Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

This is reality, not Wonderland, Alice! There's no such things as demons.

As I said, nothing is at stake in your beliefs regarding this, so it's not worth debating. The Resurrection, on the other hand, puts everything at stake. Let's start there.

[surreptitious57]

The Resurrection on the other hand puts everything at stake

Which is why you can not accept even in principle the possibility that it may never have actually happened
Since your entire belief is so focused upon this one event that it would simply be too much to contemplate

[Immanuel Can]

The Resurrection on the other hand puts everything at stake

Which is why you can not accept even in principle the possibility that it may never have actually happened
Since your entire belief is so focused upon this one event that it would simply be too much to contemplate

An understandable guess, but not so at all. Even the Bible itself speaks of this. It says,

• "...how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Cor. 15:12-19)

Now, I call that "pulling no punches." In sum, it describes exactly what would be the case if what you're saying were true, and that in unstinting detail. Not only does every Christian have to realize this, there's actually no being a Christian without it.

So the guess was wrong. Not only is it "not too much to contemplate," but God insists we must "contemplate" that very thing.

[Dubious]

This is reality, not Wonderland, Alice! There's no such things as demons.

As I said, nothing is at stake in your beliefs regarding this, so it's not worth debating. The Resurrection, on the other hand, puts everything at stake. Let's start there.

...and what's your evidence for resurrection? Evidence needs to be specific. You can't convince based on vague generalities, which, as presented in the bible, doesn't even amount to that much. Amazing what you demand of others while exempting yourself from justifying any idiot idea which decided to enslave you.

Anyone who doesn't adhere to the same logic, the same rules you so overtly apply to others without even noticing the irony cannot be believed in anything he says. The bible has completely blinded you but I guess like St. Paul that only preceded the revelation which created total duplicity in its wake for that's how your theism expresses itself, nicht wahr?

You're in far greater need of a resurrection in rationality which has clearly been preempted by a belief in an afterlife supposition that's got you running scared. You're belief amounts to nothing more than an insurance policy to avoid the imaginative consequences of Michelangelo's Last Judgement.

Your theists really are an amazing breed!

[Immanuel Can]

...and what's your evidence for resurrection? Evidence needs to be specific.

Quite so.

Let me get you started. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/his ... surrection This isn't all of it, by any means. But it gives you a good launch point.

Your theists really are an amazing breed!

Same breed as everybody. Really, one of the main differences between us and the Atheists is simply this: to be a Theist requires not just evidence but also faith. Theists know that. Atheists don't. They forget that all knowledge is inductive. They imagine they are taking nothing for granted, believing nothing, requiring no evidence. In short, they don't know what faith they actually have, just as they have no idea they have souls, or what will be hereafter. Their ignorance of the nature of their own episteme, and their ungrounded contempt for everybody else, is often total, adamant and beyond any correction by evidence.

Self-knowledge is indeed better than willful ignorance. But on that point, the Theists surely win.

[Greta]

This is reality, not Wonderland, Alice! There's no such things as demons.

As I said, nothing is at stake in your beliefs regarding this, so it's not worth debating. The Resurrection, on the other hand, puts everything at stake. Let's start there.

No squirming. If you believe in obvious superstition like demons then your views generally are unreliable, including the belief in one of the various resurrection myths; Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, Jesus, etc.

You have made clear that 1) you believe in demons and 2) that you believe that exorcisms are not a sham. Primitive beliefs superimposed on to a modern mentality. An unquestioning belief that the ideas of one particular middle eastern tribe 2,000 years ago were a more than every other notion of reality around the world throughout history.

The many errors of the ancients who wrote the Bible have since been exposed, one of these being the assumption that certain infections and brain injuries were demonic possession. I'm curious. Immanuel. What do you believe demons actually are and what is their nature? Why do you believe in them? Have you had contact with them yourself?

If you cannot justify your belief in demons and explain what demons actually are in a sensible way then you show yourself to be a blind follower, in which case I'll leave you to your blind following.

[surreptitious57]

The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the execution

Why is there no account in any of the Gospels about who could have removed the body and why they would have done so
For a body still in the tomb could not be accepted as evidence of resurrection so it had to be removed to maintain the lie
The tomb was not guarded after Jesus was buried in it and so his body could easily have been removed any time after this

Jesus disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ

How do the Gospel writers know that they were actually real experiences and not hallucinations induced by extreme panic
as a result of seeing Jesus crucified and of being in genuine fear of their own lives too. Since Peter was crucified and Judas
committed suicide but the rest went in to hiding because of such fear. So did they really see Jesus or merely think they did

As a result of these disciples which had the resurrection at its centre the Christian Church was established and grew

Eventually it did but for the first four hundred years after the death of Jesus Christianity was no more than a cult for it only
really started to gain prominence following the collapse of the Roman Empire. Which would have seen it as a threat [ though
some Emperors did convert to Christianity ] Also the notion of a belief system with just one God [ albeit a three in one God ]
would have been a revolutionary concept to the Romans who like the Greeks were a multi theistic pagan worshipping society

[Immanuel Can]

You have made clear that 1) you believe in demons and 2) that you believe that exorcisms are not a sham.

What I have said is that I'm not fishing for your red herring.

[surreptitious57]

to be a Theist requires not just evidence but also faith

Theists do indeed require faith but I require none

all knowledge is inductive

Some knowledge is inductive and some is deductive [ one plus one equals two is deductive ]

They imagine they are taking nothing for granted believing nothing requiring no evidence

I imagine no such thing because I know knowledge is not absolute so accept its limitations

In short they dont know what faith they actually have

I deal in probability not in faith for which I have no use

just as they have no idea they have souls

Evidence for the truth claim that humans have souls

or what will be hereafter

Evidence for the truth claim that the hereafter exists

Their ignorance of the nature of their own episteme

I claim to know nothing so how is that ignorance of my own episteme

and their ungrounded contempt for everybody else

The older I get the more I listen to those at the opposite end of the spectrum to me

beyond any correction by evidence

Actual evidence no / supposed evidence yes

Self knowledge is indeed better than wilful ignorance

Yes it is but one can be mistaken for the other quite easily

But on that point the Theists surely win

I was unaware that discourse between atheists and theists is no more a just a game

[Immanuel Can]

to be a Theist requires not just evidence but also faith

Theists do indeed require faith but I require none

all knowledge is inductive

Some knowledge is inductive and some is deductive [ one plus one equals two is deductive ]

They imagine they are taking nothing for granted believing nothing requiring no evidence

I imagine no such thing because I know knowledge is not absolute so accept its limitations

In short they dont know what faith they actually have

I deal in probability not in faith for which I have no use

just as they have no idea they have souls

Evidence for the truth claim that humans have souls

or what will be hereafter

Evidence for the truth claim that the hereafter exists

Their ignorance of the nature of their own episteme

I claim to know nothing so how is that ignorance of my own episteme

and their ungrounded contempt for everybody else

The older I get the more I listen to those at the opposite end of the spectrum to me

beyond any correction by evidence

Actual evidence no / supposed evidence yes

Self knowledge is indeed better than wilful ignorance

Yes it is but one can be mistaken for the other quite easily

But on that point the Theists surely win

I was unaware that discourse between atheists and theists is no more a just a game

I see your purpose is to disagree with everything I say, no matter what it is. There could be no clearer demonstration of this than a "line-by-line" attempt at refutation, with no necessary connection between objections -- just objection for objection's sake, apparently.

Okay. You don't have to believe me. I can't do anything about that. Have a nice day.

[Greta]

You have made clear that 1) you believe in demons and 2) that you believe that exorcisms are not a sham.

What I have said is that I'm not fishing for your red herring.

More squirming. Your red herring label is inappropriately applied since, if your beliefs are false - and you seem determined not to have them tested - then your demonisation of atheists is false.

[Immanuel Can]

More squirming. Your red herring label is inappropriately applied since, if your beliefs are false - and you seem determined not to have them tested - then your demonisation of atheists is false.

Another red herring. This isn't important to anyone.

If demons don't exist, one can't "demonize" Atheists. There is no referent for the noun-as-verb. It's like the word "unicorning." One cannot be bad for "unicorning" Atheists, because there are no unicorns. And anyway, there is no objectivity (in an Atheist world) to the value judgment "bad" you are associating with "demonizing."

Moreover, nothing is "false" in a world wherein nothing is objectively "true." And "falsity" itself isn't "bad" according to the Materialism necessary to ground Atheism.

In other words, you're talking nonsense -- nonsense by the light of the logic of your own professed worldview.

[davidm]

Somewhere I quoted Rorty, who maintained, rightly, that there is no truth or falsity in the external world. Truth and falsity are properties of descriptive propositions -- the Tarskian, or correspondence, theory of truth.

True or false, good or bad -- these things are indeed properties of descriptive utterances that are intersubjectively accepted. The Ten Commandments did not come from God, who doesn't exist. They were rules made up by a social species to try to get along with one another. They are not true or false, and certainly not objectively so, but useful -- or not, as many societies develop many different rules, some of which go disastrously wrong (see Isis). Nevertheless, a lot of the rules we make, bending this way or that under different contingent cultural and historical pressures, no doubt are isomorphic to some aspects of our instincts and dispositions as an evolved social species.

No god or gods needed anywhere.

[surreptitious57]

I see your purpose is to disagree with everything I say no matter what it is. There could be no clearer demonstration of this than a
line by line attempt at refutation with no necessary connection between objections - just objection for objections sake apparently

My purpose is not to disagree with everything you say. It just so happens that we think differently to each other which
given how you are a theist and I am an atheist is only to be expected even though I do not really care what you believe

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

If demons don't exist, one can't "demonize" Atheists. There is no referent for the noun-as-verb. It's like the word "unicorning." One cannot be bad for "unicorning" Atheists, because there are no unicorns. And anyway, there is no objectivity (in an Atheist world) to the value judgment "bad" you are associating with "demonizing."

The word 'demons' has been used in several contexts. It's commonly understood that the Biblical, or the horror fantasy, context of 'demons' is one in which demons exist as agents with harmful intentions. Demons in stories are place holders for the evil antagonist. It is a direct reference to demons as evil antagonists that allows us to use the concept of demon as evil antagonist when some human being is accused of being a demon, perhaps not with that precise word, and Immanuel will understand that the Biblical reference can be understood in the sense that Christ casts out evil from sufferers from demons.

If I demonise another person I am casting them in the role of anger, spite, malevolence, ignorance, or some other such immorality. There is a demon, therefore, in my perception. To demonise another person is to attribute to them the personification of some immorality.

Immanuel is not stupid or uninformed and does of course know all this. What I don't understand is why Immanuel Can doesn't speak up for theism instead of spuriously attacking atheists.I'm not a theist but I could make a better argument than Immanuel's smoke screens and tirades against atheists.

Immanuel ascribes evil to atheists, evil which he doesn't want to apply to himself . This is to demonise atheists as harmful antagonists.