1. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    28 Mar '14 06:35
    "Interacting with 'Angry Atheists'"

    "One interesting, spiritual/sociological phenomenon I have witnessed over the years is that different groups often respond with herd-like predictably when witnessed to. Mormons tend to be very nice no matter how assertive one becomes in exposing the follies of Mormonism. Jehovah's Witnesses inevitably see any interchange with orthodox believers as intellectual combat. They seldom keep their composure when seriously challenged (see my side of a lengthy, email conversation with a Jehovah's Witness). Conservative Evangelicals can find true dialog with radical emergents almost impossible. The emergents will steadfastly misrepresent Evangelical views and will temporarily misrepresent their own -- all in a seeming attempt to feel momentarily victorious (see my article on emergent culture. This article has links to two other articles of mine on the emerging church movement).

    The new atheists are not called "angry atheists" without reason. I have found that they do not engage in serious dialog. Instead, they tend to go for one's emotional jugular. They will blaspheme Christ and insult Christians in the most demeaning manner possible. Below is a list of the kind of tactics one can expect from them:

    • Name calling and mockery – Like schoolchildren on the playground they seem to think calling names is a smart and mature thing to do. The name-calling is usually coupled with mindless mockery designed only to inflame Christians. This defect in mature thought reveals much about the inner condition that leads to the state in which one is "certain" there is no God. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 53:1 NASB)

    • Hatred for biblical concepts – They hate the concept of hell, for example, and believe their hatred of it is the last word on the subject. This is also true of their dislike of biblical, moral standards.

    • Poorly researched criticisms of the Bible – Rather than read the Bible to understand its message, they go to websites that desperately grasp at straws in an effort to discredit Scripture. These criticisms are inevitably very weak and easy to refute.

    • Guilt by association – If anyone such as the KKK uses a Bible quote or falsely claims to be a Christian, atheists will saddle all Christians with the evil of such people. They also use the crusades as supposed evidence that all Christians are bad. Ironically, when Christians respond that by their reasoning Stalin and Mao's atheism makes all atheists guilty of atrocities, they cry that we are using red herrings.

    • Ignorant critiques of creationism – I have yet to interact with one atheist who has read creationist literature but they all seem to "know" that creationists are completely wrong. Consequently, their criticisms often reveal an ignorance of creationist and intelligent design arguments which causes them to just beat a straw man of their own making.

    • Fallacy clusters – This phenomenon is usually found in connection with some combination of the above. Most atheist arguments use circular reasoning ["why should I believe in the nonexistent?"], straw man arguments ["faith means believing with no reason"], ad hominems ["Christians are all stupid"] and beg the question ["since the Bible is just a fairy tale book..."]. Other fallacies abound, but these four are the most common and they are often used in clusters.

    I find it worth noting that the angry atheists seem to only be angry with Christianity's God and Christianity's saving message. They almost never attack other religions or cults. This unavoidably causes me to question just what spirit is inspiring their hatred. Now just what spirit might hate God and the gospel message to such a degree? For more information on the debate over God's existence see the following: The existence of God; Existence of God; The Case for the Existence of God; Research resources on atheism" http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2770-interacting-with-angry-atheists

    Comments?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 Mar '14 06:54
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Comments?
    I think you are trolling us.
  3. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    28 Mar '14 07:11
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Comments?
    Sometimes, with your massive copy pastes, it seems like you are trying to erect a kind of personality cult around yourself. I say this without rancour.
  4. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    28 Mar '14 07:21
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]"Interacting with 'Angry Atheists'"

    "One interesting, spiritual/sociological phenomenon I have witnessed over the years is that different groups often respond with herd-like predictably when witnessed to. Mormons tend to be very nice no matter how assertive one becomes in exposing the follies of Mormonism. Jehovah's Witnesses inevitably ...[text shortened]... es on atheism" http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2770-interacting-with-angry-atheists

    Comments?[/b]
    The author of this dreck is guilty of everything he accuses atheists of doing. Yawn. 😴
  5. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14581
    28 Mar '14 09:52
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]"Interacting with 'Angry Atheists'"

    The new atheists are not called "angry atheists" without reason. I have found that they do not engage in serious dialog. Instead, they tend to go for one's emotional jugular. They will blaspheme Christ and insult Christians in the most demeaning manner possible. Below is a list of the kind of tactics ...[text shortened]... e is no God. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 53:1 NASB)

    Comments?[/b]
    So maturity-wise we are defective, we are fools and we are angry.


    ...

    aaaaand.... we do name calling which is childish.

    Alrighty then...
  6. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    28 Mar '14 12:251 edit
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    So maturity-wise we are defective, we are fools and we are angry.


    ...

    aaaaand.... we do name calling which is childish.

    Alrighty then...
    GKR, there are always wonderful exceptions to any generalization... "Comments?" doesn't equate to broadband assent.
  7. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    28 Mar '14 12:27
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    The author of this dreck is guilty of everything he accuses atheists of doing. Yawn. 😴
    SG, in your considered opinion, do each of the author's six sub points equally qualify as "dreck"?
  8. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    28 Mar '14 12:30
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think you are trolling us.
    On what basis have you drawn that summary conclusion, twhitehead?
  9. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    28 Mar '14 12:32
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Comments?
    The copy paste in the OP is not your own writing. Do you agree with its content? What's your comment?
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    28 Mar '14 12:411 edit
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]"Interacting with 'Angry Atheists'"

    "One interesting, spiritual/sociological phenomenon I have witnessed over the years is that different groups often respond with herd-like predictably when witnessed to. Mormons tend to be very nice no matter how assertive one becomes in exposing the follies of Mormonism. Jehovah's Witnesses inevitably ...[text shortened]... es on atheism" http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2770-interacting-with-angry-atheists

    Comments?[/b]
    Who is the 'I' who have found, etc?

    Ah, I saw the link at the bottom of your C&P, David Kowalski.

    But the basic argument here is based on the idea that Christianity or theism is based on absolute truth. They are taking the argument based on superiority of merit.

    That is only a supposition, there is no proof of any kind of god and more evidence in my mind anyway that there is no Abrahamic god.

    As to any kind of god, that is up in the air since there is no communications with any kind of god. I think any 'communication' with the Abrahamic god is all in the eyes of the beholder and not real.

    For instance, I point to the tale of the world wide flood, which I would view as an apocalyptic tale with no basis in fact, but a warning to the unbelievers as to what MIGHT happen if their god is ticked off.

    I find it totally impossible to believe a god of ANY kind would kill a trillion land animals in an effort to kill a few thousand errant humans.

    Since we are talking about a theoretical omniscient creature here, it would know full well it could just off the humans with a thought, so the idea that it would send a world wide message to the remaining humans is abhorrent, this god destroying most of what it built?

    It is hard for me to believe people could fall for that as a real tale.
  11. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    28 Mar '14 12:451 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Who is the 'I' who have found, etc?
    It's just a slab of copy pasted material. Good luck trying to get Grampy Bobby to discuss it properly with you. 🙂
  12. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14581
    28 Mar '14 12:47
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    GKR, there are always wonderful exceptions to any generalization... "Comments?" doesn't equate to broadband assent.
    It's still name calling. You are doing the very thing you are accusing atheists of.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    28 Mar '14 13:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    It's just a slab of copy pasted material. Good luck trying to get Grampy Bobby to discuss it properly with you. 🙂
    David Kowalski, a high school administrator.....
  14. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    28 Mar '14 13:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    David Kowalski, a high school administrator.....
    Seeing as David Kowalski doesn't post on this forum, is there anyone here willing to argue his corner?
  15. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    28 Mar '14 16:13
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    SG, in your considered opinion, do each of the author's six sub points equally qualify as "dreck"?
    The majority of it is; I won't bother trying to salvage something like that.

    If you expect a serious response from us skeptics, you'll have to do better.
Back to Top