How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet

fr33 said:
I would like to know if those who feel that atheists are smug assholes like the OP says, have ever even tried to imagine what it's like to be an atheist. It does take some mental gymnastics. Most atheists were believers of god at some point in their life and have examined both perspectives.
Click to expand...

Obviously it depends on the atheist, duh...

We aren't collectivists here:p

Sola_Fide said:
Arminians don't use the term or even think of it. They get out their black markers when they come to those portions of Scripture.
Click to expand...

I've definitely met Arminians who will admit that election is a Biblical concept, they just don't define it the same way we do.
 
fr33 said:
I would like to know if those who feel that atheists are smug assholes like the OP says, have ever even tried to imagine what it's like to be an atheist. It does take some mental gymnastics. Most atheists were believers of god at some point in their life and have examined both perspectives.
Click to expand...

That's true. It takes tons of mental gymnastics.

We are all naturally theists. Atheism isn't the default. It's a tower people have to struggle to climb up to using a ladder built on theistic presuppositions before they kick the ladder away.
 
FreedomFanatic said:
There's a difference between honest misinterpretation and deliberate rebellion. I'm pretty sure that's something James White has addressed as well.
Click to expand...

Christians won't deny the gospel when it is presented to them. They don't have to articulate every theological detail, but they certainly dont deny Biblical truths when it is preached to them.
 
Sola_Fide said:
Christians won't deny the gospel when it is presented to them. They don't have to articulate every theological detail, but they certainly dont deny Biblical truths when it is preached to them.
Click to expand...

It may be because I'm wired differently, but I actually accepted limited atonement long before I accepted unconditional election. It was relatively easy for me to understand that double jeopardy is unjust. It was harder for me to accept that man had no choice at all and that God let billions of people go to Hell without giving them a choice. I struggled with that for a long time.

Eventually, I came to terms with what the Bible taught on the matter, but I believe I was saved before then.

Why?

Because I repented of my sin and put my faith and trust in Christ for my salvation. That's the way the Apostles preached the gospel. Repent, and believe. Jesus sometimes referenced monergistic concepts when he preached, but he never said that such understanding was required for salvation.

With that being said, do repentance and belief themselves bring about salvation? Of course not. Repentance and belief occur at the moment of salvation, but salvation can only happen because of Christ' atonement. Christ's blood saves. Which is why I am a believer in limited atonement.
 
FreedomFanatic said:
It may be because I'm wired differently, but I actually accepted limited atonement long before I accepted unconditional election. It was relatively easy for me to understand that double jeopardy is unjust. It was harder for me to accept that man had no choice at all and that God let billions of people go to Hell without giving them a choice. I struggled with that for a long time.
Click to expand...

I don't think unconditional election entails man having no choice at all. Choices are all over the Bible, and they are never less of a choice just by being predestined.
 
erowe1 said:
I don't think unconditional election entails man having no choice at all. Choices are all over the Bible, and they are never less of a choice just by being predestined.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but as I said, I struggled with it at the time.
 
fr33 said:
The ability of atheists to speak frankly without getting punished or killed is a relatively new freedom. They aren't any more smug than the preachers that come on my property and knock on my door then tell me I'm going to hell if I disagree with them. This actually happens. Atheists don't usually act as smug and rude as that.
Click to expand...

Sola_Fide said:
Haha...when did this happen? I don't believe you for a host of reasons.
Click to expand...

This has happened to me. I wasn't at home but walking with a friend when this preacher came up to us from behind and started to converse with us. At first it was casual but then turned into this lecture about how everyone is going to hell for eternity if they don't accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savoir. It was completely fear based and he admitted that. Kinda reminds me of Genghis Khan. Khan would send a diplomat to a city or kingdom and say something to the like of "accept us and submit". We all know from history that those that didn't submit were brutally massacred. I'm not equating Christians to Genghis Khan, this particular memory just reminded me of Khan.
 
Last edited:
heavenlyboy34 said:
The Soviets attempted theological genocide too. Especially Christians and "mystic" religious communities in the east like Mongolia. Wiping out religion was very much part of the Soviet agenda.
Click to expand...

Bare facts of whom was targeted by death squads in the political agenda of Stalin's regime, do not actual motivational concerns consider.

Stalin looked out across his nation in despair and assuming that religious divisiveness was preventing people from cooperating and collaborating in a nationalistic fervor, to generate the type of communist society he had envisioned.

He resolved, therefore, that atheism would be the surest route to producing a well informed and cooperative proletariat. he started by implementing forced education and re-education camps. When that failed to produce the results he was after, and he was faced with so much resistance, he determined to kill off the religious rebels.

But, he didn't do it to favor a particular religion. His motivations were to produce a more productive and cooperative/less divisive society. If he believed a particular religion would have accomplished those goals, he almost certainly would have moved to adopt that religion as a state religion, which almost certainly(if history is any judge) would have produced the atheistic and socialized state he was seeking(ref all the most socialized, egalitarian, and economically viable nations today, who once had state religions and are now predominantly atheistic(irreligious).

In fact, there are two, seemingly, sure ways to gain atheism... Either read the Bible in its entirety in a literal context and with comprehension, or initiate a state religion, which is vehemently enforced.
 
Sola_Fide said:
Who cares? If people voluntarily refuse to buy something in the market, there is nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Are you truly this blind to the atrocities committed by committed theists(Christians especially), in the name of their religious beliefs against those who spoke contrary to those beliefs, and or challenged such beliefs.

Look at all that has been said, within the religious community, about Darwin, Einstein, Dawkins, etc. Look at how these people have received death threats, violent attacks, had their homes and other properties vandalized, etc. Many times, even their grave sites have been vandalized. Not, Dawkins, of course, since he's still living. Look at all the people who were hung, burned, drowned, and stoned to death as witches simply because they said or did something which the religious community found offensive to them or perceived as an attack on their beliefs.

So, to characterize it as something so innocuous as boycotting sales, is a bit of a misrepresentation of the threat of real harm, and not simple economic disparity.

Even in this open and honest age, where there is growing tolerance, I have been chased at gun point, had my life threatened and been ostracized for honestly admitting to my atheism, when asked, about my beliefs.

So, you wanna know what atheists are so pissed off? We are tired of being threatened for our lack shared delusion, or being told to shut up if we aren't going to agree with the establishment.
 
Frank Lee Seaux said:
Look at all that has been said, within the religious community, about Darwin, Einstein, Dawkins, etc. Look at how these people have received death threats, violent attacks, had their homes and other properties vandalized, etc. Many times, even their grave sites have been vandalized.
Click to expand...

When atheists talk about being persecuted, these are always the kind of trifles they come up with. Nativity scenes also seem to be high on their list.
 
This reminds me of when my town a few years ago received a complaint from a local atheist over the public nativity scene. He brought in the ACLU and everything to take it down. Of course, the atheist man had no problem with the 12-foot Santa statue, but the ancient barn-scene was clearly a threat to his liberty. If you really don't believe in God, shouldn't a statue of baby Jesus should be no different than a statue of a fat elf?

Anyway the nativity was basically given away to a nearby church, but that was after the issue was put on the ballot. Yes, people actually voted on this. :facepalm:
 
Origanalist said:
I don't believe in atheism.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha. Whether or not atheism exists for you ro believe in or not, is not in question. In fact, it undeniably exists in the world/is a genuine phenomenon.

It would appear that what you meant to say is that you are not atheistic.
 
erowe1 said:
Frank Lee Seaux said:
Look at all that has been said, within the religious community, about Darwin, Einstein, Dawkins, etc. Look at how these people have received death threats, violent attacks, had their homes and other properties vandalized, etc. Many times, even their grave sites have been vandalized.
Click to expand...

When atheists talk about being persecuted, these are always the kind of trifles they come up with. Nativity scenes also seem to be high on their list.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you consider vandalism, violent attacks, and death threats to be trifle? Do vandalism, violent attacks and death threats being trifle apply to you, too?
 
It seems like that should be a public space available to all. If the Nativity scene itself was privately paid for and they just asked for the space it would be fine as long as competing beliefs could also put up displays if they chose to. Scenes displaying a celebration for Ramadan should be allowed.

If those conditions are met than the local neighborhood Atheist would still be annoyed I'm sure but they should back off.

As for Santa Claus, he is now mostly a Mascot for consumerism and not a really meaningful religious Icon to anybody that I'm aware of.
 
EBounding said:
This reminds me of when my town a few years ago received a complaint from a local atheist over the public nativity scene. He brought in the ACLU and everything to take it down. Of course, the atheist man had no problem with the 12-foot Santa statue, but the ancient barn-scene was clearly a threat to his liberty. If you really don't believe in God, shouldn't a statue of baby Jesus should be no different than a statue of a fat elf?

Anyway the nativity was basically given away to a nearby church, but that was after the issue was put on the ballot. Yes, people actually voted on this. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
Maybe that atheist didn't like seeing their tax money being used to impose religious beliefs, and maybe he didn't consider a statue based on someone who is historically known for being charitable and an attempt to use tax money to support religious doctrine, or something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top