All statements made that they quote they are taking out of context because they don't acknowledge that I'm talking about all atheists but about the segment of them that are into the hate movement.
L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock,
You ask,
why should I have to prove anything to you? I beileve it is verified in me every day, why should I care what you believe? I don't need your permission to hold my views.
why don't you guys go pick on people who like Marvel comics or something? I mean really. this stuff is important to those who like and understand it, why don't you find a different hobby?
Let me briefly address some of these questions.
You asked,
"why should I have to prove anything to you?"
You need to prove these things because you have also said concerning those who disagree with you,
"I think they have an organized tactic of bieng hateful to religious people. I think they are nothing but Nazis and we should not try to argue with them, we should try ot have them banned by law."
When you make it your objective to use statute to eradicate those who disagree with you, you must prove yourself to everyone who has a stake in it - that is, everyone.
Clearly, your religion, your theology, and your education all lack the power to give you what you know secular law can provide. More than that, Joe, it's a trivial observation taken from your own writings, like the one above "we should try ot have them banned by law," that your religion's moral teachings of loving one's enemies and turning one's cheek, carry no weight with you.
When you think nobody's looking, you really seem to let your true feelings come out. Like this, for instance,
I think they have some kind of organized tacktic to use ridicule. I think we should be spreading teh word for Christians not to feel intimidated by atheist rudness.
there's this asshole in Austin who has a community access show and a website.
Your religion, your theology, your education counts for nothing, Metacrock.
Yes, Joe L. Hinman, for these and many others you should have to prove things to a great many of us.
You asked,
I beileve it is verified in me every day, why should I care what you believe?
Metacrock, you clearly do care what others believe, or you would be content to ignore their comments. Realize this: are many good reasons for you to care what others believe.
You should care what I believe because, if we agree, I, we, may be wrong, which could have nasty consequences for any affected by what I, we believe. If we agree about, say, religion, but we have both chosen the wrong one, you/we should be concerned.
You should care what I believe because, if we disagree, unless we want to add more violence and distrust to the human condition, we must come to a peaceful compromise. In part we can't use your approach of "banned by law." Sadly, though, Joe, that can never happen. Your religion can never leave others to their own emotional and spiritual paths.
Concerning our religious disputes, J. L., I would be happy to leave you alone, but you, because of your religion, will never leave anyone alone. If your religion was a personal private religion, I could grant you immunity from my attacks. But, of course, your religion is nothing like that, being instead highly invasive. You want everyone to be exactly like you, through the enforcement power of the state, if need be. But, know this, other's freedom will not be yours without a fight.
In your version of Christianity, you would insist that I think of myself, my own beloved children, in fact, all of humanity, as afflicted with the disease of sin, so paid clergy can dispense mystical cures invented by theologians. You would insist that I accept your sins and cures as real, while I ignore the sins and cures proposed by other Christianities and other religions. Please understand, Hinman, that I can't comply, even if statute dictates.
My children are not miracles. They learn; they make mistakes; they grow; they are my favorite part of humanity; they are my favorite part of life. They, like all of us are part of the current state of biodiversity on this planet. I am happy they are descendants of our common ancestor with the other apes. I am happy that they, like us all, are verifiably related to the rest of the life on this planet. And, I am ecstatic that they are not the creation of that morally horrific Biblical troll you call God, and, by association, Joe, I'm glad they're nothing like you.
You said,
why don't you guys go pick on people who like Marvel comics or something?
Simple. Loving Marvel comics doesn't make people demand that we all believe the bizarre, the mystical, the magical, the super. Religion does exactly that and it almost never exists unless it does. Marvel comics readers aren't stupid enough to think that the fables they read are real. Marvel comics readers can distinguish reality and fantasy. The religious can't.
People who love Marvel comics don't demand that when I look at a newborn that I see an inherently flawed, sinful, theologically disease-ridden person whose affliction has been passed down from the beginning of time. Adam and Eve never existed, Joe. There was no original sin. Sin was not handed down. None of us is sinful. Sin is a marketing tool for clergy.
By separating that newborn from your theological bullshit, I can see her in a world of bright possibilities, including the possibility of living in a comprehensible world without the ancient useless mental and psychological obstacle of religion. Anyone who thinks that that beautiful child needs to be subject to the gruesome fantasies of theologians and clerics is a complete idiot.
You ended,
I mean really. this stuff is important to those who like and understand it, why don't you find a different hobby?
You say words, Joe. You do not understand it. "this stuff," as you call it, might be important to you, but it is not comprehensible in any way that corresponds to the world people live in. That it mutates so fast - just among Christianities the rate is a thousand new denominations a year now - tells us that just about anyone, just about anywhere can sprout their own religion.
Just think, Hinman, you could be the next L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones or Fred Phelps. I'm sure you will be just as endeared as each of them. Real money, power, authority, and political influence can be yours. Doesn't Hinmanism, the one, the only, the TRUE religion sound good to you?
1:59 PM, April 03, 2009
Blogger Harry McCall said...
Joe, it looks like Russ just crucified your butt along with your Christianity. (I don’t think your books on Karl Barth and Emil Brunner will help you now. Bultmann may be more in line for you here, however.)
For someone who accepts a religion that stresses a dichotomy between Light (God) and Satan (Darkness), you really need do update your blog picture; or is there something your are trying to tell us?
See he think this slander and biased hate monger bull shit that's nothing than character assassination is just fine. good propaganda. it's jsut the right show thing we need to really someone in his place.
can't you see what they are? They are not thinkers.
14 comments:
I was an atheist before there was an internet. Reason led me to God.
Ah, then. You were never a REAL Atheist ;-)
You mean blaspheming against the holy spirit by declaring the there is no God didn't ban you from heaven eternally?
So now instead of talking about religion, Joe has to defend himself. Not the way to have a good discussion, methinks. Can't we stick to the issues? And why are they assuming you have all sorts of beliefs you have never claimed-- like in Adam and Eve, or original sin? They lump all Christians into one group and assume they all believe the same stuff. That's either willful ignorance, or just plain personal attack. And that poster has shotgunned so much garbage at you, there's no way you can address it all in one discussion.
But I will say, Joe-- it's too bad that word "Nazi" is out there where they can pull it up out of context and use it against you-- a retraction of that comparison might stand you in good stead. It's been my experience that that word always results in this type of stuff. Enter that word = goodbye conversation. So whenever they don't want to talk to you, they can pull up someplace where you used that word. So if you could pull up, in response, your stated retraction, it would be helpful to you.
I have seen for myself that a certain portion of atheists do act like a hate group-- but it does no good to call them "Nazis" -- partly because I don't think they ARE Nazis (they have no plans to put religious people in concentration camps or anything like that), and partly because all it does is enflame the discussion and thus ruin it.
But you have my sympathies, my friend. Where is this blog? I might post something in your defense.
saying there's no God is not blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Saying that Jesus is the evil one is the definition of that sin.
Kristen, I will not retract anthing. you read the history of the brown shirts you see this segment of the atheists who are extremists and act that way or following exactly the course they followed. All they need is a political party to hook up with.
But you have my sympathies, my friend. Where is this blog? I might post something in your
you don't want to go there. Despite Lotus pretense at the being the greatest thinker in the world, none of the other people on blog are capable of any kind of real thought. All they know how to do is insult. they are really as bad as Zaravic.
"All statements made that they quote they are taking out of context"
How about a link to the thread so we can the context for ourselves? In my experience you haven't always been guiltless in these exchanges...
And as far as I'm concerned your use of terms like "Nazi" and "brownshirt", as you know, are never justified.
in that thread at that Point I had said nothing hurtful to them. I may have teased a bit, but clearly not in a hateful way.
those guys really do remind me of the Brown shirts. maybe that's unfair but that's my impression. A bunch of social misfits, most of them hate academics and only one of them is one and even hates academia. but that's fashionable.
they scape goat Christianity for all of their problems, love to feel superior by mocking Christians and gang up to assassinate the character of anyone who disagrees with them.
here's the thread
now they are trying to say that I'm a Nazi because I read Heidegger. like they are so stupid they don't that Heidegger is read by a lot of contemporary philosophers and he's important enough that he had to be read if you want to understand Sartre and Derrida and Marcuse and a lot of other people.
but they are using that to try and label me as a Nazi.
I read the thread, Joe-- thanks for posting it-- and I agreed that what you said happened is exactly what happened. Let's all attack Joe for getting upset and angry about the way we attacked him.
Yech.
I posted a comment-- which I ordinarily wouldn't do on a blog like that-- but someone needed to say something. It was absolutely disgraceful what they were doing to you.
And now they've started using that "Nazi" word too. Isn't that nice?
I see some strong disagreements there Joe, But i honestly don't understand why you lost your temper in this one...I thought it all sounded reasonably respectful until you blew up and started calling people stupid...
Hermit I really question your ability to be objective at all. If you can't see that that Russ guy started the attack on personity and he did with a shameful abuse of things I things I had said in the past taken out of context and used in a way that initated personal attacks, then you hve no ability to understand anything.
show me what I said prior to Russ's post that was a personal atack on any fo them?
If you can't see that the things he said were shamefully insulting an uncalled fo then you are as bad as he is.
the guy in Austin that I referred to was a total buthole. Russ ascts takes that personally but he has no idea what that guy did. He was totally dishonest, he used by words in an totally dishonest manner and wouldn't admit. He jsut out and out laid about my web and what it says.
they he would not give me a chance to show how my statements should be used.
then you come back and try to say that I started, how. how the fucking hell could possibly be to blame?
do you really not see how totally over the top Russ's post was?
With all respect Joe, stop whining. Russ may have been off topic, he may have been a little aggressive, he may even have been rude but the sad fact is the quotes he attributed to you are your own words; the stuff he's challenging you to defend is the kind of thing that has gotten you into so much trouble in the past.
That's not an attack on your personality its a challenge to the things you've actually said about us.
You're going to have to accept that the things you have said in the past are not going away and you are going to have to keep taking responsibility for them whenever someone new comes across them. Better to admit you've been out of line yourself in the past, maybe apologize, explain to Russ that those things were said in anger and don't reflect your actual views and move on. I think that would be a better response than blowing your stack and falling back on the Nazi/hategroup/not serious thinker/fuckingstupid atheists slander like you did here.
Post a Comment