Moving to ...

Moved to Pressing For Truth In seeking truth, one does not find it by these immature and primitive methods. See RULES FOR COMMENTS (Right Sidebar)

Search This Blog

FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage

Friday, October 29, 2010

Sometimes Sad to be Right

Comments I have received from neo-atheists have unfortunately confirmed my past experiences. 

They have these characteristics.
  • Ignoring the main points and NOT answering questions posed.
  • Flaming: Using belittling, mocking and rude remarks INSTEAD of answering questions. This technique is always used to avoid answering and to take attention off yourself and try to put it on the other person [in this case, me (:-)
My main points have always been ignored and given long verbacious responses which DO NOT answer the points.

The Questions that Atheists will NEVER answer clearly are as follows.
  • What per cent of the world's knowledge do you have? When pinned down, which usually takes much work on my part, they will usually grudgingly agree that they have less than 1% of the world's knowledge with caveats galore like "but knowledge is have to count all the world's knowledge .... Such caveats MAKE NO SENSE since ALL KNOWLEDGE INCLUDES KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. So if atheists wish to include all knowledge they MUST admit that millions believe in God which rather makes being an atheist moot. [If atheists are people that believe there is no God.
Second question I have asked and never received a cognizant answer is...
  • Could God exist in the 99% of the world's knowledge that YOU do not have. I have NEVER yet received a "YES". It is always a "NO" and usually a "NO" with circular reasoning that strikes one the same as the farmer being asked how to get to a particular place and he says, "You can't get there from here." We all know that is nonsense.
Since atheists WILL NOT answer these two simple questions, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a discussion with them because they will not stick to the point..
  • As a Christian I cannot be so arrogant as to say "There is NO possibility that God does not exist." There is a possibility. Why cannot atheists admit there might be a God? 
  • However the possibility of there not being a God is the same as the possibility as taking a watch apart and shaking all the parts up in a bag and wondering how long you have to shake before the watch creates itself by chance. What  are the chances of that happening?  
Then the second experience I get are emotional flaming remarks [not all flaming but written to belittle what I have said AND STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS  

Quotations from Comments received which did not aid in discussion
  • it was the butt of a lot of humour as they saw through the flaws of the argument rather quickly. [Since "butts" are not my thing I did not bother to waste my time to go to the site mentioned however they still have not answered the questions!]
  • a field full of strawmen in your reply.
  • enough projection for a multiplex theatre
  • only through censorship that religion survives [when the same atheist wants to prevent the conservative TV channel run by Sun News to be established in Canada. Is that hyprocrisy or what? I guess he means ONLY atheists are allowed to censor?]
  • another rather hypocritical comment was "putting political pressure on candidates and boycotting companies that don't agree with ...' [Again I guess it is okay to boycott "Fox News North" , start a facebook protest, but ONLY if you are an atheist who of course is against censoring....??? One might ask why are ONLY atheists allowed to do the things they do? Is it because they deem themselves smarter than others?]
  • I am still waiting a REASONED response to my questions above but I get "cannot survive the light of reason".
  • "I have avoided no question" ... [except of course answering directly YES or NO to my two main ones!]
I deleted the last two comments sent to me because they were even worse. However I should have saved them as an example of what NOT to do.

My final question to any religious atheists is
  • Do you know of anyone smarter than you? Someone who may understand more than you do? Take today's world for example. Or take all of recorded history if you wish.
But as a favour to the reader, who do you think made the comments below? Was he smart or just a blind believer? [No fair peaking until you read it all!!! ]

What religious figure made the following statements?

All are Quotations
  • I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.

  • Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers

  • let us not forget that knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life

  • If men as individuals surrender to the call of their elementary instincts, avoiding pain and seeking satisfaction only for their own selves, the result for them all taken together must be a state of insecurity, of fear, and of promiscuous misery.

  • If, besides that, they use their intelligence from an individualist, i.e., a selfish standpoint, building up their life on the illusion of a happy unattached existence, things will be hardly better.

  • In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

  • Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.

  • There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.)

  • I am also not a "Freethinker" in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insuffiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature." It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality. 

  • I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. [There are some who say that this was not written by ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but since the statements in it were made in other places by the same individual it does seem to fit with his concepts. It could be that the reporter took notes and then fleshed out what the interviewee had said. ]

  • Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all.

  • I consider the Society of Friends [Quakers] the religious community which has the highest moral standards. As far as I know, they have never made evil compromises and are always guided by their conscience. In international life, especially, their influence seems to me very beneficial and effective.

  • In this sense I have never looked upon ease and happiness as ends in themselves-such an ethical basis I call more proper for a herd of swine.

  • The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness.

  • In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.

  • What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.

  • If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.

  • Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth

  • No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

  • No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word

  • No man," he replied, "can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful

Are you interested in who said these things? Did you read what he said? Do you think he was a stupid man? 

If you would like to know who it is then please email me at with your guess or with your question as to who it is.

I promise I will NOT use your email address or sell it or give it to any other people but ONLY use it to communicate with you as long as you will allow it. If you tell me to I will then delete your address from my contact list.


1 comment:

  1. I think this may be my last comment. I've answered your questions multiple times and I still see you posting that no one has answered them.

    Either you are not understanding the answers, refuse to understand because of your religious indoctrination or are being deliberately deceitful. In such case it would be pointless to continue.

    1. I do not a have 100% of the worlds knowledge. Less than 1%. That's Question number 1 answered. (Again)

    2. God could exist in the knowledge I do not possess. That's Question number 2 answered. (Again) or more simply Yes!

    Are you happy? You now have an atheist that answered your pointless exercise. Now you can post that you have at least one atheist that answered your question.

    I admit that there are BILLIONS of people that claim to have knowledge of God or Gods.

    Happy again?

    So all you have really proven is I may be agnostic instead of an atheist. Which really means nothing because you can be both and agnostic and an atheist. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

    Agnostic is a statement of knowledge. Without the knowledge of gods.
    Atheism is a statement of belief. Not believing in Gods

    Therefore if you have no knowledge of gods and no belief in gods then you are an agnostic atheist.

    If you have no knowledge of gods and have belief or unsure in gods then you are an agnostic.

    Personally I have knowledge of God. I went to Sunday school, church, Young peoples at B in C on Perry Rd. I was a member of Inter School Christian Fellowship at Crossley. Was a Deacon at my church. I've been to Hindu temple, Sikh temple. Read Case For Christ.

    In all that I never found Evidence of God. I had questions that science answered better than religion. So lacking evidence and seeing superior answers in science I stopped believing.

    I haven't stopped looking, that's why I started these arguments with you. However I found rather than reasoned argument, censorship*, deceit, personal attacks, strawmen, prejudice.

    If you're not going to be at least honest there's no point in continuing.

    *Fox news north can come to Canada I just don't want to be forced to pay for it.


Sorry about this but to prevent vicious little bots from posting nasty stuff, we need moderation of comments. Thanks for your understanding.