By Luke Nix So many people, both religious and non-religious, believe that faith is purely emotional, and in most contexts people imply the word “blind” before “faith”. While few others believe that faith is logical- that it is firmly grounded on something. Lately, I’ve been reading the book “Emotional Intelligence” by psychologist Daniel Goleman and […]Continue reading →
I posted a comment to my Facebook page and, as it turns out, an Atheist proved, yet again, that Atheism is unjustified, unlivable and must beg, borrow and steal from Judeo-Christian worldview.
Here was my post:
Our Attorney General Attorney General noted that transcripts of the Muslim Orlando mass murdering terrorist’s discussion with negotiators would be released but, of course, only in part. She specified that his statements that reflect where he “pledges his allegiance” would be censored. In other words, his references to Islam, the Qur’an/Koran, Muhammad, Allah, etc. will be censored.
Conversely, she urged us to keep the focus on the victims. In other words, downplay Islam’s role in yet another terrorist act and uphold homosexuals as righteous martyrs (hey, that is almost exactly like that “V for Vendetta” movie).
The Obama admin replaced “Allah” with “God” in the censored transcripts of Orlando Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen’s discussions with negotiators.
The Attorney General stated that the transcripts would be released in part. She specified that his “pledges of allegiance” would be removed. Now, people will argue that “Allah” is simply a generic Arabic term for “God” (which is also a generic term) and that Arabic speaking Christians use the term “allah” to refer to the God of the Bible. Yet, we must think within context as this is not about grammar or etymology but about theology.
Muslim terrorists who yell out “allahu akbar” are not saying “Some generically unspecified ‘g,’ ‘o,’ ‘d’ is great. Rather, the context is that they are referring to the god of Islam, the Qur’an, Muhammad, etc.
#OmarMateen #LGBTQ #Pulse #Orlando #obama
The Atheist’s reply was as follows:
Does it really matter if they replaced Allah with god in the transcripts when islam shares the same god as judaism and christianity? Allah being the arabic word for god. Also, if you are going to cover the harm caused by islamic influence as a tactic we should cover the recent harmed caused by christianity; like the pope commanding people in africa to not use condoms to combat the spread of aids, instead god would protect them from the virus.
I really do not understand how you consider yourself a “free thinker” whilst spouting the typical bigoted christian opinions on homosexuality or anything not specifically allowed in the bible.
I did not bother replying to the part about whether it really matters if they replaced Allah with God because, obviously, they take a shotgun approach: bring up a lot of points at once. However, a transcript is supposed to be jus that: a word by word relating of what a person stated and not a translation or interpretation (or, mistranslation or misinterpretation). What if a Christian committed some violent act and claimed to do it in “God’s” name? Would the report be that they claimed to do it in “Allah’s” name?
In any case, here is my reply:
Friend, it is utterly fascinating that when confronted with the specific issue of Islamic terrorism, so very many people are so very desperate to avoid the issue that they, as you did, chose instead to criticize Christianity. This make precisely zero sense. Why not respond to Islamic terrorism with referring to Atheists’ crimes against humanity or Buddhists’ ones or Hindus’ ones, etc.?
Also, if you think that Muslims worship the same God as Judaism and Christianity please ask Jews and Muslims if they worship Jesus as God incarnate and get back to me with their reply.
As an FYI: the Pope does not speak for Christianity but for Catholicism, this has been well known for a least one millennia and a papacy in the way it is defined today was simply unknown within the millennia before that.
I am a “free thinker” because I do not adhere to thought restricting Atheism which does not allow one to think beyond materialism and/or naturalism.
Just because I do not allow the culture de jour to tell me what I MUST think about certain issues does not mean that I am bigoted.
Now, you seem to condemn bigotry, bigoted Christian opinions, etc. but upon what premise do you do so?
Lastly, I do not know if you would apply the term “free thinker” to yourself but you spout the typical bigoted secular opinions on Christianity or anything not specifically allowed according to the politically correct secular cultural commandments de jour—please reconsider.
The Atheist replied thusly:
Love that no true scotsman about catholicism, its like christians forgot carholics are christians. Also I am not deflecting away from the issue of islamic terrorism but when i do it is only when christians try using it as a point of superiority like you did in your OP.
Why do you not cover things like Joseph Kony and The Lord’s Resistance Army killing more non-christians in africa than islamic extremists killing non-muslims? You have no problem posting about muslims currently killing non-muslims but sweep under the rug the stories of christians currently killing non-christians, sounds hypocritical and far from “free thinking”.
Since christianity and islam are spin offs of judaism, it is safe to say they all worship the same god regardless of their various opinions.
Please stop asking questions like “on what premise do you codemn bigotry”, they are loaded questions that are often used to assert morality comes only from a god, specifically your god.
Here is my reply:
Friend, the no true Scotsman fallacy is itself a fallacy as, for example, no true vegan eats meat and that is a fact.
You seem to miss the point about the Pope: he is the head of Catholicism and not of Christianity as a whole and that is a fact.
“I am not deflecting away from the issue of islamic terrorism but when i do…” which means that you are and you merely presume that in pointing out facts it is due to claiming superiority (the sort of superiority you imply to have over me and anyone with whom you disagree).
Not posting something about specific personages you mention does not equal sweeping under the rug: you are committing a logical fallacy known as the non sequitur—the one thing does not necessarily lead to the other.
The issue is that those times I have posted about violence done in the name of Christianity I can absolutely condemn it upon absolute principles which is something that you are either unwilling or unable to do.
You may be aware that Mormonism is a spin off from Christianity. Yet, they worship a god who was born on another planet as a man and then became a god in a polytheistic system wherein he has sex with his various wives. Thus, it is not the same God of Christianity. In like manner, Christianity and Islam may be thought to be spin offs of Judaism but it is a logical and theological non sequitur to conclude that it is safe to say they all worship the same god and that, shockingly, you assert this is “regardless of their various opinions” which is utterly astonishing. It seems like a copout from doing that which I requested which is that you actually ask them their various opinions rather than simply authoritatively asserting that their opinions are irrelevant.
Lastly, I can see why you flat out refuse to answer “on what premise do you condemn…” anything at all since you would be forced to admit that you have no premise whatsoever and are merely expressing emotions, emotions that are based on prejudices, prejudices that are based on personal preferences, personal preferences that are based on your interpretation of bio-chemical neural reactions occurring within your gray matter, gray matter that (on your view, I would presume) haphazardly evolved uncaused and for no other reason than to survive (for another unknown reason) as you are an accidentally and temporarily existing bio organism sitting atop a spinning rock, orbiting an average star in the backwaters of an accidentally and temporarily existing universe.
Yet, for some unknown reason, you still feel the need to tell people that they are wrong because you are right.
The Atheist replied by writing:
Bravo, you convinced me that if the grown adults in christianity were exposed to The Hobbit before the bible, you’d scoff at the bible but still scour the earth for the one ring.
Would also like to point out that your entire last response is quite fallacious, since you are asking questions and making all your assertions based on your preposition of christianity being right without question.
This last reply of mine was the last one as, for some or another reason, the Atheist no longer replied:
Friend, you mock and weave and dodge but are unwilling or unable to offer anything relevant to the key question.
That is one of the various reasons why people right state that Atheism is unlivable which is why Atheists must beg, borrow and steal from the Judeo-Christian worldview even in order to argue against the Judeo-Christian worldview.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
–>Continue reading →