

 

That you are obsessed to the point of trolling my posts is becoming glaringly obvious.

 

Now you are denying the content of your own vapid posts!

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Divine_fallacy.html

 

You are named "Pastafarian" and stop at a restaurant while traveling. At the register, you realize you forgot your wallet and can't pay. Someone hears this and say's he'll pay it. He tells you that his name is "Flying Spaghetti Monster."

On the forum you tell the story of someone calling himself "Flying Spaghetti Monster" paid a check because you forgot your wallet.

1. Do you know someone calling himself Flying Spaghetti Monster paid a restaurant check for you? Yes you do and as absolutely fact.

2. Do I know for a certain fact that someone calling himself Flying Spaghetti Monster paid a check for you? No, I really don't. I wasn't there. I may believe you, but I don't know it is true as a certain fact.

3. There is no basis for me to say, "I know as an absolutely certain fact that you are not telling the truth and no one calling himself Flying Spaghetti Monster paid a check for you."

For the same logic, I can truthfully say "I don't know if there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster." However, I cannot truthfully say "I know for a fact there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster." No person is omniscient and that it what it would require to make that claim.

By your own simplistic illogic you have just established that the Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist because you can't prove that it doesn't.

 

You provided ZERO EVIDENCE of this imaginary "danger" in any form whatsoever.

No, your rants and disinformation do not count as nonpartisan substantiated credible evidence.

 

Your baseless allegations in the OP were completely and utterly debunked.

 

I did not (NOT) write the word, "divine" in one single post I've written in this thread!. YOU can characterize through misattribution anything a person writes to suit your own subjective interpretation, and I've observed that doing this seems to be your 'stock-in-trade'; otherwise, it seems impossible for you to formulate a coherent rebuttal without first reinterpreting what another person has stated.

Oh, but please -- delight yourself with your own self-anointed, self-attributed 'superiority' if this amuses you, misconstrue anything you wish, and lie about what another person has, in fact, written, exactly as you have about my imaginary use of the word, "divine".

I told you that my own personal religious 'views', although Christian, are quite different from those held by others -- and, I have not (NOT) attempted to 'evangelize' to you or 'proselytize' you. Moreover, I have not (NOT) tried to construct any fantasy about atheists being any sort of 'danger' to Christians (thread topic).

I'm through discussing 'atheism' with you in this thread, but I certainly won't shrink from discussing other topics with you in other threads.. Now you can crow about how you've achieved another one of your gratuitous debate 'victories' here if you wish... it doesn't matter to me in the slightest... I know now what I'm dealing with when I am in the presence of a mentality like yours....
Now, "...have a splendid day... who knows... it may be your last.... "

 

Then I can say you are clear in your messages you hate atheists??. There is a difference between disliking the message while still liking the messenger. I have a feeling you might be an extremist because you can’t seem to see anything in between
I have no idea what you were talking about when you say someone invited me to go on the attack. Your hypocrisy is my motivation

 

I always said Obama is the opposite of God. God gets all the credit and none of the blame and Obama got all the blame and none of the credit.
I also think it is quite arrogant of you to say that a person who believes in God is right and that an atheist cannot know there is no God.
It sounds like you saved that baby but I want to why a benevolent God would make you suffer so

 

Your semantic quibbling does not alter the content of the logical fallacy that you were using.

Nothing was "misattributed" either. Here are your actual posts and everyone can see exactly how your inane postulation fits the definition of the divine fallacy.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-to-christians.519837/page-15#post-1068363337

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...atheism-part-2.496870/page-36#post-1068308558

That you cannot even acknowledge the illogical and vacuous content of your own posts says volumes.

 

Never said a person who believes in God is right. What I wrote is I don't know.
The logic is simple and obvious.

 

Actually to believe in the supernatural God you have to suspend all logic and so many things in the Bible require you to suspend all logic.

 

I am content to stand entirely on the exact words that I actually wrote, whether you choose to or not. I have taken your measure, and I know now what I'm dealing with in you....

 

Sounds like a response one human cell would tell another who said "we are part of vast powerful creature who does things that help or hurt." The other cell responding "that's illogical and crazy."

Virtually everyone, spiritual or not, discusses metaphysical topics as simplistically as if they are amoebas.

If you were in a university class on Eastern religions for tests I guess all you would need to write is "They were all illogical" and turn it in.

 

I

I was referring to this message, the first message after the OP of this thread. I do not hate atheists. I do not hate you. I've praised you on the forum. Do you remember? For your work with rape victims. My only point was a response to your message, which you are known to having very outspoken anti-Christian and anti-all religious people, which happens to be about 99.9% of all people to ever live and probably 95%+ of all people in the world now alive

How oh how could the human race have so advanced compared to others, when virtually all humans to ever live were religious and far as we know no other creatures are. Do you claim the humans are the very bottom of the evolutionary ladder?

I can't remember if this applies to you, but dozens of times when I've defended Christians or Christianity I am then declared one of those ignorant Christians who believes in the man in the sky, despite my having posted dozens of times I'm not.

Message #2 on this thread is what I was referring to:

 

That does not logically make sense at all. People should take philosophy first semester classes. Start with "If all As are Bs and all Bs are Cs, are all Cs an A?

Again, in your example I would know as fact someone calling himself the Flying Spaghetti Monster paid my check. I would not know if s/he IS a Flying Spaghetti Monster unless he was Spaghetti, a monster and could fly.

You would not know if what I said happened was true or not - so would have not basis to state as fact whether or not it is true.

The human mind and reality are both quite complex. We only know reality by very limited sensory perception and thru an anything but perfect or consistent brain computer. Technology allowed to somewhat expand our senses such as being able to detect/see X-rays, microwaves, objects far away in space, micro organisms etc.

Dreams are reality to us - can be as real as reality itself - until we wake up.

In one Eastern philosophy there is the concept of "The Tiger on the wall." If you look long enough and hard enough to see a Tiger on the wall, if you can totally focus your mind solely on doing so, you will come to see it. Is it then real? As real as real can be - to you. Only you.

Even with many in legitimate science they accept that metaphysical realities - reality beyond perceivable physical reality - does exist.

 

Do any of you atheists find it difficult as a human to live among other humans, when you see 95% of other creatures of your species on this planet and 99% that have ever lived are all illogical crazy idiots and only the few of you are rational and right?

 

Mass murder is imaginary danger?

 

Not once have I said that a person who believes in God is right. It is logical fact no one can say their is no God as an absolute fact - though the person may absolutely believe that and that belief may be accurate.

Why does the existence of a God or gods necessitate that they are purely benevolent? I know of NO religion of such a God or gods. Why would a godless reality make me suffer?

I don't know that I saved my baby. Maybe yes. Maybe my ignorant almost killed her. The account went on to more than that, a medical team visited us a few months later to make it one of their case studies. They were trying to convince doctors and paramedics to not give up too soon. The newborns, rarely, can go longer than then normal without oxygen or heartbeat, like they go into some hybernating mode. Told us in one case revived almost a half hour later. They also told me they know of no example of a frank breach being born successfully alive on a home delivery - ever - and often the mother dying too by bleeding out - nor in hospitals as policy law strictly requires a C-section.

However, they also asked me if I had ever held her by her feet and slapped her bottom? I had read much on child birthing as all but our last child was born at home to use a midwife. Once before the midwife (English, certified and always with 1 or 2 trainees) did not arrive in time. In that instance, my reading up did save that child's life. I knew to reach in the mouth which would insure there was no film over the mouth and nose, and the throat clear. Some newborns die because there is a thin wet film over the face that is hard to see. For that child I tore that film as it was there - but you really can't see it.

I had read of slapping the bottom somewhere or saw it on some film probably, but in my racing mind searching for a solution the thought of hitting her never crossed my mind. Hell would freeze over before I could hit any child, though in principle I do not oppose some forms of corporal punishment circumstantially, just I could never do it. Though I got it under control some years ago, for own youth as an adult if I saw a man abusing a child physically I'd violently react. Very violently. Out of control fury, spontaneous emotional reaction. The longest I was ever held in jail (no convictions) was for that, they held me until it certain that man would technically live.

Maybe when I held her up telling her to sing to me, that had the slap on the bottom effect? What was it that brought me to do that? Intellect? Dumb luck? A metaphysical force? Some of the strange views I have or odd things sometimes I said to my children? When tiny babies cry it annoys most people. I hear beautiful singing.

In one Eastern philosophy/religion, they believe newborns minds are clear of all worldly diversions, so they can see angel- like beings around them - why they smile and make talking like sounds of words no one can understand - seeing and talking with them. But then the physical world and all of it fill their minds and they then can only see physical realities of this world.

The next and last child was also pre-known to be breach, though not backwards. I refused to allow this to be a home birth, not to go thru this. Found the best hospital I could find by research, traveled a 1000 miles for it. I would not go thru this again. All breaches are C-sections under AMA policy. She absolute forbid them to do so. And she was starting to go into labor To their saying they can't do it under law, she told them "then turn the baby." The doctor told her they can't, but a shift chief of staff said actually there is a way in history midwives sometimes could. She told them "do that." AMA policy was silent on it, no hospital they could find had ever tried. It was their asses if they tried and it cost a life.

She told them the they are supposed to be the best there is, so many of them, and in the hospital? Why can't they do it since I had done a frank breach delivery at home. THAT got there attention. They looked it up. "that was you two!?" How could they, known as among the best in the world and even a training hospital collectively be lesser than her and her husband alone in a more extreme birth situation?

They were in a pickle. Her going into labor, AMA forbidding anything but C-section on any breach birth and her standing her ground forbidding it, no time to get a court order - and her saying "then my husband will do it" - to my shaking my head no and something they certainly could not allow - but probably could not stop it if she went outside and delivered on the yard? They, one of the greatest birthing centers? Can't do what some midwives could do 500 years ago? But harm her or the baby and they got hell to pay with the medical board and maybe a million dollar lawsuit too.

They noticed that unlike all the other women crying and in such pain, in contractions she was perfectly calm doing her breathing. One time the head of the whole sector, an old doctor, stood in the doorway just watching her calmly breath thru it. It also convinced them she was so strong willed they'd never get her C-section permission.

I won't go on, but when this last child was born the department head, head of the pediatrics of the university also there, all 3 shift chiefs of staff, doctors, nurses and medical students filled the room packed shoulder to shoulder. Medical history was being made. Numerous doctors signed off probably hoping this protected them maybe somewhat if things went wrong. That birth also became a case study. Two doctors working together turned the baby successfully thru very physically powerful external manipulation and then a natural birth. Just before the push, they told her they can't let me do, but they could bring in a midwife.

To this 30 year veteran doctor head of department, she told him its not that hard to do so he probably can do it ok, just be careful how he held his head to not harm his neck - her telling him how to do it. One of the other chief staffers said, "Doctor, are you sure you know how to catch a baby? Don't drop it, they can be slippery." The whole room broken into laughter. A first in a hospital and another case study birth for the books.

Religion, spirituality, metaphysics all can be abused by people. Any ideology - atheism,political, social - doesn't matter what it is. But it also can cause people to explore their minds and alternative realities they otherwise would not. There is a lot of stupid, even evil, in religions. But there also is a lot of insight and mental challenges that are very positive. Just saying "there is no god, all religions are ignorant" seems shallow and stubborn thinking. What can make a religion good is the good stuff up it. The "truth" of that religion may be the goodness within it and in that inner voice of people goodness, maybe that is God.

I engage in these kindergarten level discussions and debates on thef of metaphysics, but that is what they are: stubborn certain simple mind stuff.