Christians Without Conscience

[R. S. Martin]

• There is a meanness to the atheists. When I am strong in my language it is because I am defending my Father, as Jesus did when he cleared the temple, or another Christian brother. But when they are mean it is just mean.
  

Thus went the conversation of two Christian men on a thread I posted on ReasonableFaith.org, Post 11. Maybe all evangelical Christians think that way. The Old Order Mennonites and Amish are saints in comparison. I never knew anybody could act this extremely self-righteous and arrogant. Whew!

 

 

It does right in with the theology of their leader and hero William Lane Craig's article on Slaughter of the Canaanites. In that article, Craig informs us that killing is right when God commands it. The Amish and Mennonites think God says it's never right to kill. And they don't think God gives them special status to be mean.

 

I have just spent several days on William Lane Craig's forums called Reasonable Faith.org and I lost all respect I may have ever had for evangeelicals. I was determined to get at the bottom of this mindset and did I ever get my eyes opened. Some of their tactics follow.

 

A. They are highly skilled in:

• the application of emotional manipulation.
  
• distorting reality.
  
• misrepresenting one's intended meaning.
  
• defining one's identity and reality.
  
• substituting what does not fit their belief system with something more complementary to their beliefs.
  

B. They do this by:

• falsely accusing one of thinking, feeling, and saying things one never thought, felt, or intended.
  
• ignoring one's defense and objections that the accusation is false.
  
• treating one as though the accusation were obviously true and they were being kind (merciful, loving, etc.) in letting one off so easily.
  
• console each other that the atheist ungratefully returns evil for good when one reacts to the abuse in kind.
  
• discount the atheist's actual reason for deconverting and reinterpret the deconversion as being the result of a bad church experience.
  

C. When the atheist objects to any of this inhumane treatment they consider themselves to be justified in charging the atheist with abusing them, and with being hateful and angry. They also consider it to be well within their rights to expect answers to such personal questions as: What is the name of the church you went to? Where do you live? (I posted province and country in my profile but apparently that wasn't good enough.) Few of them offered this kind of information about themselves, even upon repeated request.

 

Other things I learned were:

 

1. If one fails to accept their teachings on blind faith one is a stiff-necked person.

 

2. If one points out logical fallacies in their so-called philosophical arguments, one is bashing their faith, which is of necessity a capital offense for which one deserves to burn in hell.

 

3. Being damaged by religion is stupid and deserves no sympathy.

 

4. Websites like Secular Web, Institute for Humanist Studies, Atheist Alliance, and Freedom From Religion Foundation are not reliable sources from which to learn how real mainline atheists see themselves, and what they think and believe; only religious philosophers have the proper perspective on this. Yahoo! Answers is also a reliable source, as are the results for such search terms as "babies are atheists" and "atheists are non-theists."

[R. S. Martin]

I would talk about people doing good deeds or living a good life and give examples of a person helping a someone who needed help, or living a moral life. Then they would ask me how I knew that was good. I was stumped how anyone could ask such a stupid question. We just KNOW it!

 

And now I get that mind-blaster about Christians having a right to be mean because they are "defending" the Father (as the the creator of the universe could not defend himself--what a weakling) but atheists not having a right to reply in kind. At last I understand why they treated me as unreasonably as they did. They seemed to consider it blasphemy when I stated that Christians were in no way superior to any other human beings in any way, shape or form.

 

Seems these people have no conscience. I am reminded of the verse in Romans about a conscience seared with a hot iron.

 

I never knew such people existed. This is down-right scary!

 

Makes me feel almost physically sick just going back into their forum to get links to post. I think I learned what I set out to learn. I will never forget the experience.

[Neon Genesis]

I would talk about people doing good deeds or living a good life and give examples of a person helping a someone who needed help, or living a moral life. Then they would ask me how I knew that was good. I was stumped how anyone could ask such a stupid question. We just KNOW it!

Those Christians have probably never thought about the question themselves. One of my favorite questions to ask Christians is, "does god think things are good because they are good or are things good because god says they are good?" I then follow up by asking them if it is moral to murder babies if god commands you to. If they answer yes, I ask them to explain why it's moral. If they answer no, I ask them why do they worship god. It's always a fun question to ask Christians who believe morals come from god and then watch them squirm trying to justify their faith.

 

And now I get that mind-blaster about Christians having a right to be mean because they are "defending" the Father (as the the creator of the universe could not defend himself--what a weakling) but atheists not having a right to reply in kind. At last I understand why they treated me as unreasonably as they did.

And here I thought Christians were supposed to love their enemies and turn the other cheek, or did we just imagine Jesus saying that?

 

They seemed to consider it blasphemy when I stated that Christians were in no way superior to any other human beings in any way, shape or form.

You should have tried asking them if the Southern Baptists were superior to the Baptists or ask any fundie denom if they were superior to another fundie denom and see how much they like that.

[R. S. Martin]

When they thought I wasn't listening two of them started squabbling among themselves. Apparently one was more fundy than the other. They're one hateful batch of people intent on destroying whomsoever they can, by all apearances.

[godlessgrrl]

I never knew such people existed. This is down-right scary!

 

They do indeed. 'Round these parts we call them sociopaths.

 

Such people are abusive, controlling, have no conscience, and have no remorse. They do not give a tinker's damn about anyone but themselves. They are also solid evidence that religious belief is no accurate indicator of moral integrity. In fact, religion enables their cruelties quite nicely, as you've no doubt discovered.

 

Watch out for them. They have sharp teeth and aren't afraid to use them.

[Piprus]

I never knew such people existed. This is down-right scary!

 

They do indeed. 'Round these parts we call them sociopaths.

 

Such people are abusive, controlling, have no conscience, and have no remorse. They do not give a tinker's damn about anyone but themselves. They are also solid evidence that religious belief is no accurate indicator of moral integrity. In fact, religion enables their cruelties quite nicely, as you've no doubt discovered.

 

Watch out for them. They have sharp teeth and aren't afraid to use them.

There are some xian people that have been deeply hurt in their lives. You might encounter some of them in your journeys in your life in this world. All I can say, is, try to be compassionate to them. Atheists, as I'm sure you know, can be a tremendous resource to those who instinctively know they are caught up in a situation they know that theology cannot exctricate them from. I don't advocate atheistic evangeliism, and I never have. But sometimes, the situation comes up where putting the atheist view on the table just becomes the best option.

[R. S. Martin]

I never knew such people existed. This is down-right scary!

 

They do indeed. 'Round these parts we call them sociopaths.

 

Such people are abusive, controlling, have no conscience, and have no remorse. They do not give a tinker's damn about anyone but themselves. They are also solid evidence that religious belief is no accurate indicator of moral integrity. In fact, religion enables their cruelties quite nicely, as you've no doubt discovered.

 

Watch out for them. They have sharp teeth and aren't afraid to use them.

There are some xian people that have been deeply hurt in their lives. You might encounter some of them in your journeys in your life in this world. All I can say, is, try to be compassionate to them. Atheists, as I'm sure you know, can be a tremendous resource to those who instinctively know they are caught up in a situation they know that theology cannot exctricate them from. I don't advocate atheistic evangeliism, and I never have. But sometimes, the situation comes up where putting the atheist view on the table just becomes the best option.

 

Gwen, I looked up the piece about sociopaths. I think these people can hold jobs and live law-abiding lives for the most part. But as for empathizing with people who think differently from themselves--forget it!

 

I don't fully understand what all is driving me but sometimes I feel like I simply have to debate Christians about their "proof" about God's existence and similar issues. William Lane Craig professes to have an argument for what he calls "Reasonable Faith." I got his book but ran into scholarship problems in about the third paragraph of Chapter 1. So I went online to see if there's a way I can ask him about his reason for this approach. That's when I found his forums. I'm not sure that he personally ever posts; probably beneath the dignity of such a godly and exalted man.

 

Of course, Richard Dawkins occassionally posts on his forums. Just because he's a prof about to retire from Oxford University--probably the world's most famous school--does not put the world's most famous atheist in too exalted a position to post on lowly forums once in a while. At one point he had an old typewriter he didn't know what to do with so he asked people's advice.

 

I'm not sure why but I get the impression Dawkins and Craig have chosen each other for bosom enemies. Being a member of each man's website run by fans is quite an experience. It's getting late and my brain's barely working. I'm trying to make sense but I'm not sure if I'm succeeding. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think I'm into evangelization per se but I feel driven at times to discuss my deep questions about God with Christians who will tolerate it. And these seem to tolerate it. Haven't seen a mod yet; don't know if they have any.

 

One guy has stopped talking to me because he can't handle stiff discussion. When I don't bow to their formulated answers I'm a stiff-necked atheist. When I insist on asking for supporting evidence from empirical reality to back up their claims for God I'm an internet bully. Well, okay, we treat them the same way when they show up here.

 

The really nasty thing is a guy who calls himself Big Vaden who is new on the William Lane Craig website. He calls himself an agnostic and says he saw this here thread here on exC so he decided to check things out over there. He really bawled me out for what I'm doing to the name of atheists and agnostics. That differs sharply with the feedback I've been getting from an atheist friend who looked at the situation and volunteered feedback. This self-identified agnostic has not provided any evidence to back up his claim for my bad behaviour so I'm not sure what he's talking about. I would not be surprised if he really is a Christian with a false identity. I mentioned this site a number of times so they could have looked me up.

[BigVaden]

The really nasty thing is a guy who calls himself Big Vaden who is new on the William Lane Craig website. He calls himself an agnostic and says he saw this here thread here on exC so he decided to check things out over there. He really bawled me out for what I'm doing to the name of atheists and agnostics. That differs sharply with the feedback I've been getting from an atheist friend who looked at the situation and volunteered feedback. This self-identified agnostic has not provided any evidence to back up his claim for my bad behaviour so I'm not sure what he's talking about. I would not be surprised if he really is a Christian with a false identity. I mentioned this site a number of times so they could have looked me up.

 

 

First of all, what does it matter if I'm new to that board? If I see somebody trying to point out flaws in somebodies religion, saying that they are wrong, and not backing it up with anything other than opinion, amongst several other things that I've noticed (and mentioned, despite what you say above), I think you deserve to be called out on it. Yes, that is just my opinion and I understand that, but it chaps my ass when I see somebody bragging about their training on the subject and talking down to people when it looks to me like they have no idea what their talking about and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

I havn't provided any evidence, huh? Well let me repeat what I've already brought up on the other forum then, maybe you'll at least reply to it here where everybody will likely get right behind you.

 

The first post I read from you on that board - the one you referred to in this thread - is remedial at best. In short, your asking if God is the definitive exemplification of morality, then how come two non-christian people helped you when you needed it so dearly? Is that your idea of a religious debate? Because to me thats just laughable and can be answered in two words - free will. I Corinthians 9:35 - "And everyone who competes is temperate in all things. Now they to obtain a perishable crown, but we an imperishable." There ya go. According to the bible, all humans have the ability in them to do what is right, but those who do it in favor of god will recieve an imperishable prize. Wow, that was a tough one -- and I don't even believe the damn thing, I just know it, cover to cover. As you say on your website, "Know thine enemy".

 

Which brings me to my next point, your website (the one in your signature).

 

"In the World Wars, Christians were killing Christians ..." - It might not be stated in the textbook you use at that university you speak of attending, but the Nazi party (WWII) was very deeply seeded in occult practices and what christians would call false idolatry, portraying Hitler as a god in the classroom and considering Hitler's book Mein Kompf as something of a bible.

 

(continued from the quote above) "...and both sides believed God was on their side. In the present war, the Christians believe God is on their side and the Muslims believe Allah is on their side." - You are aware that that is the exact same thing? Allah is the Aramaic word for god. For example, you have a Southern Baptist Christian that only speaks Aramaic, he would use to term 'Allah' when referring to his god.

 

Also, you refer to fundies as "the enemy". I can see the metaphoric use of that phrase when pitted in a debate with one of them, but it sounds like your speaking of all fundies in general. I understand the frustration with the "Power of Fundamentalist Christianity" you speak of, and them sticking their noses where they don't belong, but the majority of their following are good people that are happy with their religion and just want to live their lives with their families and pray to their god. Why would you want to undermine that?

 

If it seems like I'm just nit-picking and trying to find little things to point out, then that is correct, I am. Why? Because when I see somebody claiming they are intelligible on a subject and insinuating they know more than other people about it, I'm going to expect you to show it in what you say. Point in case - from the thread you linked to above - you say, "Harvey's position makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, especially not in view of my training in theology that I have received in the past five years." -- You want a cookie? One that is resolute in their knowledge shouldn't feel the need to boast about it. You continue, "Neither of you understand Jesus or God...". So now you are telling them what they do and do not understand? Would it be possible for you to sound more arrogant? Nope, 'fraid not.

 

The funny thing about all of that is that we are, for the most part, on the same side, theologically speaking. Whether you think I'm a sheep in wolf's clothing or not (yes I know that is backwards, it just makes more sense that way for this comparison) - referring to your statement, "I would not be surprised if he really is a Christian with a false identity." - doesn't really matter to me. It boils down to either you know what your talking about or you do not, and from what I gather from having read what I have from you, you do not. And to make it worse you seem to think that you know more than others. I don't care if you are Athiest, Agnostic, Christian or even a Taoist, if you claim to know what you are talking about, you better damn well know it.

 

But like you said, these are just my opinions, and ultimately I know they don't matter for jack squat. And it may seem like I'm making a big deal out of nothing, but stuff like this just gets under my skin.

[♦ nivek ♦]

OK folks...

 

Cross talking from one board to another makes for interesting reading when subject(s) are interesting and discussion is useful..

 

When we devolve into fighting over those opinions and positions, and those things not concerning ExC, but in turn being dragged here, the need for that kind of talk needs to abate.

 

I won't tell anyone what to think, post and act on for most part here, save for the obnoxiously stupid-religious.

What I can and will do is to remind everyone that while we may hold differing opinions on subjects we are all on same non-religious *side* here.

 

Lets not devolve into fighting over what was said elsewhere and brought into Dave's House.

 

kFL

[R. S. Martin]

Sorry Skip.

 

My apologies, Big Vaden. You're okay, bud.

 

I messed up. Sorry folk.

[BigVaden]

You ever do something out of temporary frustration, and then after a little bit more thought on the subject you feel like a complete and total ass?

 

R.S. Martin, I am truely and sincerely sorry for having said what I did. The reason I am posting this in a reply to a thread instead of just privately messaging you, is because I feel that I owe everybody that read my ranting an apology.

 

I know it's just a message board and a bunch of people I'll never meet, but I felt like such a huge ass about this I literally lost sleep over it.

 

After going through some more of your posts and arguments you do seem very knowledgable on this stuff - not that you need me to tell you that, but I do regret having said otherwise.

 

It crossed my mind to just edit out my posts and erase everything I said, but that would kind of be the cheap and easy way to take back what I said. So again, I am very sorry, I really am.

[R. S. Martin]

Thank you, Big Vaden. I'm sure everyone appreciates the opportunity to read this explanation. This allows me to more fully explain, too.

 

I thought you were a member here but I wasn't sure so I did a search. I guess I put a space between the two parts of your name when I did my search and I got "No Results." So I figured I was wrong and you were not a member here. Stupid technology!

 

Hope you get a chance to catch up on your sleep. *shake hands--all is like it never happened*