The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
I will read this but I have one question:
What is so unholy about needing evidence for a God? If you believe that God gave man reason (and I'm pretty sure you do), why do folks like this tell you that God doesn't want you to use it?
The journey is often worth more than the destination.
Well, if the book is as confused about the debate as you are, that's not saying much in favour of the book. Comfort lost the debate when he broke the rules by using the Bible to support his case. The rest of the 'debate' was just gravy, poking holes in Comfort and Cameron's ridiculous nonsense. It was not the RRS' job to 'disprove' God. The fact that you think it was just proves you didn't understand the idea behind the debate.
Q: "Isn't it a miracle that the universe/life/consciousness/myself exists?"
A: "No."
----
For any person P, question Q, and concept X
If the asking of Q depends on the existence of X, and P asks Q
Then X exists, and P should not be surprised of that
The Way of the Fucktard people didn't do nearly as good a job as Brian and Kelly - they broke the rules right from the start (they weren't supposed to use the BuyBull. ) There is no evidence for God or for Jesus ever having actually existed in the first place.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins
From what I saw on the B&N website, the book looks like an ad hom hatchet job on Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. I'll read it anyway but I don't know if it'll elevate the dialogue.
The journey is often worth more than the destination.
I haven't been able to eat or sleep.
Didn't.
I'll see your transparent No True Scotsman Fallacy and raise you a painful truth:
"Magic is religion that we don't believe in. Religion is magic that we do". Hocart
There is no difference between the two, no matter how many books are written to try and support the distinction.
You still haven't learned even the most basic application of the "burden of proof". There is no intention to "disprove" anything. The cheeseball w/ the extraordinary claim has the responsibility for proof and not the other way around. Members of the RRS merely pointed out that the aforementioned cheeseballs (Hi Kirk !) had no credible evidence for their cheeseball beliefs. Which they did by the way.
If you are so dense to think it is necessary to "disprove the existence" of something to discount it, I have a list of thousands of deities that you need to disprove.... (& none of which you will be able to, by the way.
There is always someone coming up w/ a whole NEW approach to christianity that explains it in a far out, funky new way. That's how it goes with both marketing and manipulation, Caposkia. Whether you're selling toothpaste, tampons or jesus.
The source of your faith and your inspiration comes from the bible. The bible is tragically absurd, funny at times, downright silly, obviously mythical and often cruel, violent and hateful. It has a tendency to make it's readers cruel, violent and hateful as well.
From a marketing standpoint, it's probably become useful to dissasociate from the bible and it's nasty little disposition, but no one w/ any intelligence is going to fall for that. It's Becky Turnblad today.....Tomorrow it will be someone else.
It is still magic/fantasy...no matter how many books are written to try and support the distinction.
That's nice... It really is, but when you have to quote from a book that starts out w/ the words......ahem ! "In the beginning" and degenerates into talking snakes, donkey's, flaming swords and global floods...MATURITY, has already flown right out the window.
and it's return...doesn't look good!
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
What makes this person a True Christian rather than everybody else who claims to be a True Christian?
What is wrong with rejecting claims of virgin births and dead flesh surviving rigor mortis after 3 days? What is wrong with rejecting claims of Thor? What is wrong with knowing I can find morals in fiction like Star Wars and Harry Potter without believing the magic to be real?
"unholy" is another hollow word that Christians use to demonize anything that does not promote their fictional sky daddy. So they use words like "unholy" to paint us as devil worshiping blood drinking kitten BBQers.
Get back to us when you can replicate and falsify godsperm and have AMA peer reviewed studies that prove human flesh can rise after 3 days of death. The moral stories that one may like is found in all cultures throughout history, and don't need a book of magic to claim to be the inventor of morality. That "holy book", being anyone of any religion in human history. Morality was not invented by Christians nor do they have a monopoly on it any more than Muslims or atheists.
Deities do not follow a "method" because imagination is a whim, not a method.
Holy is in reference to God. The unholy reference is just that; "not of God". It wasn't meant to be taken as "the wrong way" or understanding. Yes, the book is from the point of view of a believer, so they of course will take the side of the believer.
The reasoning question. I used "reasoning" to come to the conclusion that there is a God. Some will disagree with my "reasoning", however, reason is my way, I don't believe in religion.
my point was it was a stupid idea in the first place. Yes, they did break the rules. Why he thought he was going to succeed in such a debate is beyond me. Science doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension.... if it did, then it wouldn't be beyond our comprehension. science just helps us better understand the material universe around us.
Disclaimer: I've used the word understanding in place of comprehension before. It's not that we don't understand God, it's that we can't comprehend the extent of his being. (btw, please start another blog if you want to discuss this previous statment)
Eh, don't judge the book too quickly. The author is very sarcastic in many ways, but she explains herself. Please don't be offended by the sarcasm. To be honest, her approach reminded me very well of the approach of many people I've talked to on this site. It's another reason why I thought it would be of interest to people.
Nothing explains anything beyond our comprehension. Do you not understand the meanings of words, or what?
Which is the only universe we know.
Theism on the other hand also doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension while simultaneously failing to help us better understand the universe.
Q: "Isn't it a miracle that the universe/life/consciousness/myself exists?"
A: "No."
----
For any person P, question Q, and concept X
If the asking of Q depends on the existence of X, and P asks Q
Then X exists, and P should not be surprised of that
Not only does it fail to help us understand the universe, it often acts as an agent corrosive to understanding.
you poor thing
I'm sorry. I used the word disprove. Let's come to an agreement, no one on here is trying to disprove God, and I'm not here to "prove" the existence of God. I'm just here to understand the truth... If you can accept this statement from me, then we can move on in conversation. If you cannot, then I really have no further reason to converse with you.
I'm sorry you see it that way. I would like to tell you however that this is actually a very old approach to Christianity... possibly the original approach. Strictly to the scriptures. This understanding has not changed for people who understand what it means to follow Jesus. It's the religions of the world and the over 5000 religions within Christiandom that have changed anything to a "whole NEW approach".
obviously you have no interest in reading the book, so why did you bother commenting in this forum? This brought no progress or intelligence to this topic.
This question I like. The difference is True Christians aren't going to shove Jesus down your throat. This book was actually written to Christians, so she's not preaching in the book. They also aren't going to condem you for anything. True Christians aren't the ones standing on the street corners with megaphones and protest signs screaming hatred at everyone that walks by. They're not the ones condeming people to hell because they're Gay/lesbian, have gotten an abortion, etc.
True Christians know that they are just as sinful as the next person no matter what anyone believes in. Therefore they know they have no right to condem anyone else for their "wrongdoings" or "unbelief" or what they themselves precieve as wrong.
True Christians know to love everyone, therefore they understand that standing on street corners with protest signs or megaphones isn't showing love to others so they don't do that.
They also know that you can follow Jesus Christ and be Gay/Lesbian or another type of labeled "sinner" as the world labels them. It is understood by Christians that it was not God's intention, however true Christians also know that they're not doing everything "right" either. (I use "right" generally not specifically)
I hope that answers your question. If not, feel free to send me a PM and question further. I want to try to keep this forum focused on the book.
yes I do. Thanks for clarifying my statement. It's accepted in our world that there are things beyond our comprehension. Ask any scientist, they will admit this. It is understood that in the future, less will be beyond our comprehension because of the advance of science. It is your belief that nothing else clarifies the understanding of incomprehensible things.
I never said there was a parallel universe.
"unholy" to most who use it, means wrong, or going against their God of Jesus. You may define it differently, BUT, that kind of language does play into the hands of ignorant bigots.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with putting fiction in the fiction section and calling hocus pokus what it is, fiction.
Deities do not follow a "method" because imagination is a whim, not a method.
Anyone that can use the word cheeseball three times in one paragraph and in a way that each usage is funnier than the preceding, at a minimum, deserves a big thank you! Idle you rock.
I was
LMAO.... 
Would this be where you or other Christians tell me "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship"?
Why is it that when most adults have invisible friends and hear voices in their heads, they're mentally ill unless they call said invisible friend/ voice in the head "God"?
The journey is often worth more than the destination.
"unholy" to most who use it, means wrong, or going against their God of Jesus. You may define it differently, BUT, that kind of language does play into the hands of ignorant bigots.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with putting fiction in the fiction section and calling hocus pokus what it is, fiction.
Deities do not follow a "method" because imagination is a whim, not a method.
Unholy from Christians literally means "not of God". There is no implication or intention of demonizing non-believers. Their "unholy grail" just means they're a group seeking out a following that does not believe in God.
Most of my closest friends are non-believers, some atheists. Other friends of mine are part of a following that would be labeled by most as demonic. I think they'd be offended to hear what you had claimed above. They're my friends because they know I don't see them that way. They also understand what kind of Christian I am and understand the definition of "unholy"
Our country is infested with religion. It is why it's understood by many people that Unholy is as written above.
yes, the author views the New Atheists as wrong, but that's because she's a believer. I don't believe it has anything to do with her use of "unholy".
I know it wasn't you, but who was talking to me about people on here NOT trying to disprove God?????? This statement leads me to believe otherwise.
Whoever said anything about morality? If you want to start another topic, please start a new thread.
caposkia wrote:
The approach is irrelevant if the claims are ones such as the bible makes.
However, a simple glance through history will show you that religions have nearly always been "marketed" to the masses for the purpose of manipulation and control. Whether you use "love" or "fear", or a "brand new formula" or a super cool new "skate church", in an attempt to disguise your particular marketing tool, is also irrelevant. It is still marketing with the intent to control and manipulate. Until the student understands the many uses of manipulation to influence our power structures, it is difficult to learn anything all that useful about history.
Typical EGO response:
"Yes, I can clearly see how religious belief has been marketed to manipulate the masses all throughout history but not MY beliefs".
If you're referring to the bible.. Read it.. Got the merit badge and hundreds of hours spent on foolishness that I'll never get back.
If you're referring to Becky and her golden words of wisdom, I refer you back to the earlier quote from a noted anthropologist who scoured the planet studying mythology and human behavior:
"Magic is religion we don't believe in, religion is magic that we do".
No difference between the two, no matter how golden Becky's words might be.
If you could merely understand this simple concept, caposkia, that would be all the progress or intelligence this thread needs.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
It's understood by Christians that anything that's not for God is against God. There is no such gray area or middle of the road. You either believe or you don't. I think many people out there present it as a condemning word or use it negatively toward others, but it's just suppose to represent what is not of or for God. If you don't believe in God, then there should be no reason to take offense to the word Unholy.
Then again, Muslims and Jews aren't against God - they're just against your version.
The journey is often worth more than the destination.
I hate religion. Simple and plain. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry. Stop trying to label me with all that religious flack. It makes me sick.
Once you care to find out what I really believe, then start talking to me. I know you really don't care and are bent on trying to make me look like every other religious nut that you have come across. Sorry to disappoint you, but don't try to make me out to be something I'm not.
...and try to avoid the snide sarcastic replies to this as well. I'm interested in thoughts on this book. I'm expecting opposing beliefs and maybe some people upset about her take on a few things, but I want to discuss it, not get into a childish debate on who has a bigger imagination.
right... and I don't believe you'll hear a true follower call their higher power unholy. Mainly becasue they'll understand that both those religions actually follow the same God. You may hear some claim their actions or radical beliefs to be unholy, just as I'd claim those Christians standing on street corners condeming people are being "unholy".
My lizard brain just did a happy dance !!
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Usually I borrow books such as these from a library as I don't like to contribute money to an author with an opposing viewpoint. In some cases I might buy them as an Ebook on a Kindle edition from Amazon. This author is not available from my library or as a kindle edition. Amazon lists used books, so I may try that. I read book reviews from several sources and it might be interesting.
Not every atheist has portraits of Harris, Dawkins, etc on their walls. Most of us have arrived at our disbelief without their help. Many of us are vocal in our disbelief but few here would care what you do in your own home if you can keep it there. You can believe whatever you'd like just don't force it on others.
The problem of course there are so few of these "True Christians". I fully support and desire that if Christians can't give up their belief they at least follow their leader and become a "True Christian". This of course means they won't be ringing my doorbell, asking me to Pledge 'under God', o