Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Militant Theism

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:37:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Turn on the television and flip through a few channels and you're sure to come across some televised church services, a televangelist, commercials inviting you to join a particular church, and even commercials which are - for some reason - allowed to make claims for which they have not a hint of supporting evidence (such as "Christian Mingle"). While it's clear that if a cleaning product claimed that it could clean absolutely any stain from any surface, without any damage to the base material, it would be held to a standard of evidence to support the claims, religion is allowed to skate on its claims without challenge. If held to the same standards as any other advertized product, Christian Mingle would never be allowed to make the claim that, "God is saying, "It"s your time to act,"" But religion is allowed to skate on the laws and standards applied to everything else, even though this violates the Constitution.

But my point here is not that religion is given latitude even above the law. My point is that despite all of the improprieties afforded religion, atheism is the one continually tagged with the word "militant". There is nothing militant about atheism. Even the so-called "new atheism" is not militant in the least. It is more "out-spoken" than before but clearly not militant. It's still far, FAR less out-spoken than theism.

So why? Why do theists find it appropriate to suggest that speaking about atheism, makes it militant? Think about the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". The lyrics contain the phrases, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before" and "Oh, we're marching as to war. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng". These lyrics were written as a processional hymn for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and Christians knocking door-to-door spreading "the good news", urging their children to be "soldiers for Christ", demanding and receiving special privileges over and above law, lobbying openly in congress and initiating legal battles to try to teach theology in place of science, how is it that atheism warrants the term "militant"?

Why is it "spreading the good news" when you do it, and "militant" when we do it? Is there actually a theists anywhere who can look at this objectively and still claim that "militant atheism" is anything but hypocrisy taken to the extreme?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:55:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
Turn on the television and flip through a few channels and you're sure to come across some televised church services, a televangelist, commercials inviting you to join a particular church, and even commercials which are - for some reason - allowed to make claims for which they have not a hint of supporting evidence (such as "Christian Mingle"). While it's clear that if a cleaning product claimed that it could clean absolutely any stain from any surface, without any damage to the base material, it would be held to a standard of evidence to support the claims, religion is allowed to skate on its claims without challenge. If held to the same standards as any other advertized product, Christian Mingle would never be allowed to make the claim that, "God is saying, "It"s your time to act,"" But religion is allowed to skate on the laws and standards applied to everything else, even though this violates the Constitution.

But my point here is not that religion is given latitude even above the law. My point is that despite all of the improprieties afforded religion, atheism is the one continually tagged with the word "militant". There is nothing militant about atheism. Even the so-called "new atheism" is not militant in the least. It is more "out-spoken" than before but clearly not militant. It's still far, FAR less out-spoken than theism.

So why? Why do theists find it appropriate to suggest that speaking about atheism, makes it militant? Think about the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". The lyrics contain the phrases, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before" and "Oh, we're marching as to war. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng". These lyrics were written as a processional hymn for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and Christians knocking door-to-door spreading "the good news", urging their children to be "soldiers for Christ", demanding and receiving special privileges over and above law, lobbying openly in congress and initiating legal battles to try to teach theology in place of science, how is it that atheism warrants the term "militant"?

Why is it "spreading the good news" when you do it, and "militant" when we do it? Is there actually a theists anywhere who can look at this objectively and still claim that "militant atheism" is anything but hypocrisy taken to the extreme?

Both sides are militant, which is another word for active. For instance, one could say that during campaigns, the people doing the campaigning are being active, AKA militant.
However, in saying that you make no claim but rather reject someone else's claim, and yet proclaim that there is no God, is not something that you can deny the militancy of.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:07:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:55:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/24/2014 4:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
Turn on the television and flip through a few channels and you're sure to come across some televised church services, a televangelist, commercials inviting you to join a particular church, and even commercials which are - for some reason - allowed to make claims for which they have not a hint of supporting evidence (such as "Christian Mingle"). While it's clear that if a cleaning product claimed that it could clean absolutely any stain from any surface, without any damage to the base material, it would be held to a standard of evidence to support the claims, religion is allowed to skate on its claims without challenge. If held to the same standards as any other advertized product, Christian Mingle would never be allowed to make the claim that, "God is saying, "It"s your time to act,"" But religion is allowed to skate on the laws and standards applied to everything else, even though this violates the Constitution.

But my point here is not that religion is given latitude even above the law. My point is that despite all of the improprieties afforded religion, atheism is the one continually tagged with the word "militant". There is nothing militant about atheism. Even the so-called "new atheism" is not militant in the least. It is more "out-spoken" than before but clearly not militant. It's still far, FAR less out-spoken than theism.

So why? Why do theists find it appropriate to suggest that speaking about atheism, makes it militant? Think about the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". The lyrics contain the phrases, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before" and "Oh, we're marching as to war. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng". These lyrics were written as a processional hymn for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and Christians knocking door-to-door spreading "the good news", urging their children to be "soldiers for Christ", demanding and receiving special privileges over and above law, lobbying openly in congress and initiating legal battles to try to teach theology in place of science, how is it that atheism warrants the term "militant"?

Why is it "spreading the good news" when you do it, and "militant" when we do it? Is there actually a theists anywhere who can look at this objectively and still claim that "militant atheism" is anything but hypocrisy taken to the extreme?

Both sides are militant, which is another word for active. For instance, one could say that during campaigns, the people doing the campaigning are being active, AKA militant.
However, in saying that you make no claim but rather reject someone else's claim, and yet proclaim that there is no God, is not something that you can deny the militancy of.

While "militant" can be used to mean "active", it's very clear that the term "militant atheism" is intended to imply rigidly structured, forceful and intent on conquest. That's the way it is used and that is the intent.
You are correct that atheism rejects the claim that any god exists. But there is no militancy in any common use of the word in stating a disbelief in gods, anymore than it is "militant" to reject claims that Santa Claus, fairies or Zeus exist. Your God isn't special, no matter how much you believe that he is. Your belief is completely unsupportable - just as are Santa Claus, fairies and Zeus. And your belief to the contrary doesn't change that reality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:16:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Could we draw a comparison to this site?

An atheist comes to the door and tells me I'm a stupid, illiterate, superstitious, redneck, backwoods piece of crap be ause I believe in a God. Sorry but I take that as a direct threat to me, not my religion. I'm supposed to turn the other cheek but if your nose begins to bleed uncontrollably I hope you could forgive me.

Jehovah's witnesses show up and wanna hand be a pamphlet and talk to me about Heaven I'd say thank you but I'm not interested I'm Catholic. They would probably say thank you for your time and move to the next house.

Big difference. But that may be why the internet is a militant atheists haven, I can't led any blood out when you say certain things that disrespect me and my loved ones.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 6:45:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
Turn on the television and flip through a few channels and you're sure to come across some televised church services, a televangelist, commercials inviting you to join a particular church, and even commercials which are - for some reason - allowed to make claims for which they have not a hint of supporting evidence (such as "Christian Mingle"). While it's clear that if a cleaning product claimed that it could clean absolutely any stain from any surface, without any damage to the base material, it would be held to a standard of evidence to support the claims, religion is allowed to skate on its claims without challenge. If held to the same standards as any other advertized product, Christian Mingle would never be allowed to make the claim that, "God is saying, "It"s your time to act,"" But religion is allowed to skate on the laws and standards applied to everything else, even though this violates the Constitution.

But my point here is not that religion is given latitude even above the law. My point is that despite all of the improprieties afforded religion, atheism is the one continually tagged with the word "militant". There is nothing militant about atheism. Even the so-called "new atheism" is not militant in the least. It is more "out-spoken" than before but clearly not militant. It's still far, FAR less out-spoken than theism.

So why? Why do theists find it appropriate to suggest that speaking about atheism, makes it militant? Think about the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". The lyrics contain the phrases, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before" and "Oh, we're marching as to war. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng". These lyrics were written as a processional hymn for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and Christians knocking door-to-door spreading "the good news", urging their children to be "soldiers for Christ", demanding and receiving special privileges over and above law, lobbying openly in congress and initiating legal battles to try to teach theology in place of science, how is it that atheism warrants the term "militant"?

Why is it "spreading the good news" when you do it, and "militant" when we do it? Is there actually a theists anywhere who can look at this objectively and still claim that "militant atheism" is anything but hypocrisy taken to the extreme?
I think there's some things to consider, particularly since you're referencing a fairly strong institution.....the media.

First off, there is an overall suspicion of militant atheism in general throughout the U.S. that's not relegated to evangelical Christianity. I suspect that it's probably a carry over from maybe the cold war and red scare era. This could include Americans that are more nominal Christians than evangelical. It's more a traditional American mindset than evangelical Christian mindset. However, the media does not favor evangelical Christianity. Bible scripture is not allowed over secular airwaves except Sunday mornings on some secular networks that will broadcast Christian programming for those willing to pay the airtime price as opposed to less expensive airtime on Christian networks. And quite frankly, I think we're even hearing less and less the term "God" in the media even in a generic sense. Even Christian Mingle, from what I can tell, is relegated to smaller network affiliate stations like MeTV. And I don't think they quote scripture that I recall.

The media doesn't outright promote atheism, but it does promote individualism, personal empowerment, and humanism. These are certainly characteristic of atheism, and a convenient compromise for anyone remotely religious.

The term militant atheism was actually used by Richard Dawkins, and I suspect was probably casually thrown around a lot more around that same time than now. So one might wonder why an atheist would want to promote militant atheism, even in a more symbolic sense, when atheism is often referred to by atheists so passively ("atheism is only non-belief", etc.)?

I as a Christian would take no exception to atheists demanding rights. For instance, I don't know if you've seen those atheist dating website popups here. But if an atheist dating site demanded airtime on TV, more power to them. If an atheist dating site were refused service somehow, I would say their rights were being violated. However, a lot of the alleged violation of rights against atheists involve things like their demands to have religious icons removed from public, public teachers wearing Christian t-shirts, high school cheerleaders using scriptures on signs, etc. It's what they have to see and hear that they seem to claim are violations as opposed to direct unfair treatment.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:04:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 6:45:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/24/2014 4:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
Turn on the television and flip through a few channels and you're sure to come across some televised church services, a televangelist, commercials inviting you to join a particular church, and even commercials which are - for some reason - allowed to make claims for which they have not a hint of supporting evidence (such as "Christian Mingle"). While it's clear that if a cleaning product claimed that it could clean absolutely any stain from any surface, without any damage to the base material, it would be held to a standard of evidence to support the claims, religion is allowed to skate on its claims without challenge. If held to the same standards as any other advertized product, Christian Mingle would never be allowed to make the claim that, "God is saying, "It"s your time to act,"" But religion is allowed to skate on the laws and standards applied to everything else, even though this violates the Constitution.

But my point here is not that religion is given latitude even above the law. My point is that despite all of the improprieties afforded religion, atheism is the one continually tagged with the word "militant". There is nothing militant about atheism. Even the so-called "new atheism" is not militant in the least. It is more "out-spoken" than before but clearly not militant. It's still far, FAR less out-spoken than theism.

So why? Why do theists find it appropriate to suggest that speaking about atheism, makes it militant? Think about the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". The lyrics contain the phrases, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before" and "Oh, we're marching as to war. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng". These lyrics were written as a processional hymn for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and Christians knocking door-to-door spreading "the good news", urging their children to be "soldiers for Christ", demanding and receiving special privileges over and above law, lobbying openly in congress and initiating legal battles to try to teach theology in place of science, how is it that atheism warrants the term "militant"?

Why is it "spreading the good news" when you do it, and "militant" when we do it? Is there actually a theists anywhere who can look at this objectively and still claim that "militant atheism" is anything but hypocrisy taken to the extreme?
I think there's some things to consider, particularly since you're referencing a fairly strong institution.....the media.

First off, there is an overall suspicion of militant atheism in general throughout the U.S. that's not relegated to evangelical Christianity.
And yet, we see the term being used here, over and over, as though it makes sense. There is nothing atheism does with more zeal or forceful intent than what Christianity does by routine.

I suspect that it's probably a carry over from maybe the cold war and red scare era. This could include Americans that are more nominal Christians than evangelical. It's more a traditional American mindset than evangelical Christian mindset. However, the media does not favor evangelical Christianity. Bible scripture is not allowed over secular airwaves except Sunday mornings on some secular networks that will broadcast Christian programming for those willing to pay the airtime price as opposed to less expensive airtime on Christian networks.
I'm curious as to what universe you're living in. Firstly, what is a "secular airwave"? Airwaves are airwaves, are airwaves. They're neither secular nor spiritual. They're just the medium through which electromagnetic signals propagate. There are dozens of networks which carry church services, evangelical programing, etc.

And quite frankly, I think we're even hearing less and less the term "God" in the media even in a generic sense. Even Christian Mingle, from what I can tell, is relegated to smaller network affiliate stations like MeTV. And I don't think they quote scripture that I recall.
You're missing the point. Christian mingle advertizes that God is telling you it's your time to act. Do they have even the slightest hint of supporting objective evidence for this? Obviously not. And yet they're allowed to continue making that claim. It's a false claim, and therefore, false advertizing. They're making claims for which they can provide no objective support. That's illegal for ANY other form of advertizing. And technically, it's illegal for Christian Mingle as well. But they get away with it because it has to do with religion, and when enforcement action is taken against anything religious, the religious scream their little heads off. And after they seek to have channels of religious messages excused from the law, they have the nerve to call outspoken atheists "militant".

The media doesn't outright promote atheism, but it does promote individualism, personal empowerment, and humanism. These are certainly characteristic of atheism, and a convenient compromise for anyone remotely religious.
The media promotes whatever is most profitable for media. They don't promote atheism because atheism is the small minority and highly mistrusted. And we're mistrusted because of the militant theists, who have coined and promoted the term, "militant atheist", despite the fact that they tend to be far more militant than any atheist group.

The term militant atheism was actually used by Richard Dawkins, and I suspect was probably casually thrown around a lot more around that same time than now. So one might wonder why an atheist would want to promote militant atheism, even in a more symbolic sense, when atheism is often referred to by atheists so passively ("atheism is only non-belief", etc.)?
When has Dawkins used the term in a promotional manner?

I as a Christian would take no exception to atheists demanding rights. For instance, I don't know if you've seen those atheist dating website popups here. But if an atheist dating site demanded airtime on TV, more power to them.
You have completely missed the point. It is (in a nutshell), that atheism is not anywhere as "militant" as Christianity, so the term "militant atheist" is completely inaccurate, misapplied, and a total distortion of the reality. A few atheists have become outspoken against theism, which has always been radically militant.

If an atheist dating site were refused service somehow, I would say their rights were being violated. However, a lot of the alleged violation of rights against atheists involve things like their demands to have religious icons removed from public, public teachers wearing Christian t-shirts, high school cheerleaders using scriptures on signs, etc. It's what they have to see and hear that they seem to claim are violations as opposed to direct unfair treatment.
That all has to do with the constitutionally required separation of church and state. It has little to do with the impropriety of the term "militant atheist", which is my primary point. It's the most militant, calling the least militant, "militant".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 11:32:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
Turn on the television and flip through a few channels and you're sure to come across some televised church services, a televangelist, commercials inviting you to join a particular church, and even commercials which are - for some reason - allowed to make claims for which they have not a hint of supporting evidence (such as "Christian Mingle"). While it's clear that if a cleaning product claimed that it could clean absolutely any stain from any surface, without any damage to the base material, it would be held to a standard of evidence to support the claims, religion is allowed to skate on its claims without challenge. If held to the same standards as any other advertized product, Christian Mingle would never be allowed to make the claim that, "God is saying, "It"s your time to act,"" But religion is allowed to skate on the laws and standards applied to everything else, even though this violates the Constitution.

But my point here is not that religion is given latitude even above the law. My point is that despite all of the improprieties afforded religion, atheism is the one continually tagged with the word "militant". There is nothing militant about atheism. Even the so-called "new atheism" is not militant in the least. It is more "out-spoken" than before but clearly not militant. It's still far, FAR less out-spoken than theism.

So why? Why do theists find it appropriate to suggest that speaking about atheism, makes it militant? Think about the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". The lyrics contain the phrases, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before" and "Oh, we're marching as to war. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng". These lyrics were written as a processional hymn for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and Christians knocking door-to-door spreading "the good news", urging their children to be "soldiers for Christ", demanding and receiving special privileges over and above law, lobbying openly in congress and initiating legal battles to try to teach theology in place of science, how is it that atheism warrants the term "militant"?

Why is it "spreading the good news" when you do it, and "militant" when we do it? Is there actually a theists anywhere who can look at this objectively and still claim that "militant atheism" is anything but hypocrisy taken to the extreme?

In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome where it became an institution. Next, it moved to Europe, where it became a culture. And, finally, it moved to America where it became an enterprise.--Richard Halverson

Halverson, however, omitted two VERY important words... he should have stated that religion becam "... a [TAX FREE] enterprise..." Truth in advertising is only a necessity in the "physical" realm, apparently. In the "spiritual" realm, anything goes!
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:58:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
Turn on the television and flip through a few channels and you're sure to come across some televised church services, a televangelist, commercials inviting you to join a particular church, and even commercials which are - for some reason - allowed to make claims for which they have not a hint of supporting evidence (such as "Christian Mingle"). While it's clear that if a cleaning product claimed that it could clean absolutely any stain from any surface, without any damage to the base material, it would be held to a standard of evidence to support the claims, religion is allowed to skate on its claims without challenge. If held to the same standards as any other advertized product, Christian Mingle would never be allowed to make the claim that, "God is saying, "It"s your time to act,"" But religion is allowed to skate on the laws and standards applied to everything else, even though this violates the Constitution.

But my point here is not that religion is given latitude even above the law. My point is that despite all of the improprieties afforded religion, atheism is the one continually tagged with the word "militant". There is nothing militant about atheism. Even the so-called "new atheism" is not militant in the least. It is more "out-spoken" than before but clearly not militant. It's still far, FAR less out-spoken than theism.

So why? Why do theists find it appropriate to suggest that speaking about atheism, makes it militant? Think about the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". The lyrics contain the phrases, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before" and "Oh, we're marching as to war. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng". These lyrics were written as a processional hymn for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and Christians knocking door-to-door spreading "the good news", urging their children to be "soldiers for Christ", demanding and receiving special privileges over and above law, lobbying openly in congress and initiating legal battles to try to teach theology in place of science, how is it that atheism warrants the term "militant"?

Why is it "spreading the good news" when you do it, and "militant" when we do it? Is there actually a theists anywhere who can look at this objectively and still claim that "militant atheism" is anything but hypocrisy taken to the extreme?

Finally glad somebody wrote a topic on this.

Militant atheism would be rare and probably hasn't occured since its origins. The christian militants live so much into the past, that they believe that new atheusts mean militant atheists who want to kill religious people or religion. It sickens me when a lie like this is told among people.

Now I find that soldier hymn interesting, mainly because of where it came from. 2 Timothy 2:3, which says to endure through suffering like a soldier in Christ. So if it claims to follow that bible verse, not only is the hymn anti scripture to its own inspired verse, but other christians who believe we are called to fight in a war. War will make somebody corrupt and lose sense of who they are. I thank the men and women who fight for the country. They are heros not for killing, but for trying to save lives and enduring through the abuse of government.

I believe in something Lawrence Krauss once said on The Unbelievers. "There's no one, whose views aren't subject to question." While christians try to do this do atheists, they always seem worried about what atheists will say, so they try to silence them and not give them a voice. Mike Huckabee will soon prevent atheists from being employed. Yes. If your an atheist and you have a job, you will be fired according to Huckabee if he becomes president. So I see more militant thoughts and actions in modern day and past day theism than the modern day and past day atheism.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 4:08:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:16:36 PM, jharry wrote:
Could we draw a comparison to this site?

An atheist comes to the door and tells me I'm a stupid, illiterate, superstitious, redneck, backwoods piece of crap be ause I believe in a God. Sorry but I take that as a direct threat to me, not my religion. I'm supposed to turn the other cheek but if your nose begins to bleed uncontrollably I hope you could forgive me.

Jehovah's witnesses show up and wanna hand be a pamphlet and talk to me about Heaven I'd say thank you but I'm not interested I'm Catholic. They would probably say thank you for your time and move to the next house.

Big difference. But that may be why the internet is a militant atheists haven, I can't led any blood out when you say certain things that disrespect me and my loved ones.

No atheist in the world is goi g to knock on your door and do that. Christians have done so said claims to atheists. In fact, parents who find their sons and daughters to be gay or atheists will either have them through conversion therapy including Guantanamo Bay torture techniques or they will disown the child and kick them out of the house. And this is supposed to be the christian family model for marriage and love? Thanks Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, I knew you were hypocrites.

An atheist these days doesn't want to discuss religion head on unless a topic ISO aggravating to them or if somebody brings it up. My friends are atheists (some satanists) at college. I don't hear them telling me my views are stupid and they don't do the same. Now we will ask questions, but If you can't handle that, then you failed the God you pray to and you failed Jesus.

On an important note, because you let words hurt you instead of sticks and stones, you said you would cause somebody's nose to bleed. You ignore not only turning the other cheek, but 2 Timothy 2:3 says to ensure suffering (if you call insults a suffering). But hey. As a Christian, I'm glad your hypocrite. Your actions are forgiven because of Christ. So why don't you think about him next time when he told you to love your enemies. Or did his words mean anything to you?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 6:18:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:58:37 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/24/2014 4:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
Turn on the television and flip through a few channels and you're sure to come across some televised church services, a televangelist, commercials inviting you to join a particular church, and even commercials which are - for some reason - allowed to make claims for which they have not a hint of supporting evidence (such as "Christian Mingle"). While it's clear that if a cleaning product claimed that it could clean absolutely any stain from any surface, without any damage to the base material, it would be held to a standard of evidence to support the claims, religion is allowed to skate on its claims without challenge. If held to the same standards as any other advertized product, Christian Mingle would never be allowed to make the claim that, "God is saying, "It"s your time to act,"" But religion is allowed to skate on the laws and standards applied to everything else, even though this violates the Constitution.

But my point here is not that religion is given latitude even above the law. My point is that despite all of the improprieties afforded religion, atheism is the one continually tagged with the word "militant". There is nothing militant about atheism. Even the so-called "new atheism" is not militant in the least. It is more "out-spoken" than before but clearly not militant. It's still far, FAR less out-spoken than theism.

So why? Why do theists find it appropriate to suggest that speaking about atheism, makes it militant? Think about the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". The lyrics contain the phrases, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before" and "Oh, we're marching as to war. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng". These lyrics were written as a processional hymn for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and Christians knocking door-to-door spreading "the good news", urging their children to be "soldiers for Christ", demanding and receiving special privileges over and above law, lobbying openly in congress and initiating legal battles to try to teach theology in place of science, how is it that atheism warrants the term "militant"?

Why is it "spreading the good news" when you do it, and "militant" when we do it? Is there actually a theists anywhere who can look at this objectively and still claim that "militant atheism" is anything but hypocrisy taken to the extreme?

Finally glad somebody wrote a topic on this.

Militant atheism would be rare and probably hasn't occured since its origins. The christian militants live so much into the past, that they believe that new atheusts mean militant atheists who want to kill religious people or religion. It sickens me when a lie like this is told among people.

Now I find that soldier hymn interesting, mainly because of where it came from. 2 Timothy 2:3, which says to endure through suffering like a soldier in Christ. So if it claims to follow that bible verse, not only is the hymn anti scripture to its own inspired verse, but other christians who believe we are called to fight in a war. War will make somebody corrupt and lose sense of who they are. I thank the men and women who fight for the country. They are heros not for killing, but for trying to save lives and enduring through the abuse of government.

I believe in something Lawrence Krauss once said on The Unbelievers. "There's no one, whose views aren't subject to question." While christians try to do this do atheists, they always seem worried about what atheists will say, so they try to silence them and not give them a voice. Mike Huckabee will soon prevent atheists from being employed. Yes. If your an atheist and you have a job, you will be fired according to Huckabee if he becomes president. So I see more militant thoughts and actions in modern day and past day theism than the modern day and past day atheism.

Thank you for your comments and your ability to see beyond the biases common to any view tacked to one side of an issue. As a Christian, it's rare to see a view which provides some support for the atheists. Most views are so polar that people can't even begin to see when the opposite pole is being harmed.

As for the "Onward Christian Soldiers" song, I think there is an important observation to be made in the fact that is says "marching as to war" rather than "marching on to war". It's not suggesting that these "soldiers" are actually going to war, as I understand the lyrics. But it does make a direct association with soldiers and war, which, I my view, should be a diametric opposite to a belief of love, compassion and tolerance.

As for Huckabee, it demonstrates the degree to which a mind can become warped. However, as to his ability to do what he claims, I would be very surprised. While it's not uncommon for presidents to pay little attention to the Constitution (i.e. G.W. Bush and the Patriot Act, Obama and Health Care Reform, etc.), I believe (perhaps I'm just hopeful), that the blatant nature of such a proposal would be too much for even the elastic integrity of the Supreme Court Justices to swallow.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 7:10:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:16:36 PM, jharry wrote:
Could we draw a comparison to this site?

An atheist comes to the door and tells me I'm a stupid, illiterate, superstitious, redneck, backwoods piece of crap be ause I believe in a God. Sorry but I take that as a direct threat to me, not my religion. I'm supposed to turn the other cheek but if your nose begins to bleed uncontrollably I hope you could forgive me.

Jehovah's witnesses show up and wanna hand be a pamphlet and talk to me about Heaven I'd say thank you but I'm not interested I'm Catholic. They would probably say thank you for your time and move to the next house.

Big difference. But that may be why the internet is a militant atheists haven, I can't led any blood out when you say certain things that disrespect me and my loved ones.

When one has to resort to writing fiction, simply to try to create a threat which doesn't exist, so that he can threaten violence against it, he has done little more than demonstrate the complete failure of Christianity to teach him anything about honesty, integrity, ethical maturity, or the value if avoiding violence.

Your entire post, jharry, does little more than to illustrate my point. You threaten violence against atheists because you lack the greater mentality necessary to engage us on an intellectual level. As a typical militant theist, you seek violence even over text on your monitor.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 3:11:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:04:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:45:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


First off, there is an overall suspicion of militant atheism in general throughout the U.S. that's not relegated to evangelical Christianity.
And yet, we see the term being used here, over and over, as though it makes sense. There is nothing atheism does with more zeal or forceful intent than what Christianity does by routine.

The term was used at one time by atheists like Richard Dawkins. How much it was used, I don't know.

I suspect that it's probably a carry over from maybe the cold war and red scare era. This could include Americans that are more nominal Christians than evangelical. It's more a traditional American mindset than evangelical Christian mindset. However, the media does not favor evangelical Christianity. Bible scripture is not allowed over secular airwaves except Sunday mornings on some secular networks that will broadcast Christian programming for those willing to pay the airtime price as opposed to less expensive airtime on Christian networks.
I'm curious as to what universe you're living in. Firstly, what is a "secular airwave"? Airwaves are airwaves, are airwaves. They're neither secular nor spiritual. They're just the medium through which electromagnetic signals propagate. There are dozens of networks which carry church services, evangelical programing, etc.

By airwaves I meant television networks. ABC, CBS, NBC, TBS, USA, TNT, Fox, etc. are examples of secular networks that will not allow scripture to be mentioned on air unless it's from a Sunday morning Christian broadcast like Charles Stanley, Joel Osteen (the only ones I can think of at the moment). These broadcasts however are probably more prevalent on smaller syndicated secular networks. Most evangelical programming is on Christian networks like TBN, Daystar, Word, God TV, TLN, Inspiration, etc. So all you really need to do is make sure you don't accidentally surf and hit a Christian network, and maybe be a bit more careful what channel you go to on Sunday morning, and you're pretty much safe.

And quite frankly, I think we're even hearing less and less the term "God" in the media even in a generic sense. Even Christian Mingle, from what I can tell, is relegated to smaller network affiliate stations like MeTV. And I don't think they quote scripture that I recall.
You're missing the point. Christian mingle advertizes that God is telling you it's your time to act. Do they have even the slightest hint of supporting objective evidence for this? Obviously not. And yet they're allowed to continue making that claim. It's a false claim, and therefore, false advertizing. They're making claims for which they can provide no objective support. That's illegal for ANY other form of advertizing. And technically, it's illegal for Christian Mingle as well. But they get away with it because it has to do with religion, and when enforcement action is taken against anything religious, the religious scream their little heads off. And after they seek to have channels of religious messages excused from the law, they have the nerve to call outspoken atheists "militant".

It's not false advertising. It's fully understood by the Christian viewer that it's between themselves and God as to whether or not God wants them to use a dating service. They don't have to prove anything to anyone. A Christian knows that God brings people together in different ways, which can include a dating service. There are Christians who have used the service, found their match, feel the service was instrumental, and are happy about it. Do you have a remote switch?

The media doesn't outright promote atheism, but it does promote individualism, personal empowerment, and humanism. These are certainly characteristic of atheism, and a convenient compromise for anyone remotely religious.
The media promotes whatever is most profitable for media. They don't promote atheism because atheism is the small minority and highly mistrusted. And we're mistrusted because of the militant theists, who have coined and promoted the term, "militant atheist", despite the fact that they tend to be far more militant than any atheist group.

The term militant atheism was actually used by Richard Dawkins, and I suspect was probably casually thrown around a lot more around that same time than now. So one might wonder why an atheist would want to promote militant atheism, even in a more symbolic sense, when atheism is often referred to by atheists so passively ("atheism is only non-belief", etc.)?
When has Dawkins used the term in a promotional manner?

No, what I want to urge upon you -- (Laughter) -- instead what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism. (Laughter) (Applause) But that's putting it too negatively. If I was a person who were interested in preserving religious faith, I would be very afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science, and indeed science generally, but evolution in particular, to inspire and enthrall, precisely because it is atheistic.

http://www.ted.com...
I as a Christian would take no exception to atheists demanding rights. For instance, I don't know if you've seen those atheist dating website popups here. But if an atheist dating site demanded airtime on TV, more power to them.
You have completely missed the point. It is (in a nutshell), that atheism is not anywhere as "militant" as Christianity, so the term "militant atheist" is completely inaccurate, misapplied, and a total distortion of the reality. A few atheists have become outspoken against theism, which has always been radically militant.

How militant does one have to be before they count as militant? And I know that's a strange question, but what difference does it make how militant atheism is compared to Christianity? Either it's militant or it's not.

And quite frankly, I don't think Christians are more militant than atheists in the U.S. My point is that atheist activists are not satisfied unless they can remove Christianity from their sight.

If an atheist dating site were refused service somehow, I would say their rights were being violated. However, a lot of the alleged violation of rights against atheists involve things like their demands to have religious icons removed from public, public teachers wearing Christian t-shirts, high school cheerleaders using scriptures on signs, etc. It's what they have to see and hear that they seem to claim are violations as opposed to direct unfair treatment.
That all has to do with the constitutionally required separation of church and state. It has little to do with the impropriety of the term "militant atheist", which is my primary point. It's the most militant, calling the least militant, "militant".
The separation of church has been completely distorted since the founding fathers. Do you think the founding fathers, who held church services in the capitol itself, would take issue with religious statues in public places, Christian t-shirts, football signs with scripture?

Some atheists were claiming that the cross at ground zero was making some of them sick. How do you think they would feel driving around in Virginia where church crosses are visible all over?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 7:09:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 3:11:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:04:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:45:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:



And yet, we see the term being used here, over and over, as though it makes sense. There is nothing atheism does with more zeal or forceful intent than what Christianity does by routine.

The term was used at one time by atheists like Richard Dawkins. How much it was used, I don't know.
Point #1: Seek an understanding of sarcasm
Point #2: Sarcasm is not promotion. It's quite the opposite.


I suspect that it's probably a carry over from maybe the cold war and red scare era. This could include Americans that are more nominal Christians than evangelical. It's more a traditional American mindset than evangelical Christian mindset. However, the media does not favor evangelical Christianity. Bible scripture is not allowed over secular airwaves except Sunday mornings on some secular networks that will broadcast Christian programming for those willing to pay the airtime price as opposed to less expensive airtime on Christian networks.
I'm curious as to what universe you're living in. Firstly, what is a "secular airwave"? Airwaves are airwaves, are airwaves. They're neither secular nor spiritual. They're just the medium through which electromagnetic signals propagate. There are dozens of networks which carry church services, evangelical programing, etc.

By airwaves I meant television networks. ABC, CBS, NBC, TBS, USA, TNT, Fox, etc. are examples of secular networks that will not allow scripture to be mentioned on air unless it's from a Sunday morning Christian broadcast like Charles Stanley, Joel Osteen (the only ones I can think of at the moment).
So... if you can mention networks which don't provide religious broadcasting (and FOX is dramatically slanted toward religion/Christianity and notably anti-atheist), that somehow means that all of the Christian broadcasting I initially mentioned, doesn't exist? For example...

Bridges TV
BYU Television
Calvary Chapel
Catholic Life
CatholicTV
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)
Christian Television Network (CTN)
Daystar Television Network (Daystar)
Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)
Family Radio (FR)
Familyland Television Network
Fundamental Broadcasting Network
GOD TV
God's Learning Channel (GLC)
Golden Eagle Broadcasting
Islamic Broadcasting Network[14]
Jewish Life Television
Lester Sumrall Evangelistic Association (LeSea Broadcasting)
Living Faith Television (LFTv)
Loma Linda Broadcasting Network (LLBN)
New York Jewish Radio WMDI-LP - 107.9 FM Lakewood, NJ[15]
Peace TV In English, Urdu & Bangla languages
Salem Communications (SC)
Sky Angel
Sonlife Broadcasting Network [16] (SBN)
Three Angels Broadcasting Network (3ABN)
The Hope Channel
The Inspiration Network (INSP)
The Old Path (TOP)
The Worship Network
Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)

What is it you don't understand about the point I'm making - that the promotion of religion is far, FAR more militant than anything atheists have done. Can you refute that, or just offer strawman arguments?

These broadcasts however are probably more prevalent on smaller syndicated secular networks. Most evangelical programming is on Christian networks like TBN, Daystar, Word, God TV, TLN, Inspiration, etc. So all you really need to do is make sure you don't accidentally surf and hit a Christian network, and maybe be a bit more careful what channel you go to on Sunday morning, and you're pretty much safe.
You're not addressing the point; you're evading it. And the point is; atheism is simply nowhere near as "militant" as Christianity, and yet Christians (even here on this forum), routinely make references to "militant atheism". But we NEVER see them talking about "Militant Christianity", or even "Militant Theism"! Many theists here (and elsewhere), are so incredibly biased, that they see the 1% activism as more "militant" than the 99% activism. Attempting to argue against that - because it's so obvious - only demonstrates that you're one of the blatantly biased with a monstrously distorted view.

And quite frankly, I think we're even hearing less and less the term "God" in the media even in a generic sense. Even Christian Mingle, from what I can tell, is relegated to smaller network affiliate stations like MeTV. And I don't think they quote scripture that I recall.
You're missing the point. Christian mingle advertizes that God is telling you it's your time to act. Do they have even the slightest hint of supporting objective evidence for this? Obviously not. And yet they're allowed to continue making that claim. It's a false claim, and therefore, false advertizing. They're making claims for which they can provide no objective support. That's illegal for ANY other form of advertizing. And technically, it's illegal for Christian Mingle as well. But they get away with it because it has to do with religion, and when enforcement action is taken against anything religious, the religious scream their little heads off. And after they seek to have channels of religious messages excused from the law, they have the nerve to call outspoken atheists "militant".

It's not false advertising.
But it is! If you saw an ad claiming that God was telling you it was time to toss your Bible and stop believing in silly fairytales, would you claim that it wasn't false advertizing. It's just amazing that you don't get this. There is NO EVIDENCE to support their claims- NONE! Therefore, it is false advertizing to make those claims.

It's fully understood by the Christian viewer that it's between themselves and God as to whether or not God wants them to use a dating service.
Once again, you're evading the point in order to try to argue against it. They're making God their personal spokesman - making claims about what God is saying, and doing so as a form of advertizing. They can't support that claim! They're making an advertizing claim they can provide not a shred of evidence to support. That's "false advertizing".

They don't have to prove anything to anyone.
They do if they're going to advertize the claim for profit! But you are helping to make my point. Religion has you so twisted and unable to reason, that you can't grasp the fact that when you make advertizing claims, you must be able to present evidence to support those claims. Many industries spend millions of dollars on testing, simply so that they can utilize the advertisements they wish to use, and not have the Federal Trade Commission come crashing down upon them. The California Egg Board was slapped down for this years ago, because they paid for the studies, and utilized known but dishonest methods, to have the studies produce the results they wished to advertize (using crystallized pure cholesterol, in one study, and increasing dietary cholesterol intake only after test subjects were already boosted to over 400mg of cholesterol daily, causing the rise in cholesterol from egg consumption to be minimized).

A Christian knows that God brings people together in different ways, which can include a dating service.
Firstly, Christians don't "know" that, they "believe" it. These are two different forms of information retention. Secondly, it doesn't matter what Christians THINK they "know". What matters is what can be demonstrated to be true. And "Christian Mingle" cannot support the claim that God is saying anything!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 7:41:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 3:11:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:04:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:45:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

There are Christians who have used the service, found their match, feel the service was instrumental, and are happy about it. Do you have a remote switch?
There are people who have taken sugar pills (or more often, cornstarch), and believed it relieved pain, swelling, nausea, anxiety and just about every other ailment one might take medication for as well. That doesn't mean you can legally sell sugar and cornstarch pills, claiming that they relieve or eliminate such symptoms. You have to have solid test data showing that they can. And Christian Mingle doesn't have ANYTHING, to show that God has ever said ANYTHING. So their advertizements are blatantly false, and therefore, illegal.

The media doesn't outright promote atheism, but it does promote individualism, personal empowerment, and humanism. These are certainly characteristic of atheism, and a convenient compromise for anyone remotely religious.
The media promotes whatever is most profitable for media. They don't promote atheism because atheism is the small minority and highly mistrusted. And we're mistrusted because of the militant theists, who have coined and promoted the term, "militant atheist", despite the fact that they tend to be far more militant than any atheist group.

The term militant atheism was actually used by Richard Dawkins, and I suspect was probably casually thrown around a lot more around that same time than now. So one might wonder why an atheist would want to promote militant atheism, even in a more symbolic sense, when atheism is often referred to by atheists so passively ("atheism is only non-belief", etc.)?
When has Dawkins used the term in a promotional manner?

No, what I want to urge upon you -- (Laughter) -- instead what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism. (Laughter) (Applause) But that's putting it too negatively. If I was a person who were interested in preserving religious faith, I would be very afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science, and indeed science generally, but evolution in particular, to inspire and enthrall, precisely because it is atheistic.
Again - SARCASM - "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt." He's speaking out against the term, not using it as though it were valid.

http://www.ted.com...
I as a Christian would take no exception to atheists demanding rights. For instance, I don't know if you've seen those atheist dating website popups here. But if an atheist dating site demanded airtime on TV, more power to them.
You have completely missed the point. It is (in a nutshell), that atheism is not anywhere as "militant" as Christianity, so the term "militant atheist" is completely inaccurate, misapplied, and a total distortion of the reality. A few atheists have become outspoken against theism, which has always been radically militant.

How militant does one have to be before they count as militant?
That's an evasion of the point. The point is; the religious are orders of magnitude more "militant" than atheists, but demonstrate the outrageous hypocrisy to use the term "militant atheism".

And I know that's a strange question, but what difference does it make how militant atheism is compared to Christianity? Either it's militant or it's not.
Those who are more militant, have no business calling those who are less militant, "militant". It's hypocritical and beyond, to do so. Anyone with any sense of ethics wouldn't use the term because it's such a twist of reality.

And quite frankly, I don't think Christians are more militant than atheists in the U.S. My point is that atheist activists are not satisfied unless they can remove Christianity from their sight.
Atheists aren't trying to remove Christianity (or any other religion), from sight. But when other religions use their numbers, and the special form of brainwashing you're demonstrating here - to blatantly violate the laws of the country, atheist organizations are stepping forward to see that everyone is treated equally under the law - religious, or not.

If an atheist dating site were refused service somehow, I would say their rights were being violated. However, a lot of the alleged violation of rights against atheists involve things like their demands to have religious icons removed from public, public teachers wearing Christian t-shirts, high school cheerleaders using scriptures on signs, etc. It's what they have to see and hear that they seem to claim are violations as opposed to direct unfair treatment.
That all has to do with the constitutionally required separation of church and state. It has little to do with the impropriety of the term "militant atheist", which is my primary point. It's the most militant, calling the least militant, "militant".
The separation of church has been completely distorted since the founding fathers. Do you think the founding fathers, who held church services in the capitol itself, would take issue with religious statues in public places, Christian t-shirts, football signs with scripture?
Look, it's what they wrote, ratified and adopted that counts, not how you want to twist it to meet your bias. This is the same game Christians play with the Bible, "well, that's what it says but that's not what it means because look at this other verse over here"... kind of disingenuous distortion of the written statements.

Some atheists were claiming that the cross at ground zero was making some of them sick. How do you think they would feel driving around in Virginia where church crosses are visible all over?
Justifiably sick. BUT... they should also recognize that as long as those crosses are not on public property, the owners of the property and the religious symbols have absolutely every right to have them there. And I've not heard of a single case of any objection to a religious symbol, on private property. But, there are many cases of religious symbols being erected on public property, and in a truly American society, those should be removed over-night. They should never have been erected in the first place because they violate the foundational law of this country - they are ANTI-AMERICAN. And yet, we have the Ten Commandments erected outside of an Oklahoma courthouse, and the state legislature protecting and supporting this blatant violation of American law, and American values. Unfortunately, some brain-dead idiot purposely ran his vehicle into the display, shattering the granite blocks, and making atheism appear criminally minded, when we're not.

It is actually the Oklahoma State Legislature which is perpetrating a crime against all American citizens in allowing, and protecting such misuse of public lands, as well as a failure of congress to not immediately impeaching Rep. Mike Ritze, whose family spent nearly $10,000 having the monument erected. So here we have a congressman, and public official, blatantly spending private monies, to perpetrate a blatant violation of Constitutional law, and utilizing the legislature to support his illegal activities.

Yet in the eyes of fascist, theocratic Christians, those seeking appropriate legal action to correct the issue are somehow in the wrong.

It's time to set the record straight. Theists have a long, long history of militancy and brutality. Atheists are simply being more outspoken than before.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 7:47:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 3:11:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Do you have a remote switch?

Once again - NOT THE POINT!

If you were tired of walking down your neighborhood streets and seeing young girls being raped and drugged up by pimps, inducted into prostitution, and dying in their 20s and 30s without police taking appropriate action to prevent these tragedies, do you see "well, don't look" as an appropriate response?

And if not, then you shouldn't be offering it as a response. Not looking at crime isn't an appropriate response to the blatant allowance of violation of law. And the Christians of this country have taken it as their "God given right", to violate the law in any way they see fit, while other Christians proudly stand up and speak in their defense. Just as you're doing.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 7:09:06 PM, Beastt wrote:

Point #1: Seek an understanding of sarcasm
Point #2: Sarcasm is not promotion. It's quite the opposite.

I know it's sarcasm. I think most of the theists who use the term use it the same way. I doubt there's anyone that actually thinks militant atheism has anything to do with bearing arms, or any type of literal military strategy. I usually use the term atheist activists (or activist atheists). But if I have ever used the term militant atheist, I don't think I ever meant it any different than Dawkins did. If Dawkins chooses to use that terminology, even in sarcasm, no one should be surprised if others use it as well.




So... if you can mention networks which don't provide religious broadcasting (and FOX is dramatically slanted toward religion/Christianity and notably anti-atheist), that somehow means that all of the Christian broadcasting I initially mentioned, doesn't exist? For example...

Bridges TV
BYU Television
Calvary Chapel
Catholic Life
CatholicTV
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)
Christian Television Network (CTN)
Daystar Television Network (Daystar)
Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)
Family Radio (FR)
Familyland Television Network
Fundamental Broadcasting Network
GOD TV
God's Learning Channel (GLC)
Golden Eagle Broadcasting
Islamic Broadcasting Network[14]
Jewish Life Television
Lester Sumrall Evangelistic Association (LeSea Broadcasting)
Living Faith Television (LFTv)
Loma Linda Broadcasting Network (LLBN)
New York Jewish Radio WMDI-LP - 107.9 FM Lakewood, NJ[15]
Peace TV In English, Urdu & Bangla languages
Salem Communications (SC)
Sky Angel
Sonlife Broadcasting Network [16] (SBN)
Three Angels Broadcasting Network (3ABN)
The Hope Channel
The Inspiration Network (INSP)
The Old Path (TOP)
The Worship Network
Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)

I just mentioned a number of those Christian networks.

"Most evangelical programming is on Christian networks like TBN, Daystar, Word, God TV, TLN, Inspiration"

Those are Christian networks (BYU Television is actually Mormon). Because of that, one will find scriptural references in the Bible without any type of restrictions one finds on a secular network on any of these Christian networks. Fox is not a Christian network. Whatever their political slant is, who they favor, etc., has no bearing on the fact that Biblical scripture cannot be used on their broadcasts.

What is it you don't understand about the point I'm making - that the promotion of religion is far, FAR more militant than anything atheists have done. Can you refute that, or just offer strawman arguments?

What do you mean by militant? As I stated, I don't think anyone relates militant atheism to a literal military meaning. Is that what you relate Christianity to? Do you think we're gathering ammunition, planning for a military takeover?

You're not addressing the point; you're evading it. And the point is; atheism is simply nowhere near as "militant" as Christianity, and yet Christians (even here on this forum), routinely make references to "militant atheism". But we NEVER see them talking about "Militant Christianity", or even "Militant Theism"! Many theists here (and elsewhere), are so incredibly biased, that they see the 1% activism as more "militant" than the 99% activism. Attempting to argue against that - because it's so obvious - only demonstrates that you're one of the blatantly biased with a monstrously distorted view.

One of the probable reasons we don't refer to militant Christianity, even in a non-literal symbolic sense, is because the term does have a negative connotation. Back when songs like "Onward Christian Soldiers" (symbolic) were written, it might not have had quite the negative connotation to it. But again, what do you mean by militant, or more militant?

You're missing the point. Christian mingle advertizes that God is telling you it's your time to act. Do they have even the slightest hint of supporting objective evidence for this? Obviously not. And yet they're allowed to continue making that claim. It's a false claim, and therefore, false advertizing. They're making claims for which they can provide no objective support. That's illegal for ANY other form of advertizing. And technically, it's illegal for Christian Mingle as well. But they get away with it because it has to do with religion, and when enforcement action is taken against anything religious, the religious scream their little heads off. And after they seek to have channels of religious messages excused from the law, they have the nerve to call outspoken atheists "militant".

You'll have to provide a quote stating "God is telling you it's your time to act". I've seen the commercial, and I don't recall that statement being made.

It's not false advertising.
But it is! If you saw an ad claiming that God was telling you it was time to toss your Bible and stop believing in silly fairytales, would you claim that it wasn't false advertizing. It's just amazing that you don't get this. There is NO EVIDENCE to support their claims- NONE! Therefore, it is false advertizing to make those claims.

Once again, you're evading the point in order to try to argue against it. They're making God their personal spokesman - making claims about what God is saying, and doing so as a form of advertizing. They can't support that claim! They're making an advertizing claim they can provide not a shred of evidence to support. That's "false advertizing".

They do if they're going to advertize the claim for profit! But you are helping to make my point. Religion has you so twisted and unable to reason, that you can't grasp the fact that when you make advertizing claims, you must be able to present evidence to support those claims. Many industries spend millions of dollars on testing, simply so that they can utilize the advertisements they wish to use, and not have the Federal Trade Commission come crashing down upon them. The California Egg Board was slapped down for this years ago, because they paid for the studies, and utilized known but dishonest methods, to have the studies produce the results they wished to advertize (using crystallized pure cholesterol, in one study, and increasing dietary cholesterol intake only after test subjects were already boosted to over 400mg of cholesterol daily, causing the rise in cholesterol from egg consumption to be minimized).

Until I know exactly what you're claiming they say, I can't take it any further.

Firstly, Christians don't "know" that, they "believe" it. These are two different forms of information retention. Secondly, it doesn't matter what Christians THINK they "know". What matters is what can be demonstrated to be true. And "Christian Mingle" cannot support the claim that God is saying anything!
1. How do you know that a Christian doesn't "know" that God exists?

2. What exactly are you objecting to? Where does this infraction you are suggesting lie? Are you objecting only when the commercial is broadcasted on a secular network, or does this include it's broadcast on Christian networks?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 6:26:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 7:41:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:11:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:04:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:45:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

There are people who have taken sugar pills (or more often, cornstarch), and believed it relieved pain, swelling, nausea, anxiety and just about every other ailment one might take medication for as well. That doesn't mean you can legally sell sugar and cornstarch pills, claiming that they relieve or eliminate such symptoms. You have to have solid test data showing that they can. And Christian Mingle doesn't have ANYTHING, to show that God has ever said ANYTHING. So their advertizements are blatantly false, and therefore, illegal.

I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. A dating service is not a product one intakes that makes any promises to better health. Anyone who uses a dating service knows nothing is guaranteed. But again, I guess this goes back to the quote I was requesting about their reference to God.


No, what I want to urge upon you -- (Laughter) -- instead what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism. (Laughter) (Applause) But that's putting it too negatively. If I was a person who were interested in preserving religious faith, I would be very afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science, and indeed science generally, but evolution in particular, to inspire and enthrall, precisely because it is atheistic.
Again - SARCASM - "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt." He's speaking out against the term, not using it as though it were valid.

http://www.ted.com...

Yes, I understand it was sarcasm. But again, what makes you think theists who use the term are not using it in sarcasm as well? I doubt any theist who uses the term thinks of it as literal militancy. But when atheist activists are making such absurd demands like prohibiting a teacher from wearing a Christian t-shirt, the sarcastic context Dawkins used can be easily tossed back to him.


Those who are more militant, have no business calling those who are less militant, "militant". It's hypocritical and beyond, to do so. Anyone with any sense of ethics wouldn't use the term because it's such a twist of reality.

(Again) What do you mean by militant? Who are you including? Are you including early European colonialists? Or are you talking only about modern Christians in America (or abroad)

Atheists aren't trying to remove Christianity (or any other religion), from sight. But when other religions use their numbers, and the special form of brainwashing you're demonstrating here - to blatantly violate the laws of the country, atheist organizations are stepping forward to see that everyone is treated equally under the law - religious, or not.

Are you saying that the statue of Jesus Christ displayed on a ski resort in Montana that atheists want removed, a t-shirt with a Christian symbol or proclamation, scriptures on high school football signs are a form of brainwashing? If they're not trying to remove Christianity (from pubic view), then why are they so obsessed with afore mentioned issues?

Look, it's what they wrote, ratified and adopted that counts, not how you want to twist it to meet your bias. This is the same game Christians play with the Bible, "well, that's what it says but that's not what it means because look at this other verse over here"... kind of disingenuous distortion of the written statements.

There's also protection for freedom of speech, so it's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. The cheerleaders who put scripture on their signs were practicing freedom of speech. That's why they won their case. What the atheists are doing, is suggesting that having to see something Christian related, like a t-shirt outside of a church is somehow violating their rights. It's like they got things completely twisted. The Separation of Church and State that Jefferson referred to was meant to protect religion, not remove it from sight.

Justifiably sick. BUT... they should also recognize that as long as those crosses are not on public property, the owners of the property and the religious symbols have absolutely every right to have them there. And I've not heard of a single case of any objection to a religious symbol, on private property. But, there are many cases of religious symbols being erected on public property, and in a truly American society, those should be removed over-night. They should never have been erected in the first place because they violate the foundational law of this country - they are ANTI-AMERICAN. And yet, we have the Ten Commandments erected outside of an Oklahoma courthouse, and the state legislature protecting and supporting this blatant violation of American law, and American values. Unfortunately, some brain-dead idiot purposely ran his vehicle into the display, shattering the granite blocks, and making atheism appear criminally minded, when we're not.

No, they don't go after religious symbols on private property. And why do you think that is? If a cross is such an abomination to look at on a memorial site, why would it be any better having to see crosses in just about every neighborhood in the country just because they are on private property? We can't just put up anything we want on private property (like something blatantly obscene), so why would a cross on church grounds be the magic touch that prevents some of these atheists from getting sick?

It is actually the Oklahoma State Legislature which is perpetrating a crime against all American citizens in allowing, and protecting such misuse of public lands, as well as a failure of congress to not immediately impeaching Rep. Mike Ritze, whose family spent nearly $10,000 having the monument erected. So here we have a congressman, and public official, blatantly spending private monies, to perpetrate a blatant violation of Constitutional law, and utilizing the legislature to support his illegal activities.

I live in California so I haven't really followed up on Oklahoma politics.

Yet in the eyes of fascist, theocratic Christians, those seeking appropriate legal action to correct the issue are somehow in the wrong.

There's no law against attempting to make a case of just about anything, so whether or not it's appropriate might depend on what one means. But yes, it does seem bizarre to me that atheists would attempt to have statues removed on ski resorts, worrying about what t-shirts teachers wear, etc. I'm pretty sure many American atheists are unhappy about all of the religious icons that have been destroyed in communist China.

It's time to set the record straight. Theists have a long, long history of militancy and brutality. Atheists are simply being more outspoken than before.
Well fine. Just expect to be confronted as well. It seems that you seem to think that modern Christianity needs to pay some kind of penalty. Is that correct?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 6:42:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 7:47:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:11:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Do you have a remote switch?

Once again - NOT THE POINT!

If you were tired of walking down your neighborhood streets and seeing young girls being raped and drugged up by pimps, inducted into prostitution, and dying in their 20s and 30s without police taking appropriate action to prevent these tragedies, do you see "well, don't look" as an appropriate response?

And if not, then you shouldn't be offering it as a response. Not looking at crime isn't an appropriate response to the blatant allowance of violation of law. And the Christians of this country have taken it as their "God given right", to violate the law in any way they see fit, while other Christians proudly stand up and speak in their defense. Just as you're doing.
I'm not really sure what you're objecting to. Is it Christian Mingle's presence on secular tv, or would they still be in violation of the law if these commercials were only presented on Christian networks? In other words, Christian Mingle broadcasts a commercial on Discovery (a secular network), and you say illegal false advertising! However, you just realized that you miss hit the remote and instead of landing on Discovery you landed on TLN (a Christian network), so you realize the commercial is not being represented on a secular network. Are you now relieved, or does this false advertising that you claim still apply?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:46:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/26/2014 7:09:06 PM, Beastt wrote:

Point #1: Seek an understanding of sarcasm
Point #2: Sarcasm is not promotion. It's quite the opposite.

I know it's sarcasm. I think most of the theists who use the term use it the same way. I doubt there's anyone that actually thinks militant atheism has anything to do with bearing arms, or any type of literal military strategy.
You're still missing the point. Theists are FAR, FAR, FAR more militant, than atheists. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

I usually use the term atheist activists (or activist atheists). But if I have ever used the term militant atheist, I don't think I ever meant it any different than Dawkins did. If Dawkins chooses to use that terminology, even in sarcasm, no one should be surprised if others use it as well.
So your suggestion is that every theists - or every theist here - means the same thing you claim to mean? If think if you read more of their posts, you'd have trouble tagging your name to that statements.


So... if you can mention networks which don't provide religious broadcasting (and FOX is dramatically slanted toward religion/Christianity and notably anti-atheist), that somehow means that all of the Christian broadcasting I initially mentioned, doesn't exist? For example...

Bridges TV
BYU Television
Calvary Chapel
Catholic Life
CatholicTV
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)
Christian Television Network (CTN)
Daystar Television Network (Daystar)
Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)
Family Radio (FR)
Familyland Television Network
Fundamental Broadcasting Network
GOD TV
God's Learning Channel (GLC)
Golden Eagle Broadcasting
Islamic Broadcasting Network[14]
Jewish Life Television
Lester Sumrall Evangelistic Association (LeSea Broadcasting)
Living Faith Television (LFTv)
Loma Linda Broadcasting Network (LLBN)
New York Jewish Radio WMDI-LP - 107.9 FM Lakewood, NJ[15]
Peace TV In English, Urdu & Bangla languages
Salem Communications (SC)
Sky Angel
Sonlife Broadcasting Network [16] (SBN)
Three Angels Broadcasting Network (3ABN)
The Hope Channel
The Inspiration Network (INSP)
The Old Path (TOP)
The Worship Network
Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)

I just mentioned a number of those Christian networks.
And I just expanded the list. Mind posting as many atheist networks as you can find?

"Most evangelical programming is on Christian networks like TBN, Daystar, Word, God TV, TLN, Inspiration"
And? How do you not realize that you're not even addressing the point?

Those are Christian networks (BYU Television is actually Mormon). Because of that, one will find scriptural references in the Bible without any type of restrictions one finds on a secular network on any of these Christian networks. Fox is not a Christian network. Whatever their political slant is, who they favor, etc., has no bearing on the fact that Biblical scripture cannot be used on their broadcasts.
You're still not addressing the point.

What is it you don't understand about the point I'm making - that the promotion of religion is far, FAR more militant than anything atheists have done. Can you refute that, or just offer strawman arguments?

What do you mean by militant? As I stated, I don't think anyone relates militant atheism to a literal military meaning. Is that what you relate Christianity to? Do you think we're gathering ammunition, planning for a military takeover?
Active/aggressive.


One of the probable reasons we don't refer to militant Christianity, even in a non-literal symbolic sense, is because the term does have a negative connotation. Back when songs like "Onward Christian Soldiers" (symbolic) were written, it might not have had quite the negative connotation to it. But again, what do you mean by militant, or more militant?
Active/aggressive - that which Christianity has always been, and atheism has never been, but none-the-less, is tagged with the moniker by militant theists, the moment we speak up.

You'll have to provide a quote stating "God is telling you it's your time to act". I've seen the commercial, and I don't recall that statement being made.
I included the quotation from the commercial in the first post... when you first started arguing on their behalf and outright stating that it wasn't false advertizing.
https://www.youtube.com...
23-seconds into the Commercial (in this case). And they haven't a shred of evidence that God has ever said anything. Sorry, that's false advertizing.

It's not false advertising.
But it is! If you saw an ad claiming that God was telling you it was time to toss your Bible and stop believing in silly fairytales, would you claim that it wasn't false advertizing. It's just amazing that you don't get this. There is NO EVIDENCE to support their claims- NONE! Therefore, it is false advertizing to make those claims.

(Continued)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:06:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/26/2014 7:09:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Until I know exactly what you're claiming they say, I can't take it any further.
I posted EXACTLY what they say in my first post. And your first response was a blatant claim that they're not engaging in false advertizing. Now you suddenly don't know what they do, or don't say? Sorry, but the credibility for that statement is seriously lacking.

(23-seconds into the video). They even put the text right on the screen so you can't claim to misunderstand what they're saying.
- "Sometimes we wait for God to make the next move when God is saying it's your time to act."

It's a claim for which they have absolutely no supporting evidence. They can't even show that God actually exists, let alone that he's expressing any opinion on who should act when. And who should be more angry about putting words in God's mouth for profit, than those who believe in him? Yet, you're defending the act.


Firstly, Christians don't "know" that, they "believe" it. These are two different forms of information retention. Secondly, it doesn't matter what Christians THINK they "know". What matters is what can be demonstrated to be true. And "Christian Mingle" cannot support the claim that God is saying anything!
1. How do you know that a Christian doesn't "know" that God exists?
Because the standard for knowledge isn't satisfied with a simple "I think" or "I believe". It suggests a reasonable measure of demonstrability. Some people still believe Elvis Presley is alive. i think you'd object if they claimed to "know" he's alive. What if the commercial was, "Zeus has shown us that God doesn't exist." Would that bother you? Would you admit that it's false advertizing then? You're so biased that you can't even see your own bias.

2. What exactly are you objecting to? Where does this infraction you are suggesting lie? Are you objecting only when the commercial is broadcasted on a secular network, or does this include it's broadcast on Christian networks?
Are you kidding me? I've made this clear several times and you've sat right there and stated "It's not false advertizing". And now you don't even know what I'm talking about?

If I were trying to sell a product and my commercial said, "Roderick Spode understands that God is a myth. You should too!" Can I support the claim with evidence? If I can't, then I'm making a claim for which I can produce no supporting evidence. And that - my friend - is classic "FALSE ADVERTIZING". And that is EXACTLY what Christian Mingle is doing. And true to my statement in the OP, here you are - a Christian - trying to defend this illegal activity.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:45:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:46:39 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

You're still missing the point. Theists are FAR, FAR, FAR more militant, than atheists. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Apparently you either missed, ignored, or haven't had the time to get to 2 following posts I made that asks pertinent questions to some of the issues you're bringing up like this one. Here's one of them (from a following thread):

(Again) What do you mean by militant? Who are you including? Are you including early European colonialists? Or are you talking only about modern Christians in America (or abroad)

If you say Christians (or theists) are far more militant, you could mean a number of things. For instance, if you're combining Christianity with Islam, then yes, statistically theists (but not just Christians) are more militant. There are areas of the world where Muslim militias, and Christian militias take up arms. Those are in other countries of course, but now we're talking literal militancy. Or, you could be including early historical holy wars. Given that atheist activism is relatively new in the historic sense, and atheist activist don't bear arms, then yes, in a statistical sense it could said that Christianity historically has been more aggressive. However, I have to place en enlarged asterisk there because communism, although has not proclaimed their acts to be in the name of atheism, carried out a number of their human rights violations based on an anti-theism/anti-religion stance.

Now, if you're talking about the modern day Christian activist vs. atheist activist, then no......I don't think Christians are more aggressive. These organizations like the American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation are very aggressive whether one thinks they're justified or not.

I usually use the term atheist activists (or activist atheists). But if I have ever used the term militant atheist, I don't think I ever meant it any different than Dawkins did. If Dawkins chooses to use that terminology, even in sarcasm, no one should be surprised if others use it as well.
So your suggestion is that every theists - or every theist here - means the same thing you claim to mean? If think if you read more of their posts, you'd have trouble tagging your name to that statements.

I admit, I don't read all of the posts made here. But to answer your question, I do grant that there are different degrees of sentiment on any subject including this one, and differences of opinion. I was actually speaking more general. I don't know of any Christians who think atheists activists are planning a coup d'etat for instance. But since we're talking about this specific forum, the levels of sentiment among atheists vary as well. There are some atheists here that are more anti-theistic than others. I think you would have to admit, there's some pretty harsh words made about religion, specifically Christianity here in this forum.


I just mentioned a number of those Christian networks.
And I just expanded the list. Mind posting as many atheist networks as you can find?

I don't know of any atheist tv networks. Is the fact that there are Christian tv networks an example of Christian militancy? And the fact that there are no atheist networks a sign that atheist activists are less militant? Do you think there should be atheist tv networks?

And? How do you not realize that you're not even addressing the point?

If you think the fact that there are Christian networks, and no atheist networks is an indication of one being more militant than the other, then your point is in serious question. Is that the point, and/or is there something else?

You're still not addressing the point.

The point being that Christian networks exist, and no atheist networks exist? Does this constitute militancy? Is Walt Disney militant?

What is it you don't understand about the point I'm making - that the promotion of religion is far, FAR more militant than anything atheists have done. Can you refute that, or just offer strawman arguments?

I believe I understand your point, I just don't think it's justified. I don't object to promotion of atheism any more than I object to the promotion of Mormonism. I don't believe in Mormonism. I notice that there are Mormon TV commercials. Do I object to their commercials? No. If atheists produce tv commercials, develop tv networks, fine. They're not interfering with my rights if they do so. I've seen at least one atheist billboard in my area. I haven't tossed an egg at it yet.

What do you mean by militant? As I stated, I don't think anyone relates militant atheism to a literal military meaning. Is that what you relate Christianity to? Do you think we're gathering ammunition, planning for a military takeover?
Active/aggressive.

Well, I sort of wonder if atheist activists might be better termed as passive/aggressive. On the one hand they claim not to know whether or not God exists, and on the other claim that they have some sort of certainty that the God of the Bible does not exist. If atheists claim not to know, then why all of this anti-theistic hoopla? If you don't know that God doesn't exist, then what do you care about what a Christian dating service commercial is saying?


Active/aggressive - that which Christianity has always been, and atheism has never been, but none-the-less, is tagged with the moniker by militant theists, the moment we speak up.

Atheism has never been aggressive? You don't think atheist activists are aggressive? (I won't get into communism).

No doubt you're familiar with racial/ethnic empowerment groups. We could say they are aggressive, and justifiably aggressive. They need to be aggressive to receive fair treatment. For instance, there are racial/ethnic media watch groups that involve members of these groups holding the media accountable for how they are depicted in movies, tv shows, etc. They seek to remove stereotypes, and receive realistic representation rather than exploitation. They generally do not seek the removal of White European influence in America. They don't demand that European symbols, statues, architecture be removed from public property. How would you feel about the removal of the Statue Of Liberty because some might view it as a majority uber European symbol that insults Americans who are not European, and may have arrived in America in less than ideal circumstances? In fact, I understand that there is a group that wants it's removal. Would you support that?

Atheist activists don't seem to focus on mere equality. They seem to want any visual reference to Christianity removed from public view, and seem to think they have grounds to place Christianity on some sort of criminal trial.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:57:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:46:39 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

You'll have to provide a quote stating "God is telling you it's your time to act". I've seen the commercial, and I don't recall that statement being made.
I included the quotation from the commercial in the first post... when you first started arguing on their behalf and outright stating that it wasn't false advertizing.
Well I'm sorry, I didn't recall seeing that. The only reference to any sort of quotation (or paraphrase) was "God is telling you it's your time to act", which I don't believe they ever said. I wanted to give you a chance to show me where that was said, before commenting on what I recall them actually saying (which you show a quote of further along this thread, and stated in the video).

https://www.youtube.com...
23-seconds into the Commercial (in this case). And they haven't a shred of evidence that God has ever said anything. Sorry, that's false advertizing.

They don't have to prove to a Christian that God speaks to the heart of individuals. I don't need that proven to me. The commercial is for Christians, not atheists.
It's not false advertising.
But it is! If you saw an ad claiming that God was telling you it was time to toss your Bible and stop believing in silly fairytales, would you claim that it wasn't false advertizing. It's just amazing that you don't get this. There is NO EVIDENCE to support their claims- NONE! Therefore, it is false advertizing to make those claims.

(Continued)
It's not false advertising to a Christian. We don't have to prove anything to atheists.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:16:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:45:50 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/28/2014 12:46:39 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

You're still missing the point. Theists are FAR, FAR, FAR more militant, than atheists. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Apparently you either missed, ignored, or haven't had the time to get to 2 following posts I made that asks pertinent questions to some of the issues you're bringing up like this one. Here's one of them (from a following thread):

(Again) What do you mean by militant? Who are you including? Are you including early European colonialists? Or are you talking only about modern Christians in America (or abroad)
I've defined it multiple times. I'm not going to keep defining it, just because you keep asking.

If you say Christians (or theists) are far more militant, you could mean a number of things
Enough of your rhetoric. That was all spelled out in sufficient detail in the Opening Post.

Now, if you're talking about the modern day Christian activist vs. atheist activist, then no......I don't think Christians are more aggressive.
And yet, I've shown them to be. Show me the atheist networks. Show me the atheist groups campaigning door-to-door. Show me the atheist lobbyists. Show me the special privileges afforded to atheists (like broadcasting illegal commercials). Show me the atheist songs, the "Intelligent Reason is my Co-pilot" bumper stickers, the pressure to have atheism taught in science classes. Religion is guilty of all of these "militant" activities. Atheism is guilty of none of them.
And we've been through this over, and over, and over, Rod. Why do you think arguing in circles is going to provide you with other than the same conclusions?
These organizations like the American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation are very aggressive whether one thinks they're justified or not.
Show me what they are doing which is not justified? Or do you consider seeking equal compliance with law to be "unjustified"?

I usually use the term atheist activists (or activist atheists). But if I have ever used the term militant atheist, I don't think I ever meant it any different than Dawkins did. If Dawkins chooses to use that terminology, even in sarcasm, no one should be surprised if others use it as well.
So your suggestion is that every theists - or every theist here - means the same thing you claim to mean? If think if you read more of their posts, you'd have trouble tagging your name to that statements.

I admit, I don't read all of the posts made here. But to answer your question, I do grant that there are different degrees of sentiment on any subject including this one, and differences of opinion. I was actually speaking more general. I don't know of any Christians who think atheists activists are planning a coup d'etat for instance.
And yet they still use the term "militant atheist", when Christians (and many other theists), are far, FAR more militant!

But since we're talking about this specific forum, the levels of sentiment among atheists vary as well. There are some atheists here that are more anti-theistic than others. I think you would have to admit, there's some pretty harsh words made about religion, specifically Christianity here in this forum.
Especially when we're constantly dealing with people who will disingenuously deny absolutely anything when they sense that honesty won't help their cause... such as you trying to argue the point I'm making with this thread. It's simply dishonest for you to do so. You've shown that throughout.


I just mentioned a number of those Christian networks.
And I just expanded the list. Mind posting as many atheist networks as you can find?

I don't know of any atheist tv networks. Is the fact that there are Christian tv networks an example of Christian militancy?
The fact that there are dozens of theistic networks and NO atheist networks, shows that Christians are more militant in their approach, yes.

And the fact that there are no atheist networks a sign that atheist activists are less militant? Do you think there should be atheist tv networks?
Not at all. I think it should be treated as any other belief, aside from theism - which is driven forward like a war.

And? How do you not realize that you're not even addressing the point?

If you think the fact that there are Christian networks, and no atheist networks is an indication of one being more militant than the other, then your point is in serious question. Is that the point, and/or is there something else?
It's a small part of the point.

You're still not addressing the point. If you're in question regarding the multiple evidences showing that theism is more militant than atheism, I direct you to the O.P. It's still there. Why do you respond as though you haven't read it?

The point being that Christian networks exist, and no atheist networks exist? Does this constitute militancy? Is Walt Disney militant?
Walt Disney isn't pushing a particular viewpoint or opinion. And again this is ONE FACTOR out of many. (See: the Opening Post). Please discontinue the disingenuous tactic of attempting to suggest that there haven't been multiple different examples provided. We've discussed nearly all of them, now suddenly you can only remember one? (See: Opening Post)

What is it you don't understand about the point I'm making - that the promotion of religion is far, FAR more militant than anything atheists have done. Can you refute that, or just offer strawman arguments?

I believe I understand your point, I just don't think it's justified. I don't object to promotion of atheism any more than I object to the promotion of Mormonism. I don't believe in Mormonism. I notice that there are Mormon TV commercials. Do I object to their commercials? No. If atheists produce tv commercials, develop tv networks, fine. They're not interfering with my rights if they do so. I've seen at least one atheist billboard in my area. I haven't tossed an egg at it yet.
Do you see yourself as the embodiment of all theists? That appears to be your argument - that if you don't think atheism is militant, then no theists suggest it to be. Is that seriously the stance you wish to take?

What do you mean by militant? As I stated, I don't think anyone relates militant atheism to a literal military meaning. Is that what you relate Christianity to? Do you think we're gathering ammunition, planning for a military takeover?
Active/aggressive.

Well, I sort of wonder if atheist activists might be better termed as passive/aggressive. On the one hand they claim not to know whether or not God exists, and on the other claim that they have some sort of certainty that the God of the Bible does not exist. If atheists claim not to know, then why all of this anti-theistic hoopla? If you don't know that God doesn't exist, then what do you care about what a Christian dating service commercial is saying?
How many times, Rod? Do you think you appear to be at all honest when you just chase the same point in circles? IT'S ILLEGAL! And it should be enforced equally for EVERYONE. Don't be a dick, okay? If you want to discuss this, that's fine. But learn to be a bit more honest in your approach.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:21:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 1:06:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/26/2014 7:09:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Until I know exactly what you're claiming they say, I can't take it any further.
I posted EXACTLY what they say in my first post. And your first response was a blatant claim that they're not engaging in false advertizing. Now you suddenly don't know what they do, or don't say? Sorry, but the credibility for that statement is seriously lacking.

(23-seconds into the video). They even put the text right on the screen so you can't claim to misunderstand what they're saying.
- "Sometimes we wait for God to make the next move when God is saying it's your time to act."

Oh I am not misunderstanding what they are saying. They are not saying "God is telling you to act". Their actual comment is true, and Christians know that. That from a Christian standpoint is a very accurate statement. They're conveying the possibility that if a Christian happens to be seeking a mate, there's a possibility that God may be leading that person to action. And that doesn't necessarily mean a dating service, but this program is offering it's service as a possible means for a Christian to pursue a mate. No false advertising.

It's a claim for which they have absolutely no supporting evidence. They can't even show that God actually exists, let alone that he's expressing any opinion on who should act when. And who should be more angry about putting words in God's mouth for profit, than those who believe in him? Yet, you're defending the act.

They don't have to show that God exists. The service is for Christians who don't need proof of God's existence. And they are not claiming that God is telling anyone to do anything. Now there are obviously false adverting claims made on some religious infomercial type programs "God is instructing you to send me money", but this dating service from what I can see does not fall into that category.

Firstly, Christians don't "know" that, they "believe" it. These are two different forms of information retention. Secondly, it doesn't matter what Christians THINK they "know". What matters is what can be demonstrated to be true. And "Christian Mingle" cannot support the claim that God is saying anything!
1. How do you know that a Christian doesn't "know" that God exists?
Because the standard for knowledge isn't satisfied with a simple "I think" or "I believe". It suggests a reasonable measure of demonstrability. Some people still believe Elvis Presley is alive. i think you'd object if they claimed to "know" he's alive. What if the commercial was, "Zeus has shown us that God doesn't exist." Would that bother you? Would you admit that it's false advertizing then? You're so biased that you can't even see your own bias.

No, I don't object to people claiming they know that Elvis is alive. And if someone claims that Zeus has shown them that God doesn't exist, I don't know if I could care any less.

2. What exactly are you objecting to? Where does this infraction you are suggesting lie? Are you objecting only when the commercial is broadcasted on a secular network, or does this include it's broadcast on Christian networks?
Are you kidding me? I've made this clear several times and you've sat right there and stated "It's not false advertizing". And now you don't even know what I'm talking about?

If I were trying to sell a product and my commercial said, "Roderick Spode understands that God is a myth. You should too!" Can I support the claim with evidence? If I can't, then I'm making a claim for which I can produce no supporting evidence. And that - my friend - is classic "FALSE ADVERTIZING". And that is EXACTLY what Christian Mingle is doing. And true to my statement in the OP, here you are - a Christian - trying to defend this illegal activity.
I'll explain it further.

If you object to the ChristianMingle ad being on a Christian network, that would be equivalent to objecting to what a preacher says in his pulpit Sunday morning in his evangelically owned church. Preachers/pastors claim to know that God exists when they preach on their pulpit Sunday morning. As far as I know, you don't object to that provided that they don't preach in the public square. It's the same principle with Christian TV and secular TV networks showing that commercial. If you object to the commercial being shown on a Christian network, then you may as well object to pastors preaching in their own churches. That's why I'm wondering what exactly is your issue with that commercial and Christian TV networks.

I know this thread basically confronts the usage of the term militant atheism, and how it shouldn't be used, but the various angles you're presenting with this tv commercial, and Christian TV networks lead me to believe that you're not really in favor of religious freedom (unless it's kept out of sight).
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:46:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:21:52 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/28/2014 1:06:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/26/2014 7:09:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Until I know exactly what you're claiming they say, I can't take it any further.
I posted EXACTLY what they say in my first post. And your first response was a blatant claim that they're not engaging in false advertizing. Now you suddenly don't know what they do, or don't say? Sorry, but the credibility for that statement is seriously lacking.

(23-seconds into the video). They even put the text right on the screen so you can't claim to misunderstand what they're saying.
- "Sometimes we wait for God to make the next move when God is saying it's your time to act."

Oh I am not misunderstanding what they are saying. They are not saying "God is telling you to act". Their actual comment is true, and Christians know that. That from a Christian standpoint is a very accurate statement. They're conveying the possibility that if a Christian happens to be seeking a mate, there's a possibility that God may be leading that person to action. And that doesn't necessarily mean a dating service, but this program is offering it's service as a possible means for a Christian to pursue a mate. No false advertising.

Your response here is the kind of blatant disingenuous approach which often earns theists a ranting diatribe of well-deserved insults. You're simply being dishonest. Phrased more bluntly, you're lying your butt off. The commercial says (and I'll write it out for you again), "Sometimes we wait for God to make the next move when God is saying it's your time to act." This is a VERY CLEAR statement that God says things. It's not saying specifically when he says "it's your time to act", and when he doesn't, but it most certainly DOES make the claim that God says this, sometimes.

So... if you want to defend Christian Mingle, your task is to provide adequate objective evidence that this is true. And Christians "believing" it to be true, isn't NOT evidence that it is true!

What is your evidence that God sometimes says, "It's your time to act"?

As for the rest of your extended typing marathon, I'll leave it for later. We can chase down just this one point, and then return to the rest. Perhaps that way we can avoid this ring-around-the-rosie debate style you've been demonstrating.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:39:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
Turn on the television and flip through a few channels and you're sure to come across some televised church services, a televangelist, commercials inviting you to join a particular church, and even commercials which are - for some reason - allowed to make claims for which they have not a hint of supporting evidence (such as "Christian Mingle"). While it's clear that if a cleaning product claimed that it could clean absolutely any stain from any surface, without any damage to the base material, it would be held to a standard of evidence to support the claims, religion is allowed to skate on its claims without challenge. If held to the same standards as any other advertized product, Christian Mingle would never be allowed to make the claim that, "God is saying, "It"s your time to act,"" But religion is allowed to skate on the laws and standards applied to everything else, even though this violates the Constitution.

But my point here is not that religion is given latitude even above the law. My point is that despite all of the improprieties afforded religion, atheism is the one continually tagged with the word "militant". There is nothing militant about atheism. Even the so-called "new atheism" is not militant in the least. It is more "out-spoken" than before but clearly not militant. It's still far, FAR less out-spoken than theism.

So why? Why do theists find it appropriate to suggest that speaking about atheism, makes it militant? Think about the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". The lyrics contain the phrases, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before" and "Oh, we're marching as to war. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng". These lyrics were written as a processional hymn for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and Christians knocking door-to-door spreading "the good news", urging their children to be "soldiers for Christ", demanding and receiving special privileges over and above law, lobbying openly in congress and initiating legal battles to try to teach theology in place of science, how is it that atheism warrants the term "militant"?

Why is it "spreading the good news" when you do it, and "militant" when we do it? Is there actually a theists anywhere who can look at this objectively and still claim that "militant atheism" is anything but hypocrisy taken to the extreme?

Atheism in itself isn't militant. Atheists have existed for centuries and yet their record shows that they are peaceful people. As far as theism is concerned ; let just look at all those wars fought in the name of God : Nazism, crusades, spread of Islam, modern war on terror.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 6:58:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:16:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:45:50 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:

(Again) What do you mean by militant? Who are you including? Are you including early European colonialists? Or are you talking only about modern Christians in America (or abroad)
I've defined it multiple times. I'm not going to keep defining it, just because you keep asking.

If you say Christians (or theists) are far more militant, you could mean a number of things
Enough of your rhetoric. That was all spelled out in sufficient detail in the Opening Post.

Yes, I apologize. I forgot that you did include the Inquisition, witch trials, and the Crusades, along with Christian TV, going door-to-door, a few hymnals that reference a Christian Army, and of course ChristianMingle.com. However, if you're going to include the first 3, then I will gladly mention militant communism, which has made up for any holy war in a very short period of time. Communism has provided proof for the world that this is the best we can expect from John Lennon's Utopian song "Imagine" as-nice-as-the-song-is. An anti-theistic world would be no better without religion than with.

As far as the Christian dating thing goes, if you were to ask me what I thought was more militant (in the negative sense of the term) between ChristianMingle and Atheist Passions, I would give that award to Atheist Passions hands down, even though ChristianMingle produces TV commercials as opposed to merely using a website. ChristianMingle never addresses atheism. Atheist Passions decided it would be cute to place a figure or icon of Jesus hanging from a clothesline.

http://www.atheistpassions.com...

A lot of what atheist orgs represent is anti-theism. Christian organizations generally don't attempt to ridicule atheism.

Yes, there are hymns that reference military themes like army and soldiers. These are of course symbolic, but one can still make the case that it's still militant. And I can go along with that. I don't however think that type of militancy necessitates a negative/bad connotation. I don't think atheist militancy necessitates bad. If atheist activists promote their cause without all of the focus on religion, and how evil it is, then I personally would respect them a lot more. As it is now, particularly what I see draped all over the internet, atheist activists (in general) do not come across as those I think deserve any respect. There may be exceptions here and there, but generally I see a lot what appears to be highly irrational, overly emotional conduct. And I think that type of negative element of militancy is what most theists are attributing it to.

Now, if you're talking about the modern day Christian activist vs. atheist activist, then no......I don't think Christians are more aggressive.
And yet, I've shown them to be. Show me the atheist networks. Show me the atheist groups campaigning door-to-door. Show me the atheist lobbyists. Show me the special privileges afforded to atheists (like broadcasting illegal commercials). Show me the atheist songs, the "Intelligent Reason is my Co-pilot" bumper stickers, the pressure to have atheism taught in science classes. Religion is guilty of all of these "militant" activities. Atheism is guilty of none of them.
Personally I think atheists would be better off attempting to create tv networks, writing songs, even campaigning door-to-door. This way they would be held accountable for their actions. Instead they are all over youtube where they can make all kinds of slanderous claims. That seems to be their chosen medium, youtube and the websites. There might be some intelligent dialogue, but most of internet atheist programming seems to consist of Saturday Night Live wannabes.

And we've been through this over, and over, and over, Rod. Why do you think arguing in circles is going to provide you with other than the same conclusions?

I'll just say this, this thread is an interesting enough topic for me to post in it. But I think it leads to a number of unavoidable areas, some that I've brought up where there are contradictions (freedom of speech, censorship, constitutional rights/separation of church and state, empowerment groups and their agendas, etc.). However, if you think we're just going around in circles, I'm not the pushy type. If I sense that someone prefers not to engage in conversation on-line or in person (think I'm dishonest, irrational, or whatever) I generally back off.

And yet they still use the term "militant atheist", when Christians (and many other theists), are far, FAR more militant!

Again, from what I see, in spite of your examples, I can honestly say that Christians are not more militant in the offensive attack mode sense. We may make far more symbolic references to militancy, but in the negative context that I think we're all associating it with, Christians are not more militant.

But since we're talking about this specific forum, the levels of sentiment among atheists vary as well. There are some atheists here that are more anti-theistic than others. I think you would have to admit, there's some pretty harsh words made about religion, specifically Christianity here in this forum.
Especially when we're constantly dealing with people who will disingenuously deny absolutely anything when they sense that honesty won't help their cause... such as you trying to argue the point I'm making with this thread. It's simply dishonest for you to do so. You've shown that throughout.

Claiming someone is dishonest doesn't really prove anything. I got over the idea that deep down everyone actually agrees with me whether they admit it or not. I am at complete peace with the idea that, yes, there are those with authentic polar opposite viewpoints than myself. In my opinion, specifically on the internet, it's best to assume someone is telling the truth. One is not at fault for doing so, and is at no risk of drawing a false conclusion based on presumption.

I don't know of any atheist tv networks. Is the fact that there are Christian tv networks an example of Christian militancy?
The fact that there are dozens of theistic networks and NO atheist networks, shows that Christians are more militant in their approach, yes.

But again.....youtube!
And the fact that there are no atheist networks a sign that atheist activists are less militant? Do you think there should be atheist tv networks?
Not at all. I think it should be treated as any other belief, aside from theism - which is driven forward like a war.

Then are you against atheist websites and atheist youtube channels?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:21:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:16:06 PM, Beastt wrote:

And? How do you not realize that you're not even addressing the point?
I sincerely think I have been.

If you think the fact that there are Christian networks, and no atheist networks is an indication of one being more militant than the other, then your point is in serious question. Is that the point, and/or is there something else?
It's a small part of the point.

Militancy in the aggressive attack mode sense, in America (and I'll toss in Great Britain), in this day and age, that honor goes to atheist activists. Militancy in the symbolic, promotional (media, door-to-door, etc.) sense goes to Christianity.

You're still not addressing the point. If you're in question regarding the multiple evidences showing that theism is more militant than atheism, I direct you to the O.P. It's still there. Why do you respond as though you haven't read it?

The point being that Christian networks exist, and no atheist networks exist? Does this constitute militancy? Is Walt Disney militant?
Walt Disney isn't pushing a particular viewpoint or opinion. And again this is ONE FACTOR out of many. (See: the Opening Post). Please discontinue the disingenuous tactic of attempting to suggest that there haven't been multiple different examples provided. We've discussed nearly all of them, now suddenly you can only remember one? (See: Opening Post)

Again, my apologies.
What is it you don't understand about the point I'm making - that the promotion of religion is far, FAR more militant than anything atheists have done. Can you refute that, or just offer strawman arguments?

I believe I understand your point, I just don't think it's justified. I don't object to promotion of atheism any more than I object to the promotion of Mormonism. I don't believe in Mormonism. I notice that there are Mormon TV commercials. Do I object to their commercials? No. If atheists produce tv commercials, develop tv networks, fine. They're not interfering with my rights if they do so. I've seen at least one atheist billboard in my area. I haven't tossed an egg at it yet.
Do you see yourself as the embodiment of all theists? That appears to be your argument - that if you don't think atheism is militant, then no theists suggest it to be. Is that seriously the stance you wish to take?

No, I don't think I'm the embodiment of all theists. But I don't think I claimed that I don't think atheism (activism) is militant. In the context I mentioned prior, I think it is.

What do you mean by militant? As I stated, I don't think anyone relates militant atheism to a literal military meaning. Is that what you relate Christianity to? Do you think we're gathering ammunition, planning for a military takeover?
Active/aggressive.

Well, I sort of wonder if atheist activists might be better termed as passive/aggressive. On the one hand they claim not to know whether or not God exists, and on the other claim that they have some sort of certainty that the God of the Bible does not exist. If atheists claim not to know, then why all of this anti-theistic hoopla? If you don't know that God doesn't exist, then what do you care about what a Christian dating service commercial is saying?
How many times, Rod? Do you think you appear to be at all honest when you just chase the same point in circles? IT'S ILLEGAL! And it should be enforced equally for EVERYONE. Don't be a dick, okay? If you want to discuss this, that's fine. But learn to be a bit more honest in your approach.
It's up to you whether or not we should continue this conversation. I can't guarantee that you're going to read my comments as being honest, and I'm not going to try and manipulate my own words to attempt to appease whatever your idea of honesty is. There's not an ounce of dishonesty that I can detect in my statement.

Look, there have a number of cases brought to trial involving groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. The issues taken to court are not easy. Nothing is easy when it comes to religion. And when groups like the FFRF lose a court case, it's not because of some majority Christian conspiracy. It's because the evidence favors the rights of the defendant (usually a Christian). I doubt anyone would even attempt to take ChristianMingle to court, and if they did, ChristianMingle I'm sure would win. If it was obviously, blatantly, illegal, it would be off the air. It's not on the air because of some Christian majority conspiracy, but because there's no grounds to claim it illegal.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:38:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:46:20 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 12:21:52 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/28/2014 1:06:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/26/2014 7:09:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Until I know exactly what you're claiming they say, I can't take it any further.
I posted EXACTLY what they say in my first post. And your first response was a blatant claim that they're not engaging in false advertizing. Now you suddenly don't know what they do, or don't say? Sorry, but the credibility for that statement is seriously lacking.

(23-seconds into the video). They even put the text right on the screen so you can't claim to misunderstand what they're saying.
- "Sometimes we wait for God to make the next move when God is saying it's your time to act."

Oh I am not misunderstanding what they are saying. They are not saying "God is telling you to act". Their actual comment is true, and Christians know that. That from a Christian standpoint is a very accurate statement. They're conveying the possibility that if a Christian happens to be seeking a mate, there's a possibility that God may be leading that person to action. And that doesn't necessarily mean a dating service, but this program is offering it's service as a possible means for a Christian to pursue a mate. No false advertising.

Your response here is the kind of blatant disingenuous approach which often earns theists a ranting diatribe of well-deserved insults. You're simply being dishonest. Phrased more bluntly, you're lying your butt off. The commercial says (and I'll write it out for you again), "Sometimes we wait for God to make the next move when God is saying it's your time to act." This is a VERY CLEAR statement that God says things. It's not saying specifically when he says "it's your time to act", and when he doesn't, but it most certainly DOES make the claim that God says this, sometimes.

So... if you want to defend Christian Mingle, your task is to provide adequate objective evidence that this is true. And Christians "believing" it to be true, isn't NOT evidence that it is true!

What is your evidence that God sometimes says, "It's your time to act"?

Evidence has been provided to me by God Himself. I have experienced the voice of God, in my spirit/inner man (not hearing voices in my head kind of voice) urging me that it's time to act. Sometimes I'm urged not to act, but to wait. These are very realistic experiences that many Christians I've known over the years attest to. The dating service is for Christians. They do not have to prove anything to you in order for them to obtain legality.

And again, since you're a professed atheist, who I think follows the decree that atheists have no belief, do not claim to know one way or the other if God exists, then you have no real foundation for your claim concerning that dating site. You don't know if God exists, therefore you don't know that God doesn't communicate with some individuals in such a way that they know it's God. Therefore, you don't know that ChristianMingle is making any false claim. It's that simple.
As for the rest of your extended typing marathon, I'll leave it for later. We can chase down just this one point, and then return to the rest. Perhaps that way we can avoid this ring-around-the-rosie debate style you've been demonstrating.
From my experience, and I've been guilty of it myself, this basically means we'll leave it alone. Yes, there's a bit of reverse psychology here, but I won't hold my breath.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 3:57:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 7:38:03 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/28/2014 12:46:20 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 12:21:52 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/28/2014 1:06:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/26/2014 7:09:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Until I know exactly what you're claiming they say, I can't take it any further.
I posted EXACTLY what they say in my first post. And your first response was a blatant claim that they're not engaging in false advertizing. Now you suddenly don't know what they do, or don't say? Sorry, but the credibility for that statement is seriously lacking.

(23-seconds into the video). They even put the text right on the screen so you can't claim to misunderstand what they're saying.
- "Sometimes we wait for God to make the next move when God is saying it's your time to act."

Oh I am not misunderstanding what they are saying. They are not saying "God is telling you to act". Their actual comment is true, and Christians know that. That from a Christian standpoint is a very accurate statement. They're conveying the possibility that if a Christian happens to be seeking a mate, there's a possibility that God may be leading that person to action. And that doesn't necessarily mean a dating service, but this program is offering it's service as a possible means for a Christian to pursue a mate. No false advertising.

Your response here is the kind of blatant disingenuous approach which often earns theists a ranting diatribe of well-deserved insults. You're simply being dishonest. Phrased more bluntly, you're lying your butt off. The commercial says (and I'll write it out for you again), "Sometimes we wait for God to make the next move when God is saying it's your time to act." This is a VERY CLEAR statement that God says things. It's not saying specifically when he says "it's your time to act", and when he doesn't, but it most certainly DOES make the claim that God says this, sometimes.

So... if you want to defend Christian Mingle, your task is to provide adequate objective evidence that this is true. And Christians "believing" it to be true, isn't NOT evidence that it is true!

What is your evidence that God sometimes says, "It's your time to act"?

Evidence has been provided to me by God Himself. I have experienced the voice of God, in my spirit/inner man (not hearing voices in my head kind of voice) urging me that it's time to act. Sometimes I'm urged not to act, but to wait. These are very realistic experiences that many Christians I've known over the years attest to. The dating service is for Christians. They do not have to prove anything to you in order for them to obtain legality.

And there is the rub. Militant Atheists approach interactions with theists as if the theist is applying for legitimacy. Like all evidence must be validated by the atheist. Like everything offered by the theist must submit to the atheist standard to be considered relevant and logical.

This is precisely what militancy is. It's exactly how militant Islamist behave. It is typical of their mindset.

So we have a private company/church, advertizing on a private religious station, and the militant atheist wants the ad to submit to his personal atheistic standard.

And again, since you're a professed atheist, who I think follows the decree that atheists have no belief, do not claim to know one way or the other if God exists, then you have no real foundation for your claim concerning that dating site. You don't know if God exists, therefore you don't know that God doesn't communicate with some individuals in such a way that they know it's God. Therefore, you don't know that ChristianMingle is making any false claim. It's that simple.
As for the rest of your extended typing marathon, I'll leave it for later. We can chase down just this one point, and then return to the rest. Perhaps that way we can avoid this ring-around-the-rosie debate style you've been demonstrating.
From my experience, and I've been guilty of it myself, this basically means we'll leave it alone. Yes, there's a bit of reverse psychology here, but I won't hold my breath.