Hartshorne's Modal argument

Charles Hartshorne 1897-2000
Modern Champion of the modal argument

What follows is one of the most challenging subjects you will ever hear about. It is the best way to get a head ache, but I think it proves the existence of God. The problem is it requires a very specialized background to understand it. First you have to understand modal logic.

Modal Logic is so called because it turns upon the use of so called "modal operators." It's called "modal" because it is the logic of modes of being. "modes" as in what type of existnce something exits in, weather it is dependent upon other things, weather it can cease or fail to exist and so forth. The modal operators are "necessity," "contingency" "impossibly," "possibility."

Necessity and contingency lie at the base of our modern understanding of cause and effect. They come from scholastic notions of logic, but the distinction between the notion our modern notions of c/e and the shcoalstic ones in the middle ages is not that great. The  scholastics had more levels of cause, efficient cause, final cause and several others. But one could everything we have done in modern science using the scholastic ideas of c/e.

Necessity doesn't mean has to exist. It doesn't mean God is necessary to the existence of the world (except in so far as if God exists then of closure God is necessary to the world as creator--without God there would be no world).The modal arguemnt does not begin with the assumption that God has to exist. It begins with the assumption that there is a valid distinction between necessity and contingency, which there must be.It proceeds along the lines of hypothetical consequence that obtain from different scenarios of God's existence. It concludes that is necessary. But by "necessary" it means not contingent, or not dependent upon something else for its' existence.

This is often misconstrued by atheists and taken to mean the argument proceeds from God's existence as an assumed first premise. This is not the case, the first premise is either/or. Either God's existence is necessary or it is impossible. This allows for the possibility that there is no God. So the argument does not begin by "defining God into existence."

Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.

Contingent means the opposite: that a thing is dependent upon a prior thing for existence, or that it could cease or fail to exist.

Impossible means logically impossible, something in the structure of the idea contradictions, such as square circles.

one of the sore spots that atheists get stuck on is the idea that God cannot be contingent. They will always leap to the conclusion that this is defining God into existence, because they don't understand the concept of God. God, by the nature of the concept, carriers certain parameters just as the existence of any human assumes humanity, or the existence of any tree assumes that the tree in question is a plant. To have to define that God is not contingent should not even come into it. The idea of God is that of eternal creator of all things. Thus God cannot cease to exits and cannot be dependent upon anything (or he wouldn't be the creator of all things). Atheists usually assume that all knowledge has to be empirical. they will argue this is defining God into existence. maybe God is contingent.

Maybe there is a begin like the one we talk about but he's not eternal or the creator of all things, but that means he's not the God we are talking about.



Hartshorne's version goes like this:

1) God can be analytically conceived without contradiction.
2) Therefore God is not impossible.
3) By definition God cannot be contingent.
4) Therefore God is either necessary or impossible.
5) God is not impossible (from 2) therefore, God is necessary.
6) Whatever is necessary by the force of Becker's modal theorum must necessarily exist.



Argument:my version

1) God can be analytically conceived, as eternal necessary being, without contradiction.

2) Therefore God is not impossible,(because no contradiction).

3) By definition God cannot be contingent (becasue God is eteral).

4) Therefore if God exists, God's existence is necessary, if God does not exist, it is because God is impossible.

5) God is not impossible (from 2) therefore, God is necessary.

6) Whatever is necessary by the force of Becker's modal theorum must necessarily exist.


A. The logic of the argument:

This argument is analytical, it proceeds from the basis in logic to argue that the concept of God is such that if we understood the meaning of the terms we would have to conclude that God must exist. Naturally that is a very controversial position. Many Christians and other theists reject the ontological argument on the grounds knowledge must be somewhat empirical. Nevertheless the argument has been used for a long time, and despite its many apparent deaths, it keeps returning in one form or another. Perhaps the best book on the subject is The Many Faced Argument by John Hick. Somehow the ontological argument just wont die. I feel that this is not so much because the argument itself is true as a proof, but because it gets at something deeper than proof, something to do with the way to think about God, and it strikes a deep cord in our consciousness, even though as a proof it may fail. For this reason alone it is important to know, if only to know the concept itself.

1) God can be analytically conceived without contradiction.
2) Therefore God is not impossible.
3) By definition God cannot be contingent.
4) Therefore God is either necessary or impossible.
5) God is not impossible (from 2) therefore, God is necessary.
6) Whatever is necessary by the force of Becker's modal theorum must necessarily exist.

(This is actually my re-statement of what Hartshorne is saying).

Hartshorne's actual modal logic looks like this:

The OA: an assessment:

by Ed Stoebenau

http://www.eskimo.net/~cwj2/atheism/onto.html Hartshorne's ontological argument is based on Anselm's second argument and claims that God's existence is logically necessary. Hartshorne's argument is given here, where "N(A)" means "it is logically necessary that A," "~A" means "it is not the case that A," "-->" is strict implication, "v" means "or," and "g" means "God exists":

g --> N(g)
N(g) v ~N(g)
~N(g) --> N(~N(g))
N(g) v N(~N(g))
N(~N(g)) --> N(~g)
N(g) v N(~g)
~N(~g)
N(g)
N(g) --> g
g



This argument is valid. Furthermore, given an Anselmian conception of God, premises one and five are sound. Premise two is just the law of the excluded middle, and premise three is a law of the modal logic S5. Premise nine is obviously sound, so this leaves premise seven as the only premise to question. Premise seven says that it is logically possible that God exists.



Yes, those funny lines, "g-->N(g)" are the argument, those are the formal symbols used in modal logic.

B. God's Possibility vs. Impossibility.

The argument turns on the distinction between necessity and contingency, and upon the distinction between mere possibility and the nature of necessary being as not mere possible. In other words, God is either necessary or impossible. If God exists than he is ontologically necessary, because he is logically necessary by definition. But if he does not exist than it is ontologically impossible that he exists, or could come to exist. This is because God cannot be contingent, by definition. A contingency is just not God. So if God is possible, he can't be "merely possible" and thus is not impossible, which means he must be necessary.

God is conceivable in analytic terms without contradiction:
The universe without God is not concievable in analytical terms; it is dependent upon principles which are themselves contingent. Nothing can come from a possibility of total nothingness; the existenceo of singularities and density of matter depend upon empiracal observations and extrapolation form it. By definition these things are not analytical and do depend upon causes higher up the chain than their being (note that the skeptic at this point probably denies the validity of analytic proofs but to reverse the arguement must accept such proof).

Since the concept is coherent nad not contradictory and is derived from analytic terms, to reverse the argument the atheist must show that God is impossible since the burden of proof is now on the one arguing that a contingent state of affirs could produce a universe in which being has to be.

D. Answering Objections:

1) The argument can be reversed

Atheists have tried to reverse the argument merely by saying:

1) either God exists or he doesn't
2) God is either necessary or impossilbe. Necessary if he eixists, impossible if he does not
3) God is impossible
4) Therefore God does not exist.

But of course this is merely stipulation. They assume that what the argument is doing is just stipulating everything that has been said about God, but on the "Modes of Being" page I show that each of these modalities of existence are logical deductions.Either a thing exists or it does not. One can equivocate about the meaning the term "existence," but here I clearly mean concete actual existence in the "real" world. If a thing does not exist it is either that it could, but just doesn't happen to exist, or that it cannot exist because it is a conceptual contradiction, such as square circles, or round triangles and so on. Therefore, if it does exist, it is either that it exists contingently or that it is not contingent but exists necessaryily (that is it could not fail to exist without contradiction). These are the four most basic modes of being and cannot be denied. They could be subdivded, for example fictional contingency, such as Sueprman or Dick Tracy, that which would be contingent if it had real concete actuality, but is merely a fictional concept. But the four modes are the basic logical deductions about the nature of existence.

The idea that the argument can be reversed just by switching the lines and declairing God impossible merely begs the question. Is God really impossible just because we can utter those words? Is God logically necessary just because we can utter those words?. No, but that's not what is being said. God is logically necessary as a concept. That is the nature of the God-concept, that's the idea of God. To deny that would be like saying "how do you know that tables are things to put things on?" Or "how do you know that triagles have three sides?"The question is one of actuality, so if it is possible that God exists than God is ontologically necessary and thus has real concete existence because since God is not contingent it cannot be that God is "merely possible." If it is at all possible that God exists, than it's not impossible. To show that the argument can truely be reversed the atheist must show why God is impossible, and to do that he/she must show that God cannot be understood analytically without contradiction.


Another attempt at reversing the argument, which is always used on message boards when I make this argument: just to put not in front of each line. "It is possible that god does not exist." The premise is they don't have to prove God is ipossible, but just that the possiblity of God's not existing reverses the argment.

The problem is, the premise is false. If god is not analytically impossible (contradictory) then God must exist. Thus it is not ture that it is possible that God does not exist. The logic works like this:


(1) If God is indeep possible, the God cannot be impossible.

(2) to say God is not possible is the same as saying god is impossible.

(3) if something is possible, it can't be impossible.

(4) you must show why God is impossible.

(5) I have showen why God is possible, becasue God is concievable without contradiction.

(6) anticipating answer on eneity and consciousness, consciousness is not a primary quality of God. Other things are conscoiuss, that is not something quiquely estabishes God as God, logical necessity is such a thing.

(7) If God is possible, and can't be impossible, and can't be contingent, then to be possible for God is to be logically necessary. Thus it does not work to say God is not possible because it isn't true, thus it's a false premise.



To make good on any reversal they must show a contraidction in the concept of God. To this they always retort "well you can't prove that God is not contradictory." But I don't have to prove that. One can assume that if there is no contraiction it is not contradictory. They are the one's seeking to make the reversal, so it's their burden of proof. But to prove that God is possible all one need do is concive god analytically without contradiction. what else could one do to prove a possiblity?


2) The assumption that we are merely loading the concept with terms that make it necessary, or that the deftion of God as necessary is arbitrary.

This is really the same arguement one must make to reverse the argument of necessary being. This is what atheists always argue. The first thing they say bout it is that we are just arbitrarily sticking on the term "necessary" and playing word games. Some go so far as to try and demonstrate this by sticking the term necessary on other things, such as "purple cow" or anything they think of, and that's suppossed to show what we are doing. I regard this move as nothing more than a demonstration that they do not understand the concepts The necessity of necessity and why it must be applied to God is demonstrated on the "modes of being" page. Moreover, this move is nothing more than the perfect Island argument. It can't wrok becaus it merely enthrones contingencies. Our reason for saying that God is necessary is much more logical and organic and is much more than a mere word game.

While it is true that God as being itself is a pre-given postulate and is idependent of proof because it is part of the defintion of God, the realization that being has t be means that this must be the case.

3) The assumption that we are lending existence to a fictional being.

This is merely an assumption. The necessary existence of God is implied in the possibility of God's existence and the realization that the the only alternative is impossibility. God is possible and thus necessary. Some have tried to argue that they are breaking up the four categories with a 5th not seen, that of "fictional" but that applies to the category 4 that of non-existing contingency.

4) Equivocating between types of necessity.

The argument says that to say God is necessary as a postulate of defintion is speaking of ontological necessity, than to assert the actuality of it is moving from logical to ontolgocial necessiy.

To say that a thing is logically possible is to say that it might have existed in the past or may exist in the future. But for God to exist he must always have existed; in the past, in the future, or all time. Given logical necessity the logical possibility of God 's non existance is impossible. Therefore, ontoloigcal necessity implies logical necessity. One implies the other and it is a rational move from one to the other.



This argument may seem like merely a trick of words, and modal logic may be conroverial, but it turns on very basic logic, such as modus tolens or modus ponens which is accepted by all logicians. On Argument 1 I document Antony Flew saying that the logoical categories of "Necessary" and "contingent" truth are accepted by all logicians.

TrentDougherty
Concise intero to the Modal Ontological Arugument for The Existence of God.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/ontol.html

TERMS

‘Modal’ – Pertaining to the modes of existence (de re) or of propositions (de dicto) as necessary or possible.  ‘Necessity’ is a mode of being for a thing or proposition as is ‘Possibility’.
‘Ontological’ – from Greek ontoV for being.
‘Argument’ – designed to logically support a proposition (not to be confused with persuasion which is a psycho-social phenomenon, not a philosophical one).
Throughout this description I shall use standard notation and notation used when the font is restricted to a single typeset as in a text only document for HTTP purposes on the Internet.

The modalities are symbolized as follows:
A square or in typeset [] preceding an expression means “It is necessary that…” or “It is necessarily the case that…” or simply “Necessarily…” e.g. as applied to a propositional function.

Ps/[]Ps – “It is necessarily the case that s is P” where s is a constant referring to some individual and P is a predicate.
A Diamond à or in typeset <> preceding an expression means “It is possibly the case that…” or “It is possible that…” or simply “Possibly…”

SEMANTICS

Possibility is defined as consistency.  àPs/<>Ps reads as “Possibly, s is P” and means that there is no contradiction in attributing P to s.  Necessity is defined as “not possibly not the case”.  If something cannot not be, then it must be.

Psº~à~Ps or []Ps=~<>~Ps
THE CALCULUS

There are many different ways to axiomatize a logic, just as there are different ways to axiomatize geometry.  Axioms in some systems will be theorems in others, but since axioms and theorems have the same validity it is only a matter of formal difference.  One of the most used systems of modal logic is called S5.  There is an interesting theorem in S5 called Brouer’s Theorem.
(PàP)à(àPàP) or (P-->[]P)-->(<>P-->P)
This theorem is derivable in weaker systems as well.
The modal ontological argument for the existence of God is just a substitution instance for this theorem.  There are only two propositions needed.
THE PROPOSITIONS

First comes the definition of God as a being who, IF he exists, does so necessarily, i.e. a Necessary Being.  This is only the definition of what God would be like IF he existed.  The proposition is formalized as
GàG or G-->[]G
“If God exists, then he necessarily exists.”
The other proposition is the assertion that it is possible that God exists.
àG or <>G
“Possibly, God exists.”
RULES OF INFERENCE

The only rule of inference needed is Modus Ponens.
PàQ  “If P, then Q”
P
Therefore Q
Now we are ready to put the argument together.

THE ARGUMENT
1.      (GàG)à(àGàG)
2.      GàG
3.      àG
4.      àGàG
5.      G
(Theorem, sub G for P)
(Def of God)
(premise)
(1, 2 MP)
(4, 3 MP)

or
1.      (G-->[]G)-->(<>G-->G)  (Theorem, sub G for P)
2.      G-->[]G  (Def of God)
3.      <>G (premise)
4.      <>G-->G  (1, 2 MP)
5.      G  (4, 3 MP)

COMMENTARY

It is quite a simple argument which makes it hard to understand its fullness.  The simple is packed with meaning.  As you can see, there is one and only one premise, that it is possible that God exists.  If this be granted, then his necessary existence follows. Since all efforts to show that the concept of God is contradictory have failed heretofore I conclude, somewhat reluctantly, that God exists.  Kai Neilson tried to argue this in his debate with J.P. Moreland, but didn’t make much progress.

Now I realize that to the average person, this seems like a trick, but the average person is not particularly accustomed to following logical arguments at all, much less highly specialized forms of logical calculi developed by professional philosophers.  Most professors at the University level don’t even know modal logic and many have never studied it and some have never heard of it.  What do those who know it, but don’t believe in God say?  They say that the concept of God is incoherent.  I have not yet seen an even slightly plausible argument to that effect.  Until I do, the OA will be cogent to me.  I might add that I am a convert on this argument.  I argued for years that the ontological argument was flawed until someone showed me the modal version.  I have always followed Reason wherever it lead and, as usual, it lead to God.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Robert M., _The Virtue of Faith_, esp. “The Logical Structure of Anselm’s Arguments,” Oxford University Press: 1987.
Moris, Thomas V, _Anselmian Explorations_, esp. “Necessary Beings,” University of Notre Dame Press: 1987.
Plantinga, Alvin, _The Nature of Necessity_, esp. “God and Necessity,” Oxford University Press: 1974, 1992.
Plantinga, Alvin, _The Ontological Argument_, Anchor Books, 1965.
Swinburne, Richard, _The Coherence of Theism_, Oxford University Press: 1977, 1993.



Oddly enough that quotation is linked to a site by an atheist named Adrian Barnett who is attacking my older version of this argument, but he was gracious enough to put this quotation, which I think works against his argument, by a philospher in the UK.


About Hartshorne


Hartshorne Lived to be 103, at the time of his death in the Fall of 2000, he was known as "the greatest living Metaphysician." Hartshorne was one of the major forces in the "back to God" movment in Philosophy (a term coined by  Christianity Today in a 1979 article. His first and greatest calim to fame is as the second most influential voice in process philosophy, along with Alfred North Whtiehead, but he is also credited as the man who brought the Ontologcial argument back from ignorminious defeat by Kant almost two centuries earlier. Hartshorne was also a recognized authority on birdsong, and an authority on bycicles, having never driven a car a single time in his centogenerian lifespan. Hartshorne devoted the last years of life to waging a letter's to the editor campgaign to advocate social issues such as medical care.

HRG Hides from My Challenge

I have been sparing with the alleged mathematician for about eight years now on CARM, and  I'm tired of him making the same assertions that I disprove over and over again. This is chronic among atheists on the net, that they are back saying the same distorted errors the very day after you disprove them. Now HRG--aka "Hans" (Hans Reginald Grum) has extended his incredulity arguments too many times. I challenged him to prove his assertions and he has ran from the chalelnge completely.


here is where he demonstates his true lack of kowledge.

Quote:

Hans says:Given the logical errors that Plantinga has committed in his arguments, I don't regard him as an authority. Quote: ME you get it wrong. go read Hartshorne. been about 8 years now and you still have not done that, so you just refuse to learn.

Has says: Given the logical errors that Hartshorne has committed in his arguments, I don't regard him as an authority either. __________________

he's saying here that the two most highly regarded modal logic men in the world in the last century make logical errors. I'm sure they would say they do /did at times but I just think Hans not the guy to point them out. So here's what I challenge on this: (challenge 1)


to show where they make these alleged mistakes and document it with page number and source just like in foot note. Prove that it is a mistake according to S5 modal logic.


Rather than do that he starts an argument about the modal arguemnt so he wont have to document and show that he can't find any mistakes in Platinga or Hartshorne.


Of me he says:

"I have never seen a valid answer. Just special pleading."

So I challenged him on this: (challenge 2)

I suggest Hans doesn't know what valid means in a logical sense. I want him to do two things here:

(1) explain the distinction between sound and valid

(2) show by the rules of logic why m y arguments are not valid.

he has said nothing about the first challenge on Hartshorne and Plantinga. He's carefually avoiding saying a word about it. He's made many posts harping on a read herring issue bu the has not answered the arguemnts at all.

He is running full tilt form the challenge.

Now the red herring might be mistaken for an asnwer to challenge 2 but it' not.

 Hans says:

And as Chad and I have pointed out several years ago, it is invariant under the interchange "g <=> ~g". Thus if it was valid to prove "g", it would also be valid to prove "~g". An argument which proves a self-contradiction is invalid. Period.

You might think that this is answering the second challenge because it's suppossedly showing an invalid argument. But it actually doesn't applly to the validaity issue. What it really applys to is the idea that he disagrees with the conclusion of the arugment, not becuase the logic doesn't demand it, but because he doesn't like where the logic goes.

He actually is trying to change the terms of the argument. When he says "g <=>~g" he's saying something that is logically impossible and demanding that it be true. This is because he thinks that if he can imagine a world where there's no God that proves that it's possible for there not to be a God. But ti doesn't even touch the issue. The issue is not "can you bring yourself not to believe in God." the issue is God is either necessary or impossible. IF there is no God then God is impossible. You can't demand that be so merely because you can conceive of it.

none of this has anything to do with hte validity of an argument. Validity means only that the argument conforms to and contains the basic structure of logic and doesn't violate any obvious rules of logic, for example the premise doesn't rest on the conclusion. Arguments that are not sound, that is arguemnts that obviously contradict reality are unsound. But unsound arguments can be valid because valid doesnt' "true" it means fits the sturcutre of logic.

For exampe the follow arguemnt is valid but not sound:

If I can toss heads with a coin I can play basketball as well as Michel Jordon

I can toss heads with a coin

therefore, I can play basketball as well as Michael Jordon.

This argument, which is obviously absurd in terms of being true is actually valid because it fits the basis of logic. The difference is it is not a sound. To say "that is not true" is simply what one says in the phrase "not sound." So it's a simple matter, the form of the argument is right but the conclusion is untrue because the founding premise is wrong, even tough it's not a violation of logical protocol.

When he says I've never made a valid argument and He's a big mathematician who constrained brags about his knowledge of modal logic, then he uses the phrase form modal logic "valid" but uses it in the popular way that has nothing to do with the rules of logic, I find that fishy.

His argument is  a priori not true, the argument is valid. what we are talking about is the modal arguemnt. a non formal version of it in popular parlance would say this:


(1) If God exists, he must exist necessarily, if God does not exist his existence is impossible.

(2) Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible.

(3) God can be conceived without contradiction

(4) therefore, God is not impossible

(5) Since God is not impossible he must be necessary.

(6) Since god is necessary he must exist.

But I present it in modal logic as well, which is the formal presentation:

g --> N(g)
N(g) v ~N(g)
~N(g) --> N(~N(g))
N(g) v N(~N(g))
N(~N(g)) --> N(~g)
N(g) v N(~g)
~N(~g)
N(g)
N(g) --> g
g

that looks like nothing but a bunch of squiggles but it's actually model logic in symbolic terms. that's what he's talking about up there where he says "g <=>~g." 


the argument is said to be valid and explined in terms by the guy I got it from:

by Ed Stoebenau

  http://www.eskimo.net/~cwj2/atheism/onto.html Hartshorne's ontological argument is based on Anselm's second argument and claims that God's existence is logically necessary. Hartshorne's argument is given here, where "N(A)" means "it is logically necessary that A," "~A" means "it is not the case that A," "-->" is strict implication, "v" means "or," and "g" means "God exists":

g --> N(g)
N(g) v ~N(g)
~N(g) --> N(~N(g))
N(g) v N(~N(g))
N(~N(g)) --> N(~g)
N(g) v N(~g)
~N(~g)
N(g)
N(g) --> g
g

This argument is valid. Furthermore, given an Anselmian conception of God, premises one and five are sound. Premise two is just the law of the excluded middle, and premise three is a law of the modal logic S5. Premise nine is obviously sound, so this leaves premise seven as the only premise to question. Premise seven says that it is logically possible that God exists.

What this means is Hans is actually using the term "valid" to mean "I disagree." So when he says I never presented a valid argument he is really saying "I disagree with your views." That means nothing in term so fmy loigc being  good or bad.

Next time I will show why the argument is true and God must exist.

Atheists cannot play fair

I put up the statements by atheists saying they hate crhsitisns. Did I say they are evil terrible people who should be killed? NO  I said I care about them, they need healing, they are no getting healing form atheist message baords.

Hermit starts this relentless campaign of flaming comments saying over and over and over "you said hateful stuff, other Christians said hateful stuff." No matter how many times I say "let's go beyond recriminations and talk about the cost to the psyche of hate and who is helping and who is hurting and he just keep up "you said it too."

He's not listening. He says my qualifications and attempts to move beyond ranker are just chicken shit and so on. so maybe I should say hateful things. Just as he says my attempt to be fair are pathetic maybe I should not be fair?

On CARM i spent days aruging two long threads with athteists who say "scinece is the only from of knoweldge." when I put up a thread showing the fallcies then I get a whole new set of people who say "no one said this, this is a straw man." even I quote form other other threads they just essentually say "no one said that."

so they cover for them when I beat them clearly then if I didn't have that up they would probably saying the same stuff again.

they can't be fair and they can't think logically.

Atheists who say they hate Christians.

 These are just statements I found on the net: since the purpose of atheist watch is to prove that there is a hate group segment of the atheist community, part of it not all atheists of course, it might be time to hear what actual atheists who claim to hate Christians have to say about it.

http://isitnormal.com/story/i-hate-christians-5873/

 crock crazy girl 4 life says:

I hate christians

What a bunch of fools.

They plan out their entire lives, according to rules set by a kooky, ancient book of mythos.

And hey, dontcha just love how they ever-so-conveniently excuse themselves from providing proof, by using crutches like "faith".

Sorry, but just because you believe something, that doesn't make it true.

Moses turned the sea into blood... and then later, parted it?

Yeah... and sweat socks fly south for the winter.

Ask yourself... "If somebody told me such an event had taken place TODAY, would I believe it?". No? Point proven.

Ignorance is a scary thing.

her response to one critic:

Galeni, I don't have to explain myself to you.

You're not a real christian, anyhow. You date a lesbian. No TRUE christian would do such a thing.

another one:
Readdit

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/atdhm/i_admit_it_i_hate_christians_and_i_have_no/

I admit it: I hate Christians, and I have no intention of apologizing for it. (self.atheism)

submitted 1 day ago by EddieVanHelsing

That's right. If you're a Christian, I despise you. I despise you because your fundamental beliefs can be used to manipulate you into actions that are inimical to my life and liberty. I despise you because you choose to spend your lives in service to an entity that -- according to your own religious texts -- makes a sociopathic child look like a moral exemplar. I despise you because you want your God to forgive you for having been born human.
However, as much as I hate Christianity and Christians, I will fight for your right to believe this bullshit. Why? Because I am better than you, and I know that you wouldn't fight for my right to be an irreligious asshole.

here's how this person answers someone who asks "I dont' get why you would actually hate them"

Why? Because I am better than you

Please go fuck yourself. Morality is independent of the supernatural and I know plenty of morally upstanding Christians out there and atheism doesn't need another auto-fellating sack of hubris giving merit to the worst of their arguments. The price of intellectual honesty is that we don't get the luxury of availing ourselves of unwarranted confidence in our own inherent superiority.

He's so much better he can say "go fuck yourself."

this next guy is so cool! I mean, this guy,ooo his balls hang low, becuase he can say the f word a lot!

The Angriest Atheist

Jesus fucking Christ, I hate Christians! They’re self-righteous, pompous assholes who believe that the entire world revolves around them. Fucking assholes. But the trait I hate most in Christians is their utter inability to use birth control.
The Duggar Family is a good ol’ family from Arkansas, who, according to the front page of their website, happen to have 18 fucking kids! Yes, they have 18 kids. The thing is, they used to use birth control, but the wife apparently got pregnant, had a miscarriage, and was incredibly upset over it. I have one question: why? If I was a female, I’d be hoping for miscarriages every time I got pregnant (which wouldn’t be frequently, because I’m smart enough to use birth control). I think miscarriages are a blessing. More people should have them. Child birth isn’t a miracle. It happens hundreds of thousands of times per day. The ability to use birth control is a miracle. We have too many people on Earth! Stop fucking!
Of course, being the asshole Christians that they are, they can’t just let their kids grow up and make their own decisions about their religious affiliations, they have to indoctrinate them when they’re young and gullible. It’s incredibly sick. Everyone knows that if you wait until children are older to indoctrinate them, they will take it no more seriously than Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. Here’s a challenge for you Christians: if you have so much faith in your god, why don’t you wait until your children are capable of thinking for themselves before you start indoctrinating them. See how many of them fall for your bullshit then. I’m guessing very few, if any, will convert to the Dark Side.

 there aren't any atheist hate groups hu?

White Power Atheist said...

"I hate Christians. I also hate niggers since they made religion. White Power"

 Netallive.org

Avneill

That's right. I hate christians!!!
Now, I'm not referring to the people that beleive in christ. I'm not talking about the truly faithful...
I'm referring to the lunatics!!! The absolute fanatics!!! I'm talking about the people that think EVERYTHING short of prayer is a fucking sin!!! Those worthless retards that try to speak out against the various forms of entertainment because the words jesus christ don't come up more than once in the fucking chorus. I'm talking about zealots. Those wankers responsible for mindless clamour like this!!!
(S)He makes many of his points based on the doom series. First and foremost the fact that anti-semetic (and or anti-christian) theology is present in the games. You are fucking fighting satan!!! There's going to be demons!!! I mean seriously, jes' because I see a pentagram doesn't mean I'm going to hell!!!
No, of course it's evil. Then he quotes some of ID's advertising slogans related to the game. In no way does it insinuate the devil is good, the game is about taking a BFG and sticking up satan's ass!!! How is that satanic? God, I hate that kind of shit! I mean, can't you do something useful with your miserable life? Like pursue happiness? Or better yet, help somebody else acheive it. Looking for satan's will is fucking heinous and furthermore pointless...

Form Ex Christian.net

"I have grown to hate Christianity with a purple passion."

Back in 2004 I left the Christian Faith after I found out that in reality there is no such thing as a personal and loving God who guides and directs our paths. However, according to these Right Winged Extremist Nuts, it's my fault that my faith did not work. I have grown to hate Christianity with a purple passion, and here is an example of why I have grown to hate Christianity here in the past four years. This is a constant reminder of why I have no desire to return to the cult known as the Christian faith.

 On Ex Christian. net


His opinion is there's no god he didn't "learn" there is no God. I can sympathize with this guy to soem extent. He goes on to recount how he got into a fight with his father over praying for the meal. His father founded really narrow minded and silly. I'm not surprised he rebelled agaisnt a faith he taught to believe in by people who didn't understand it themselves anyway. We do a lot more harm than good by trying to force people into beliefs.

I have a serious problem: I hate Christians.

by Triple D Posted 08/30/09

Wow, I can't believe this didn't get downraved once. Well, thank most of you for your answers. They were semi-helpful. But, since I've taken up yoga, I've had much less stress and the hatred has dulled to a numb buzzing. No need to worry. I'm all better.

one of the commenter said:

i hate christians too..they think they have the best religion and throughout history have clearly been the LEAST accepting of all other religions and races. They need to understand there is no man is the sky listening to them, and they dont go to a fairy tale place when they die..they just die.

In each of the contexts where these statements are made there are others who say "I am an atheist but I don't hate Christians and you should not either." Even though it's a useless fart in the wind and Hermit says I shouldn't even try, but to be fair, these guys only represent an aspect of atheism (which I point out every snigle time). Now I'm sure most of you will think I hate these guys back, but actually I don't. I feel sorry for some, sympathize with others. The guy whose father tired to force him to pray, I can well understand why he hate's Christianity. I can sympathize with that, that never works. You can't force people to believe things they don't believe, it's as simple as that. You want to push your kid away from you, tell him he has to believe what you do, when he's a teenager.

I don't hate these guys and I think they are going through phases and they've come to the net to vent. But I don't see the atheist movement doing anything for them. What I see atheist web sites and message boards doing for these guys, minus the sensible people who tell them not to hate (and i am glad to see that, that's part of what I wanted to influence through Atheist Watch) is to foment their hatred. It gives them a place to galvanize, to bond with others who share their anger but rather than healing it by giving  a constructive outlet it nurses it. Now they can hang out on message boards every day and talk about how stupid Christians are, and they can feel superior when mock and ridicule them. I see in these people (especially "cock crazy girl for life") a real need to bolster self esteem. But rather than finding outlets that allow bolstering they are being funneled into a setting where one does that by putting down the hated target group.

This is the essence of what hate groups do, they offer a venue for lonely disaffected angry people to come together and focus their anger on those they hate.

We've heard from Rex

If I remember my attempted brainwashing properly, then all you have to do is to regurgitate something similar to this prayer:


"Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen."

And then, if you really really really mean it, for reals with no finger crossies, Then presto! Miraculously, you are now a Christian!

If you believe in Jesus,
If you believe that he is god,
If you believe that he was resurrected,
If you believe that he dies for your sins,

Then, you are a Christian.





Please notice that he has not said a single thing about any issue I raised. No one single word. But he does do us the favor of saying a lot of hateful twadle that shows us where his head is at.
here is some of it:

"And when you do zany, wacky, crazy shit afterward, you are still a Christian. You get to speak and be judged as a Christian. It remains true even when people want no part of being identified with you."

he's so disingenuous he can't allow people to disagree with his ideology, the atheist ideology says there can only be one idea in the world and atheism is it, the little hate reductionist mocking ridicule fear of other ideas is the only idea that can exist and any attempt to talk about other things must be stamper out by hateful mocking and ridicule. this is what he does because he's a little brain washed mention of the hate group.


"Scott Roeder, (George Tiller's "accused" killer) is a Christian, as is Mark Sanford, Tony Alamo, Ted Haggard, and the current idiot of the week, Pat Robertson. In addition, our beloved ex Nazi pope, the most powerful Christian on the planet, is more concerned with people having unprotected sex than he is concerned with people DYING from having unprotected sex."

where does this little vicious bully get off calling the pope a Nazi? do you really think coward doesn't long to murder Christians look what he's doing? he's just livid tha someone is in disagreement with with his fallacious argument of guilt by association. why is it so important to him that the enemies of his little putrid ideology be labeled as evil murderers? doesn't long to murder them? obviously he does.

Notice how the only the Christian thinkers, if you want to call them that, that he knows about are people like Robertson, it's totally unknown to him that my heroes are Paul  Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr because he doesn't know about books or thinking or the world of thought or the academy. these are foregoing ideas to him.

he probably thinks I like ;Robertson because he doesn't know anything else. he's so illiterate he has no concept that the are liberal academic Christians. so when he says "Christian" he's thinking of something totally alien and different than what I mean by the term, but he doesn't' know that because he's stupid.


"And yes, they all speak for you, and they all reflect on you, because you all believe in the same god in the same way. Sorry.
"

that puts the lie to Hermits little insistence that i don't see clearly. Obviously I am right, these little mentions of hatred are trying to label all Christians with the same brush. they want my grandmother and mother and all the sweet little old ladies making cookies to be murdered in a camp because they dare to disagree with him, and he wants anyone who doesn't make him king or thin he's brilliant to be murdered.

He thinks he can spit in the face of all that is good and decent just becuase his illiterate little feelings are hurt.

what exactly is this guy outraged about? what did I do that was so very horrible in that post hes responding to? I'm not asking have I ever said anything that would make him mad, obviously I have. What did I say in the one about "Is KKK Christian" that deserve that of vitriol and personal attack?  It was reasonable, it was clam, I said nothing of a personal nature about anyone, I commented on the arguments and the logic used by certain atheists.


this is what i find, if you make the mildest criticism of atheists, just their logic nothing else, they see it as a gut wrenching personal attack designed to destroy their self esteem and come at with gut wrenching anger wailing like banshees and trying to crush your self esteem. That's the way a cult acts. I am trying to get people to realize what's going on, but they are so bigoted and so brainwashed it's like trying to wake up sleep walkers. they are in a daze they wont open their eyes and look.

Is KKK Christian? What makes one a "True" Christian?

 Atheists love to label all Christians as guilty of the sins of the extremists such as the KKK by saying that KKK is Christian, Hitler was Christian, so therefore all of Christianity is like this, or Christian teaching makes you a racist, this is basically what the Camel guy in the last post is doing, the old fallacy of guilt by association. Some Christians do bad things, therefore, all of Christianity is bad. Even if they are making the essentialist argument, which I believe the Camel guy is, they are making the guilt by association argument.

What is a Christian?

The basic concepts handed by Jesus himself tell us that it takes more than just membership in  group to be his follower. Following Jesus, the basic job description of a Christian, is a person relationship with Jesus not just membership in a group. But of course atheists who have not had the knowledge of Jesus on a personal level, or controverted Chrsitians who forget that knowledge becuase their hearts are hardened to God, forget what that's like, if they ever really knew to begin with. They can't see the difference in spouting rhetoric and really walking the walk. Jesus tell us not all who acknowledge him as "Lord" really know him or are sincere their profession of faith.


"parable of the sheep and the goats:"

Matt 25:31-37

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.  32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.  35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,  36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?  39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

 40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,  43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

 45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 
 According to this rendition of Jesus own words there are those who will say "Lord Lord" but do not know Jesus. The point being that just belonging to an organization or  a group is not enough to make you a "real Christian." Of course when atheists hear this they call it the "no true Scotsman fallacy" and of cousre they misusing that fallacy. That fallacy does not say that anytime someone fails to live to the essence of a belief it's a fallacy to say he's not truly a follower of that belief. Jesus says if you don't know me, if you do my teachings, if you don't live the kind of life I'm talking about, you are not truly my follower and I don't know you. There's no way that can be a fallacy because it's the rules of the game. Its' the conditions put down by the founder of Christianity that demarcate membership.

New Covenant

³¹ "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
       "when I will make a new covenant
       with the house of Israel
       and with the house of Judah.  ³² It will not be like the covenant
       I made with their forefathers
       when I took them by the hand
       to lead them out of Egypt,
       because they broke my covenant,
       though I was a husband to ^[d] them, ^[e] "
       declares the LORD.
 ³³ "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
       after that time," declares the LORD.
       "I will put my law in their minds
       and write it on their hearts.
       I will be their God,
       and they will be my people.
 ³⁴ No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
       or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
       because they will all know me,
       from the least of them to the greatest,"
       declares the LORD.
       "For I will forgive their wickedness
       and will remember their sins no more."

This tells us that the new covenant (Christianity--same passage is alluded to in Hebrews 1) is not a matter of following rules, but a personal relationship. "They will all know me." You wont to teach each other to know God, its wont be like the old covenant which was a law, a list of rules it will be a personal relationship, "they will all know me." To be in it you have to have the personal relationship. Saying that a particular group or organization is a "Christian group" does not make it part of Christianity even if it says so itself. Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them." So you have to look at the fruit of thier lives, the fruit of the lives of KKK are drastically oppossed to everything Jesus taught.

Does the KKK teach one to love one's enemies? to turn the other cheek? You can't turn the other cheek and burn a cross in their yard. No where in Jesus' teachings does he even come close to sanctioning the kinds of things the Klan does. Everything he taught was about crating love, forgiveness, understanding, acceptance of other people.Now you might say "by this way of figuring then a lot of established groups like the 700 club aren't really Christian." Gee really? Imagine that!

What is a Christian Organization?

Presumably it would be an organization ran either for the purpose of spreading the Gospel or for somehow enlightening or otherwise edifying Christians. One would think a "Christian" organization would have some kind of formal ties to a chruch. Anyone can say they believe in something for the purposes of getting what they want. How do we know the KKK is serious about Christianity? Atheists would have us believe that even asking this question is the no true Scotsman fallacy (see link above).

KKK  fails to meet any reasonable criteria for a Christian organization.

*no formal ties to any chruch

*blatantly repudiate teachings of Christ (turn the other cheek, love enemies and so on)

*Their teachings open contradict those of Jesus such as sermon on the mount

they teach the opposite of turn the other cheek, they teach fight and make your enemies pay.

* they don't spread the Gospel

their purpose is not convert people, they do no preaching, they don't contribute to preaching, they don't contribute to mission work or evangelism they do nothing at all to spread the gospel

*They actually work against other chruches

they can't said to exist for the edification of the chruch because they fundamentally opposed to most other churches.

*They were started for the purposes of violence and terror

their mission has grown over the years and evolved from a secret terrorist organization whose aim was to stop reconstruction and prevent blacks from obtaining advantages in the post civil war south, to an ideology of racial conflict and supremacy that even the original clansmen would find odd.

*Their basic mission is murder

*They don't espouse the major Christian doctrines such as the Trinity: no theological mission.

None of these things are in keeping with those of the chruch and they set them fundamentally at odds with the basis of Christianity. Moreover the vast majority of Christians do not accept them as Christian. Even in the time of the deep south and  Jim Crow laws the average southern Christian, while harboring racist views, saw them as extremist and out of line.

Atheist arguments

There are basically three things that atheists try to do with the view that KKK is Christian:

(1) Those who just want justice of an admission that Christians can do wrong.

These are the most rational ones, and I suspect that's where Hermit and Mike and many of the readers of this blog are coming from. They don't really believe that being a Christian is going to turn one into a KKK supporter, they just us to be fair and acknowledge that there are Christians who are in hate groups. Most liberal liberal Christians would agree with them. A lot of liberal and even moderate Christians want to stick the fundamentalists and the extreme sorts of right wing Christians with being ni the KKK style of belief. I think we can all see that there are some confused souls who don't understand the issues, who call themselves "Christians" and might be somehow connected with KKK groups or at least that type of view point. I have long suspected certain televangelists might be mixed up with the KKK. In the rural south of the pre 1960s it was not uncommon to find KKK members in Christian congregations, although their membership was secret and there never any formal ties between groups.

That's not enough to call the KKK a "Christian Group." It's not certainly not, it's not connected to any chruch and have no theological mission. The most we can say is there's an overlap of membership.


(2) Those who try to stick Christianity with guilt (essentialist)

These are atheists who argue that the  evil essence of racism taints anything it touches, thus if there are overlapping members in Christian groups and KKK that makes Christianity guilty of all the KKK stuff. I've actually argued with atheists who didn't know that Martin Luther King was a Christian! The essentialist are strange because as atheists they are supposed to repudiate any sort of metaphysics, but essentialist basic Platonic and can't be much more metaphysical than that. These guys are a contradiction to the entire atheist metaphysics. All the metaphysical assumptions atheists make are contradicted, including their ethical assumptions which otherwise repudiate the idea of guilt and sin; of cousre they are more than willing to say that Christians are guilty of the sins of oppression all the bad things the chruch has done, while telling that sin is a magical thinking outmoded concept and morality is relative and guilt free.

Speaking of those who don't know that King was a Christian (like they can't figure out why he's called "The Reverend Martian Luther King") they also never heard of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and are totally in the dark as its role in the civil rights movement. I've argued "Christianity led the civil rights movement" to have atheists say "that's crazy the Christians were against civil rights they were all KKK." So the evil of the KKK taints all of Christianity and makes all Christians guilty of the Klans actions, but the good done by Christians who led the Civil Rights Movement means nothing!

Why does the bad stuff define Christianity for these people dn the good stuff is totally unimportant?

(3) Those who try to say that Christian teaching if followed "correctly" leads to hate

These guys are at odds to show how following the teachings that put love of God and love of neighbor as numbers 1 and 2 on the hit parade of important laws will result in being a KKK guy. Obviously the charge on its face is mean to confuse and discredit and has nothing to with real thinking. Usually such people have no historical analysis at all. They can't understand that a secret terrorist society that was organized by illiterate veterans of a benighted rural class that just lost a major war, along with their homes and everything they owed were being oppressed by the victors and working themselves into a climate of fear and hysteria took matters into their own hands, and shed the teachings of a belief system they clung to in name only, does not make Christianity responsible for their actions. That these people went to churches as labeled themselves after a belief system they did not understand or live up to is hardly surprising but it should not reflect upon that belief system. Those who saw themselves are Chrsitians were clearly abandoning Christian teachings on not only love and being   good but also on trusting God.

The Atheist Camel guy falls somewhere around these latter two. Me made no attempt to distinguish between any legitimate Christian organization and the KKK. One salient point missed by my critics is the way this guy tried to leverage Christianity out of the way by the guilt by association argument. He says "where are the atheist hate groups?" He sticks KKK as Christian, Christianity is tainted by KKK but there are no atheist hate groups (so he tells us). In saying that he's clearly trying to fault Christianity with producing hate groups and taught the superiority of atheism which is supposedly lacking them. Then we have to play this stupid game, in the reconstruction era after the civil war it was called "waving the bloody shirt." People back then knew it was a shabby tactic and it was looked upon as unfair. Now atheists use it all the time and things its great. In the aftermath of the civil war it meant metaphorically waving blood stained uniform and going "look they killed my brother, look at all we've lost let's punish the south for the war." Now it means going on message boards and going "look at the crusades, Hitler was a Christian," ect ect.

These people have no more sense than to think these are perfectly valid ways to argue. They are just forms of emotionalism designed to work up the hatred of atheists and foment their sense of outrage at things they don't understand. They clearly can't understand it because they don't see how unethical it is to argue that way. So we have to play this stupid game of them going "Christianity has the KKK so Christianity is evil" and Christians going "we don't' have the KKK." There is no reasonable standard by which the KKK can be called Christian. It's clearly part of the goat herd that's put on the left and goes to hell. It's hate, it's murder, it's made up of those who do not know Christ, they are not born again, the wolves in sheep's clothing that Jesus warned us about. He said there would be fake Christians that said the right things but didn't do the right things. since the White supremacy guys fill that bill we can assume that they are part of that group. They don't bear the right fruit and by their fruits we should know them. That means they are not in the kingdom they don't know God, thus they are not in the new covenant so they are not "true" Christians.

Atheist Camel Breaks Irony Meter: where are the atheist hate groups? Under your nose

Local Atheist Discussion Club


The Atheist Camel 1/15/10

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Where are the Atheist Hate Groups?

Someone calling him/herself (?) "Dromedary Hump" posts this:

Dromedary Hump

a lifelong activist in the culture war between theist demagoguery and freethinkers, and frequent outspoken contributor and guest columnist to various newspapers and periodicals. He is the co-creator of the celebrated post rapture pet rescue website Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA. A New York native, he now lives in New Hampshire with his saintly and much-put-upon Episcopal wife of thirty-nine years and two atheist dogs.

 life long activist of the culture wars, not exactly unbaised. Political activists are not the most objective people. I was one for several years so I know.

Question: What do these groups have in common?
Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church (homophobic hate group); the Christian Identity Movement (anti-Semitic / anti-Black); KKK (anti-Semitic / anti-Black); Neo-Nazis / Aryan Nation / Skinheads (anti-Semitic / anti-Black); Phineas Priesthood (anti- race mixing/ anti-Semitic); Army of God (abortion dr. murderers / clinic bombers); Institute for Historic Review (anti-Semitic / Holocaust deniers).

Answer: They are all Jesus worshipping hate groups. Each inculcates “Christian values” within their group. Each holds the Bible to be the inerrant “Word of God”. Each justifies their hate, violence, discrimination and terror using the scripture. Each recognizes Jesus as their god and savior.

And these are just a sampling. There are many other Christian groups like these whose ignorance, hatred and intolerance cause death, destruction, fear, and intimidation in this country, in this day and age.

Liberal Christians will claim these people are “not True Christians”; that they misuse the scripture for their nefarious purposes; that the hate they profess is not supported by the bible. But they are mistaken, or in denial. They love Jesus, and accept him as their savior. Acts do not determine salvation … belief does. That’s the Christian doctrine.

Of course he's committing one of them most basic fallacies of logic, guilt by association. X calims to love Jesus, and X does bad thing. Y claims to love Jeuss, therefore, Y is guilty of same bad thing of which X is guilty. The claim "I love Jesus" can be uttered by people who have no idea what Jesus is about. It's not Jesus these guys love, the right wing televangelists, but their own power and their own hatred. This guy is just playing with the surface similarities so he can paint all Chrisitans and all pesudo Chritians with the same brush. That's why they invented the "no true Scottsman fallacy" so they can wipe out the distinction between people who people who really follow Jesus teachings and those who don't.

What he says here directly contradicts the way Jesus told us to look at it. "Acts do not determine Salvation, beliefs do, that's Christian doctrine." He's assertion that all who say "Lord Lord" have salvation Jesus told us in the parable of the sheep and the goats that's not true. Jesus said their would be tears with the wheat, wolves in sheep's clothing, he said a tree is judged by its fruit. Not that works save you, yes that is doctrine, but this DH guy is perverting the doctrine by twisting what it says. Jesus said actions are a sign of intent, that's what the fruit thing means, not doing works saves you but it is an indication of what you are really believe. "A tree is known by its fruit." DH loses the distinction between the agency of salvation and sign of having been saved. It's as hes' saying 'I it something to do with works and not working I don't it's all stupid."he can't be bothered to ge it right.

Now, one doesn’t have to be Christian to be a hate group. The Muslims have plenty, and they cause thousands of deaths. But these Christian hate groups are our own home grown, flag waving, God fearing Americans. Oh, I’d love to say they “aren’t True Americans”, but by birth and by our constitution they are.

Irony meter running.

I did a search for “atheist hate groups”. Guess what… there aren’t any. Free Thinkers, those Godless heathens, don’t band together and picket gay funerals or bomb abortion clinics. They don’t create/join groups that burn down African American churches, paint swastikas on synagogues, or threaten to kill minorities and presidential candidates and claim it to be the will of some unseen entity. To do those things one seems to need a belief in God.

There aren't any! so becasue no athist group is stupid to say "let's have a hate group" then there aren't any. Guess what man, DH is running a hate group. It's obvious anyone with half a brain can see that. Look how he:

(1) lumps all Christians togather

(2) can't acknowledge a single good thing any Christians have done

(3) twists points of doctirne to make all Christians seem the same

(4) Fumes and fusses and derides everything connected with Christianity.

Last question: Why is that?

 But course this is laughable I would be doubled over if it wasn't also so pathetic. The Irony meters are all busted as result of this supreme irony becuase in writing this this person makes himself/herself a part of the hate group mentality, and thus answers his/her own question: the atheist hate group is in front of your face, anytime atheist resort to mocking and ridicule which is almost all the time for some (with proper caveats for all friendly atheists).

get this: a guy called  "Reverend Donald Spitz" (Ima Hooker, right) sends a comment that is an atheist shill if every I've heard one (considering Christian miniter has Jewish name). So Hummpy says:

DromedaryHump said... Thanks for your input, Rev (heheh "Rev."). But, actually, donald, real world fact and statistics prove otherwise... and thus attest to your ignorance.
This blog deals with fact and reality, Donald...to that end:

From a historic perspective, religion far exceeds any secular causes for inhumanity toward mankind. The history of theist murder, war, genocide, persecution and destruction are legion. But if you read, you know this.

He's so delighted with his witty little wit that to point out how clever he is, and he is so taken with calling a Reverend Rev. woe! I bet he would be floored by the Chicken crossing the road.


Of course the ahistorical ranting and raving about "religious murder" makes he think he's never heard of world war II or communism. Communist murered 100 million people, atheists murdered 100 million people. That's more than died in all war prior to the 20th century. WWII cannot be construed as caused by religious considerations of any kind, nor can WWI. Both of these wars were inflamed by communists and occultist concerns (Nazi) but they did not have religious causes at all but where economic or dealt with the balance of power (geopolitical). There were not 100 million people on earth when most reglious wars took place. Add to that 100 million the millions who died in WWII and WWI.

Latter in answering another fake letter Humppy says:

You seemed to have failed to address the question of why they are virtually all Christian hate organizations. Infact, I wouldnt be surpirsed if you are a member of one of them, eh? Lemme guess...
KKK?

HERE SAY THIS MANTRA:
"PLEASE SOMEONE MAKE ME READ A BOOK; UNDERSTAND THE REALITY OF THE RELIGIOUS MEME; ACCEPT SCIENCE AND 21ST CENTURY LOGIC SO I CAN STOP BELIEVING IN SKY FAIRIES AND LIVE LIKE A GENUINE PERSON WITH NO EXCUSES FOR MY IGNORANCE and NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MY ANTISOCIAL AND INTOLERANT ACTS."

there donald...doesn't that feel better? November 1, 2008 8:57 PM

that old Irony meter is just spinning like a weather vein. How much more do we have to quote to understand that this website is dripping with hate, that Humppy has no intention of ever thinking fairly but has a large gaping wound perhaps caused by a religious person or not, but is trying to heal that wound by inflicting similar wounds on other people? There's no way to even post a comment, even there is a link it doesn't work. So this guy is ot concerned with answers, not concentrated truth or fairness or thinking. As a super irony wants others to read a book but of course i truly doubt he has read one himself.

It's clear this is an atheist hate group. In even asking the question he sets up the answer that he's part of the atheist hate group. This is just one site but I can point thousands of them. They are everywhere. I want to develop some form of scale to measure what percentage of atheism is actually the hate group. It looks like on the net anyway over 60%.

That's a good question. Where are the rational atheist sties that don't call religious people fools or idiots and don't try to say that all religious organizations are on a par with the KKK, just rationally and fairly with intellectual issues? How many an we find? Can we find any?

that's silly and hateful.n You are obviously not prepared to discuss seriously you try to reduce all of religion to just the small examples of evil and totally ignore the vast majority of things religious people have done, then you are just a perfect example of hate group.

the extremists in the hate group work up their little brian washed meninges to a frenzy so that they can't see their noses in front of their faces then religions just become object of evil, the evil "other" the "enemy" the bad guys those we must destroy you are blind to the good that it's done.

what is the point of trying to talk with someone like that someone so deeply brainwashed they can't remember that Christianity has done a huge amount of good.


the red cross invented by Christians
hospitals invented by Christians
all manor of charity groups
civil rights movement
the abolition movement
woman's suffrage movement
Peasant revolts in Germany

in every age for every act of evil there have some Christians who stood up against it.

Christianity and Western Civilization:

http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/civ.html _____

Christianity as a force for liberation!