Persecution of christians

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


First, it was really just turning the tables on Lincoln. He thinks disagreeing with Christians is tantamount to persecuting them.

Second, read the link. It's not disagreeing with atheists, it's stereotyping, demonizing and attacking them. Big difference. Of course, he doesn't see that, since he has an inhereit double standard.

I took a quick look at the link in his sig, and it doesn't seem to be a vicious attack in any way. To me it looks like a book that uses science to show why atheists are wrong.

[Lincoln]

Oh now wer're talking about turtles and and the sun revolving around the earth. Your types are so predictable. And I am glad to hear that you ascribe good teachings to a mythical creature. How generous of you. Hope you can get over the persecution.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I took a quick look at the link in his sig, and it doesn't seem to be a vicious attack in any way. To me it looks like a book that uses science to show why atheists are wrong.

I wrote the book. The title was a play on Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker". Of course some see that as persecution but that was not my intention when I titled the book.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lincoln


I wrote the book. The title was a play on Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker". Of course some see that as persecution but that was not my intention when I titled the book.

You wrote it? Well done, it looks like it took a lot of research. The excerpts I read were interesting.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


First, it was really just turning the tables on Lincoln. He thinks disagreeing with Christians is tantamount to persecuting them.

Second, read the link. It's not disagreeing with atheists, it's stereotyping, demonizing and attacking them. Big difference. Of course, he doesn't see that, since he has an inhereit double standard.

Let's see. How did you put it? Oh yeah, Lie#1...

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Caligastia


You wrote it? Well done, it looks like it took a lot of research. The excerpts I read were interesting.

It did take a lot of research. And the preface explains the difference between a fanatical atheist and those who honesty hold that belief for whatever reason. I also point out the delusion of certain fanatical Christians so I tried to be fair but I was obviously trying to counter the claims of people like Dawkins.

[Caligastia]

I was just reading some of the reviews of your book on Amazon.com, Lincoln, and I was wondering if you could answer the question this person asked:

I was getting ready to write my review of this book when, to my surprise, the book's title suddenly changed before my very eyes. The book was formerly called "The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism." Now, without explanation, the title has changed to "The Blind Atheist: How Losing a Brother in Sept. 11 Terrorist Attack Transformed Reporter into a Witness for God."

[Lincoln]

Yeah, some fanatical atheist hacked the page.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Yeah, some fanatical atheist hacked the page.

aaahhh...haha....

[Lincoln]

I think it was the guy from Berkley but I'm not sure.

It should be corrected an a few days I am told.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lincoln


It did take a lot of research. And the preface explains the difference between a fanatical atheist and those who honesty hold that belief for whatever reason. I also point out the delusion of certain fanatical Christians so I tried to be fair but I was obviously trying to counter the claims of people like Dawkins.

It certainly looks interesting...I'll take a look at the sample chapters.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I think it was the guy from Berkley but I'm not sure.

It should be corrected an a few days I am told.

"I suppose that the author is trying to sell more books by exploiting the public's current hysteria over supposedly-ubiquitous terrorist infiltrators. I'd bet every penny I have that the author voted for Bush and wholeheartedly supports his war-mongering policies."

Did you see this one?

Edit - oops, obviously you did.

[Lincoln]

Yeah. At least the guy has a sense of humor. The guy should be on TV!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well it does che. I would never think you capable of some of the atrocities of some well known "communists" for example.

Two things. While I would like to think I'm not capable of such things, the truth is, it's hard know until you are in the situation. Perfectly loving, rational, humane people can, under the right circumstances, become monsters. There have been several psychological experiments, from Milgram's 37 to the prisoners and guards experiments which show how far people are willing to go under the "right" set of circumstances.

The flip side is, while I don't think of Stalinists and Maoists as "true" communists, they, in fact, are truer communists than I, because they have redefined the meaning of the word by their actions. Communism is as communism does. So Reds like me need to recapture, through praxis, the original communist movement and meaning.

The same is true for Christians. Christianity is defined by its history and by its adherents and by its victims. Your struggle, therefore, isn't with atheists and other "anti-Christians," but with the Christian religion itself. Until you can get Christians to break with their hateful ways towards other human beings, how can you expect the rest of us to trust you?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Where is all the evidence ?

This thread is starting to remind me of the cliche about the believer and the non-believer.

For the believer no evidence is necessary for the nonbeliever none is possible.

Besides it does tend to discount the value of faith inherent within the belief.