panelarrow

Atheist Tuesday: Your Questions?

| 53 Comments

I want to try and answer your questions, O unbelieving readers of this blog. I will try to answer as honestly and sincerely as I can the answers you submit to me. The only qualifications would be to try and ask broad-based questions based on subjects that you are truly confused about, stymied by, or can’t quite understand regarding evangelism or Christianity in general.

I hope to answer them in future posts. So, let them roll!

53 Comments

  1. Steve you wrote:

    “The only qualifications would be to try and ask broad-based questions based on subjects that you are truly confused about, stymied by, or can’t quite understand regarding evangelism or Christianity in general.”

    Steven you know full well that atheists are never confused, stymied or lack understanding about anything. They KNOW EVERYTHING! LOL!

    😛

    • They KNOW EVERYTHING! LOL!

      I don’t know most things, much less “everything”.

      I get confused, stymied, and lack understanding about things sometimes.

      • Me, too, Nohm. Me, too.

        I appreciate your consistent humility and graciousness.

      • Steve,

        The title of most humble and gracious blogger… goes to… YOU!

        That’s the truth. You are a good example of how to turn the other cheek and be kind to your “enemies”.

        I’m trying to be more like that. It’s hard.

      • The title of most humble and gracious blogger… goes to… YOU!

        carl, I like Steve, too, and I have no doubt that your appreciation is genuine, but there are times where you sound like a fanboy and it gets a bit creepy. Some of your comments (like this one) make it seem like you’re placing Steve on a pedestal – and I don’t think Steve wants or desires that.

      • perdita is correct.

        I appreciate your appreciation though. Thanks!

      • perdita I don’t put Steve on a pedastal… I have a shrine devoted to him. LOL… just kidding.

        😛

        I think Steve is a good person though. I think he walks the walk. With all of the discouraging comments he gets from atheists I am trying to give him some honest encouragement.

      • carl,

        Sincere question: Why exactly is it difficult for you to be a decent, civilized person? Why can’t you turn the other cheek toward those you label as “enemies”? For that matter, why label them “enemies” to begin with?

      • Blackswan you think I’m not a “decent and civilized person”?

        Perdita you think I’m a “fanboy” and “creepy”?

        How is that not a personal attack?

      • carl, glad for the clarification. (And I would also be interested in your answer to theB1lackSwan.)

      • theB1ackSwan

        I used the word “enemies” because I was talking to Steve. Steve as a pastor and a fellow Christian would understand the lingo. The term enemies is used throughout the New Testament and Jesus admonished believers to treat their enemies in a certain way. You can to a topic search of the word enemies in the New Testament to see what I’m talking about.

      • carl – I did not call you creepy and I didn’t call you a fanboy. To be utterly redundant, I said you sometimes sound like a fanboy – and yes, I find that sort of behavior creepy.

        I also said that I thought your appreciation was genuine. I think you may not realize how some of your posts come across.

        Do I need to belabor this? My criticism wasn’t towards what you were expressing, only how you’re expressing it and only because I don’t think you realized how you sometimes come across.

      • …you think I’m not a “decent and civilized person”?

        carl, your the one who said it was hard to be kind to your enemies (meaning us). Maybe we have different ideas of what a decent and civilized person is, but my definition would include someone who doesn’t have a hard time being kind to other people and someone with a more rigorous definition of enemies than ‘anyone who doesn’t believe what I believe.’

      • I’m sorry, but criticisms (even those that you admit to) != personal attack. Even if it does, so what? I never said I don’t “personally attack” anyone.

        Your answer on enemies is interesting, but I ask again – what exactly makes me an enemy? Simply because I don’t agree with you? Because I’m not a Christian? What is it?

      • perdita,

        you said, “carl, your the one who said it was hard to be kind to your enemies (meaning us). ”

        I said no such thing. I didn’t call any of you enemies. I think STeve has enemies and I was complimenting him on how he deals with them.

    • theB1ackSwan

      For one thing I didn’t call you an enemy. The term “enemy” can describe and be applied to someone opposed to you. An enemy could be metaphoric or literal.

      I was making a reference to a moral ideal that is found in the New Testament, which is to be kind, generous, forgiving, merciful etc towards your enemies. I think the idea is that we as Christians are suppose to be kind towards an enemy then we also ought to be kind to everyone else. That is a hard thing to do.

      In my opinion Steve has enemies. I was commending him on his behavior.

    • For the record I don’t have any enemies… they have all been dealt with… wuhahaha… Just kidding!

      😛

      • (posting here because it’s easier) Okay, my confusion came in when you mentioned how Steve handles ‘enemies’ here. That led me to believe you thought we were his enemies (because, why bring it up here in response to a comment from Nohm if you meant people that Steve deals with elsewhere?)

        Do I understand that not all of us atheists are considered his enemy?

      • Perdita:

        I wasn’t responding to Nohm’s comment at all. I wasn’t even responding to Steve’s comment to Nohm. However, Steve’s comment to Nohm made me think that given the negative comments that I have read about Steve on different blogs and youtube and sometimes on this blog, Steve consistently turns the other cheek. The reason why the word “enemy” even came up in my comment was to highlight that Steve’s attitude and what I have observed of his actions is consistent with many New Testament teachings about how to deal with people who are against you aka “enemies”.

        I think I would get very discouraged if I was in Steve’s shoes.

  2. Why are people who believe that lying is a sin worthy of eternal punishment so transparently dishonest so often?

    Do you feel your hilariously draconian censorship reflects well on you? Please refer to question 1 before you falsely describe the posts you’ve deleted.

    Do you feel the derogatory sock puppetry you allow here reflects well on the transformative power of the love of Jesus in the lives of Christians?

    • BathTub says:
      January 24, 2012 at 6:17 pm
      “Why are people who believe that lying is a sin worthy of eternal punishment so transparently dishonest so often? ”

      Question: Who are you talking about?

      BathTub says:
      January 24, 2012 at 6:17 pm

      “Do you feel your hilariously draconian censorship reflects well on you? Please refer to question 1 before you falsely describe the posts you’ve deleted. ”

      Question: What cencorship? I think you are confusing cencorship with moderation. Steve is very honest about the fact that he moderates his blog.

      BathTub says:
      January 24, 2012 at 6:17 pm

      “Do you feel the derogatory sock puppetry you allow here reflects well on the transformative power of the love of Jesus in the lives of Christians?”

      Question: Who is a sockpuppet and who isn’t a sockpuppet. Everytime someone speaks the truth about atheists they are labeled a sockpuppet. That is an ad hominem attack.

      • Just a little tip: “ad hominem” != “insult”. And, for that matter, “Sockpuppet” may or may not equal “insult” as well.

      • That is not what an ad hominem fallacy is. It is when you attack the person’s character as a way of refuting the argument. If I say “rebornmouse, you’re wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z and a bit of a dolt.” then it is NOT an ad hominem because my refutation of your argument is not calling you a dolt, but rather X, Y, and Z.

      • The sockpuppet currently known as “rebornmouse” wrote:

        Who is a sockpuppet and who isn’t a sockpuppet. Everytime someone speaks the truth about atheists they are labeled a sockpuppet. That is an ad hominem attack.

        You’re kidding, right?

        No, we don’t care what you say about atheists. We label people “sockpuppets” who use a variety of names, never sticking with one. Such as someone named “rebornmouse”.

        Also, you don’t seem to understand what an ad hominem attack is. We’re not claiming that your arguments should be discounted because you’re a sockpuppet troll, we’re saying that sockpuppet trolls are trolls, and are therefore annoying to deal with.

        Steve, Richard, Thomas, Glenn, and so on say the same negative things about atheists that you do, but they’ve never been accused of being a sockpuppet troll, like yourself.

        I think the difference is pretty obvious, and you’re intentionally acting ignorant about the differences.

      • Intentionally being dishonest Nohm? You mean… like… say… lying?

      • Nohm you are probably the most uncivil person in here.

        You call people sock puppets, trolls, annoying, ignorant etc etc. If anyone is guilty of personal attacks it is you.

      • carl,

        Do you understand what a “sockpuppet” is?

        Do you understand what a “troll” is?

        Do you understand that “ignorant” is not a personal attack? Do you understand what the term “intentionally acting ignorant” means?

        I ask because, based on your most recent post, it appears that you don’t understand. Please research these words and terms, and hopefully you’ll understand what I mean.

      • Vintango,

        I did not write “intentionally being dishonest”; I wrote “intentionally acting ignorant”.

        Having said that, I guess I agree that someone who is intentionally acting ignorant is, to some degree, being dishonest.

      • Nohm you are probably the most uncivil person in here.

        And I love you too, carl.

      • He’s not. Really. Nohm is actually very polite.

      • Nohm I do know what those words mean. I think labeling someone as a sockpuppet, a troll, annoying and ignorant would qualify as being uncivil

        I also think some of your comments are condescending. Maybe you don’t mean them to come across that way or maybe I’m interpreting them wrong.

        I also think you accuse others of doing the exact same thing that you do yourself.

        Those are my opinions.

      • carl, let’s see if you and I can come to an agreement.

        Do you agree that someone who constantly uses different names is a sockpuppet?

        Do you think that calling a sockpuppet “a sockpuppet” is uncivil?

        Yes, I sometimes have made the mistake of accusing people of doing things that I do. If you think I take those instances lightly, you are dead wrong; there is nothing more important to me in the world than making sure I’m not being hypocritical.

        carl, if you said “I don’t know anything about motorcycles”, and then in a later comment I wrote “carl is ignorant about motorcycles”, would you consider that to be uncivil?

  3. 1. By what objective (or biblical) method do you follow your version of the “ten commandments” as opposed to other denominations?

    2. By what objective (or biblical) method do you prioritise those ten?

    3. Finally, given your answers to questions 1&2, why do you not keep the sabbath?

  4. Why did God kill the first-born of Egypt for the Pharaoh’s actions? You seem to find punishing someone for another’s misdeed to be a horrible thing when aborting the fetus of a rape victim, so this sounds like a double standard.

    Heck, it can be argued that we’ve all been punished for the crimes of Adam & Eve if you look at the Genesis story.

  5. 1. Why do you throw in so to speak with young earth creationism as opposed to the beliefs of other denominations that accept scientific revelation as true?
    2. Do you not believe that denial of these discoveries we have made about nature or God’s creation is denying the truth of said creation in favor of things that have been thoroughly and actively disproven, and then proceeding to mislead others, is a form of lying?

  6. Pardon me. Do you have any Grey Poupon?

  7. What method do you use to ensure that your interpretation of bible is the correct one compared to all the other religious denominations out there.

    What method did (do) you use to ensure you are using the correct variant of the bible in the first place?

  8. Would you let your kids watch the Harry Potter films?

    • Personally I don’t know why the Harry Potter films get such a bad rap by some Christians. All fiction is a lie. Magic (fantasy) vs technology that doesn’t exist or never could exist (sci-fi) seems the same to me.

  9. This is from Logical:

    Mr. Sanchez I will start this post out by saying I am not trying to stir up any commotion. I have a question for you. Why do you see evangelism as such a good thing? It seems to me that you would want people to find religion (particularly yours) on their own, so that there would be no question about their faith. Be cause to me, and this is only from my observation and could be interpreted as opinion, it seems like you and many other evangelical preachers are trying to scare people towards Christianity with threats of eternal damnation and torture through hell. Also what do you think of the recent Catholic view that there is NO hell? And how are they wrong if you do not agree with that view?

  10. This from Vintango:

    Hmmmm I think I’m starting to get this now, and correct me if I’m wrong.

    You are a Christian Conservative, so therefore you’ve married your religious ideology with you political ideology, (hence the passive aggressive mocking of “liberal Christians”) which seems to be of a vein similar to the Southern Baptist Convention. Because liberals and democrats tend to trust and listen to scientists and are convinced by conclusions based off of data uncovered in reality you have a dual mistrust of science as it contradicts the bible and is accepted by liberals more so than conservatives and think that it is, ‘of the devil’. You’ve demonstrated in the past that you don’t follow science, you don’t know much about science, you don’t read papers, articles, attend lectures, and seem rather incurious about subjects that you feel confident enough to disregard (even though this stuff is in reality, is part of reality, and thus is part of God’s creation and should at least… be acknowledged… by people who believe in the majesty of creation) , but yet you enjoy reaping the benefits of science (improved technology, improved medicine, improved communication) in an almost thankless manner. If you understood that men of science, many of whom were and are Christian were the ones to make discoveries pertaining to the age of the earth, the universe, etc. were faced with the intractable decision of choosing dogma over reality, in the end they had to compromise their dogma because to deny REALITY over a bronze age-book is truly the definition of FOOLISH.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.