He’s a power-drunk moron with a tenuous grasp of reality, who gets away with it because of his position and the enormous right-wing machine that handles him and his indiscretions.

I’m not basing my opinion on what I’ve been told, I’m basing it on things I have seen and heard him say. I’ve seen lots of video of him being intereviewed and in press conferences

Its an amazing coincidence today that NBC was caught faking an interview with President Bush by editing his responses to the questions in an obvious effort to make him appear to say things he never said and also covering up the President’s objection to false statements made by the NBC journalist. You should keep this incident in mind whenever you begin to believe that you know someone only by what biased broadcasters allow you to see of them on your TV. NBCs pitiful response simply claimed that they have freedom of the press so they can edit any way they want. They also made the laughable claim that its ok if they lied on their television broadcast because the truth of the unedited story is buried somewhere on their website.

I’m sure that you find all this delicious because of your obvious hatred for the current President but the media will do the same to people you think are important. I’m sure you are not so shallow as to approve of lying by the media just because the lie they tell makes you feel good.

You can find hundreds of news hits by googling these three names all at the same time.

“Richard Engel” “Ed Gillespie” “Steve Capus”

Thus my thesis proposes that Atheists should consider not believing that Christians actually exist as well as not believing that God exists

Then Claire replied:

You still haven’t said why an atheist should believe anything based on the bible. It’s not source in which atheists (certainly not this one) place any credence.

I’m not saying that Atheists should believe. I’m saying that the evidence shows that Atheists are free to NOT believe in the existence of Christians.

WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE??

Uh… I pretty clearly explained that, Mark, not that explanations have helped you to comprehend any other points. Re-read the first paragraph of my last post if you’d like to see the answer to this question again.

As far as I’m concerned, any credibility or integrity you once had is now shot.

Then you have some very peculiar criteria as to what constitutes “integrity” and “credibility.” Apparently, incoherency, self-contradiction, out-of-hand dismissal of criticism, and making inaccurate comments about someone in their (presumed) absence are permissible, but re-entering an internet thread that I bowed out of to contest the claims made about me in my (presumed) absence is not. Hmmm.

Nice ad hominem, by the way. My points and arguments still stand, whatever you may think of me. If you want those to go away, you have to address them.

It would be most impressive if you would actually do what you say you are going to do.

I’m not here (or not here) to impress you, Mark, nor is anyone else. We are here to conduct good-faith discussions–something in which you apparently have little interest. Tell me, what is your aim with vacuous pronouncements such as this?

Thus my thesis proposes that Atheists should consider not believing that Christians actually exist as well as not believing that God exists

You still haven’t said why an atheist should believe anything based on the bible. It’s not source in which atheists (certainly not this one) place any credence.

I would enjoy taking you through all that you have been told about President Bush and showing you that 9 out of 10 are lies.

You are making a wrong assumption there, Mark. I’m not basing my opinion on what I’ve been told, I’m basing it on things I have seen and heard him say. I’ve seen lots of video of him being intereviewed and in press conferences. My opinion WAS holding back

…Mark, it’s time to either…

Mr. Myers, you SAID you were NOT going to participate in this conversation any further. WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE??

As far as I’m concerned, any credibility or integrity you once had is now shot.

It would be most impressive if you would actually do what you say you are going to do.

Good day, sir.

This guy is saying pretty much the same thing I’m trying to say

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrMdTrb65xw

I had no intention of coming back here when I made that last post, but you’ve since repeatedly made the laughable claim that I am not capable of comprehending your (contradictory, incoherent) ideas, while you seem incapable of understanding a rather straightforward metaphor I used, all the while ignoring all the substantive criticisms that have been raised… this seems fair grounds for re-engagement. So, off we go:

It sure seems to me that you were correcting spelling unless you want to argue that capitalization is technically not spelling.

No, I don’t need to do that; I’ll just point out that capitalization isn’t spelling, technically, or otherwise. You had all the letters in the right place, you just used the wrong case. BTW, I did not make this correction out of mere pedantry; there is an important conceptual difference here that is obscured when you capitalize “atheist” and “atheism.”

Anyway, here you are again, just as I described, arguing the particulars of an irrelevancy while ignoring the substance of the matter under discussion.

Gosh, that almost sounds like a threat veiled in metaphor.

A threat? Yes, yes it was… I am threatening to discuss things with you on the internet. The horror. And it’s not just a threat, Mark—it’s happening right now.

Not to worry, I’ve been threatened by religious zelots before. I have even been kicked out of a few churches for daring to ask the wrong questions.

Oh… here’s where that conceptual distinction comes in: atheism is not a religion, nor is it a belief system.

Its pretty clear to me that Jesus considers them the opposition.

No; it’s clear (in this verse, anyway) that he considers them failures. Failing to meet an objective and opposing the completion of that objective are two very obviously distinct concepts, and it is your tendency to conflate such disparate ideas that leads you to such nonsensical positions. I explained this before, but you seem to just disregard such inconvenient matters, and keep plugging ahead as though you make sense.

All of them

No; you’re making a very poor interpretation of the passage, which was already explained by by Claire (5/10, 11:13 PM), and you’re completely disregarding the only meaningful definition of “Christian” that has been offered.

That could also mean he was talking about EVERYONE in particular.

No; again, see Claire’s post. Also, I have to ask you: if everyone has always and will always fail to meet God’s standards (as you are claiming), what would be the point? Why did Jesus show up in the first place? Why wouldn’t God bring on the apocalypse right now? What is he waiting for—does he just enjoy seeing the horror manifest in each soul as, upon the demise of its earthly carriage, it learns that it has failed the Lord, and will now be sent to suffer for all eternity?

Do you see how little sense you’re making yet?

Which is what makes Christians look so silly when they start to assume they are saved and assume they are perfect and they turn around and put all there energy into judging everyone else.

Wait, I thought you said that such people weren’t Christians? I agree with you that they look silly by claiming that they know the precise nature of reality. Do you not realize that you are doing the exact same thing?

He was. You don’t seem to be following that I’m describing my understanding of reality and how the universe works. This is not some game intended to make me look right and everyone else look wrong. Unlike Mr. Myers’s assertion, I’m not interested in painting anyone into any corners.

Again, how did you arrive at this understanding? From your very poor interpretation of a single passage in a very unreliable text? This is all it takes to establish metaphysical certainly for you?

And regarding “painting… into a corner,” not only is this a common metaphor that shouldn’t need to be explained, but you weren’t getting it, so I explained it… and you still don’t get it. Again, you are the one who painted yourself into a corner; you keep contradicting yourself. No one accused you of painting anyone else into a corner; not only does the metaphor become rather strained in that formulation, but as you yourself noted, you lack the necessary tools.

This discussion was not intended to be a tutorial on the contents of the Bible. There are many references all over the bible where Christians are being told by God that they may claim to be faithful but in their heart they really are not.

I think the point here is that the one verse you cite doesn’t mean what you claim it does, so referencing some other part is the only hope you have of salvaging your point. And do you even realize that what you are saying here is different from what you were saying before?

My thesis is that its because they are not really Christians and Atheists can include Christians on the list of things they don’t have to believe in.

And back to your contrived definition of “Christian,” and your improper, concept-blurring capitalization.

Yes, Agreed, with only one exception. When someone starts to ignore his own failures, flaws and sins and begins to put energy into worrying what his neighbor is doing then its pretty clear that his cup is dirty on the inside and that he is not a Christian.

Isn’t this exactly what you’re doing here by going on and on about all these allegedly “false” Christians while ignoring the contradictions of your own pronouncements? And again, your criteria has nothing to do with whether or not one is or is not a Christian.

I’m not putting them on the other side of the line. I’m yanking them back to my side of the line by getting them to understand that they are not Christians…..

Wrong; refer to the definition, or provide some valid reason as to why your pet definition should stand, given the problems with it that I’ve highlighted.

… and they are not saved thus they are not part of some special privileged group on the other side of the line from me.

You cannot know this, any more than they can know that your beliefs are wrong.

Agreed. In fact you saw how my idea went sailing far over the head of Mr. Myers. He doesn’t get it but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a hundred people reading this thread who will.

Mark, your “idea” is nonsensical, as I’ve previously explained in some detail, and the substance of which you’ve completely disregarded. And in case you haven’t noticed, no one else is “getting it,” unless you include those who seem to have arrived at the same conclusion that I have.

I’m much less worried about words such as “yanking” and I am much more concerned about how you got completely turned around and thought I was drawing a line and putting people on the other side…

Because that is exactly what you’re doing when you claim that every Christian on the planet is wrong.

…when in fact I’m trying to erase the lines that so-called Christians are desperately trying to draw with flawed and bigoted concepts such as being “saved”.

“Flawed” and “bigoted”? Being and atheist, I certainly agree with “flawed,” but within the context of Christianity, this is nonsense. Being “saved” (in some manner) is the fate of every successful Christian. Saying it’s a flawed concept is an even stronger admonishment than your claim that no one is actually a Christian; it is to say that Christianity itself is false. As far as it being a “bigoted” concept, that, like so much else you’ve said, doesn’t even make sense.

Relativistic sub-atomic physics also seems like nonsense to someone who is struggling to learn algebra.

Last I checked, it seemed like nonsense to everyone; quantum mechanics describes sub-atomic physics, Relativity describes large-scale phenomena, and yet have the two been reconciled. For the sake of your analogy, let’s assume you used an meaningful example. In that case, the “seeming like nonsense” to your struggling algebra student would be a failure of the student, not a result of the incoherency of the subject. This is not analogous to what we have here; you have yet to provide a coherent position for anyone else to fail to grasp (so, amusingly, your example was more accurate than you intended!).

Wow! a statement focusing on improving one’s self instead of condemning others. Cool. That’s the first sign of a clean heart.

And what then can be said of your heart, he who hath condemned all of Christendom?

Well, look at this monstrosity of a comment I’ve made, again pointing out so many things that are wrong with what you’re saying… Mark, it’s time to either address the criticisms that have been raised, or admit that you position is incoherent, and modify it accordingly.

There’s at least one big problem with that – your basis for saying that there are no christians is based on a bible verse.

There are many references throughout the Bible. I was only needing one verse to serve as an example. What I find interesting is that the Bible, the very basis for Christianity, very clearly shows that Christians might not actually exist in the world today. Thus my thesis proposes that Atheists should consider not believing that Christians actually exist as well as not believing that God exists

Claire then exclaimed!

He’s a power-drunk moron with a tenuous grasp of reality, who gets away with it because of his position and the enormous right-wing machine that handles him and his indiscretions.

Ouch! Hey, Claire, now don’t hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

LOL!

Its a shame that this is off topic for this thread because I would enjoy taking you through all that you have been told about President Bush and showing you that 9 out of 10 are lies. I’m not saying the Bush is perfect. No one is. I guess that discussion will have to wait for another day. By the way, I also spoke up to defend President Clinton when I found people spreading lies about him. I’m not against Republicans or Democrats. I’m mostly against liars and we have a lot of liars in the media today. I guess you could call me a loyalist. If you are going to badmouth the President of the United States of America (any President, Republican or Democrat) you had better be able to back it up if I’m in the room.

My thesis is that its because they are not really Christians and Atheists can include Christians on the list of things they don’t have to believe in.

There’s at least one big problem with that – your basis for saying that there are no christians is based on a bible verse.

Fine for you maybe, but why would atheists believe/accept/give any credence to any theory based on the bible?

As much as I would like to disbelieve in christians on occasion, since I’m not a believer I’m certainly not going to accept the bible’s word on it.

Yea, me and President Bush, we both are just a tad blunt.

He’s a power-drunk moron with a tenuous grasp of reality, who who gets away with it because of his position and the enormous right-wing machine that handles him and his indiscretions. Are you sure you want to group yourself with him?

God doesn’t want you on your knees worshipping him.

Obviously “falling to one’s knees” was more illustrative than specific in the context of my argument. But all you’ve done is reframe the question and shift the focus from worship to sincerity, and I think the fact that God is supposed to be able to see into our hearts renders the reframing moot.

If we’re behaving differently because God’s around, and God can see into our hearts, then he knows the difference between who’s just putting him on and who’s sincere. That’s different from saying that nobody would be sincere if God were fully revealed.

But if the revelation of God is such that we would all invariably, consciously choose to be sincere, then that’s not coercion, it’s just the obvious choice, like choosing to eat over not eating. Does God want to give me the free will to eat or not eat by removing my sense of hunger?

Frankly, if people who don’t make the right choice burn in hell for all eternity, I think God owes it to himself and humankind to reveal himself fully so that people can make the choice in full confidence rather than resting on scriptures that may or may not be trustworthy. And further, if you truly believe God is present but hidden, then your behavior should be no different than if God were unmistakably present, right?

Jesus could have rode down on horseback through a fire in the sky if he wanted people to fall to their knees out of fear. Why do you suppose he didn’t do that?

Again, you are misinterpreting my question. It has nothing to do with fear and trembling and everything to do with whether or not a direct revelation would result in a sincere reaction. I see no reason why it wouldn’t.