Feed on Posts or Comments 15 September 2014

Christianity Thomas on 14 Jun 2010 12:05 am

According to this Kentucky pastor, the new atheists are hypocrites

An interesting article:

Paul Prather: New atheists embody the very things they hate

But here is the sentence where Prather proves himself blind:

“They pretend that all Christians are bigots prone to violence.”

All Christians ARE bigots prone to violence. All Christians believe that anyone who does not proclaim Jesus to be the one and only son of God will be tortured in hell for eternity. Eternal torture is violence. The belief that all outsiders will be treated in this violent manner is bigotry. The dictionary defines a bigot in this way:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

What could be more hateful and intolerant than eternal torture? And Christians will swear up and down that this eternal torture is deserved for not believing in their fictional Jesus.

Plain and simple: all Christians are bigots prone to violence. Paul Prather, open your eyes.

17 Responses to “According to this Kentucky pastor, the new atheists are hypocrites”

  1. on 14 Jun 2010 at 5:55 pm 1.state of mind ..? said …

    “Plain and simple: all Christians are bigots prone to violence.”

    “All” is too broad to be used in this statement. Some Chritians perhaps, but surely not all. Lets start a new discussion, Jesus is not fictional, Shroud of turin may be one divine evidence. Of course, time era of the shroud is still unknown, but I wanna provoke a certain type of feedback. Please discuss.

  2. on 14 Jun 2010 at 7:08 pm 2.Lou said …

    “person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;”

    So atheist are bigots as well. Using this definition, the entire human race are bigots. Sam Harris believes in killing of those who beliefs he finds dangerous would be the ultimate bigot.

    Contrast this with the christian only espouses what a book states happens to those who do not belief. Not their OWN opinion, the opinion of a book.

    Alas, pierced on his own baton.

  3. on 14 Jun 2010 at 9:10 pm 3.Joe said …

    I am an atheist myself, so I don’t mind criticizing Christians. But I think the statement here that “ALL Christians are bigots prone to violence.” goes too far. It is wrong. Empirically wrong.

    Let me just make some comments on the topic of “torture in hell for eternity”.

    1. Quite a few Christians believe that hell is just a mythological concept of the Ancient world and not relevant nowadays. According to this perspective, passages in the bible about hell must be understood metephorically. My guess is that at least 10% of Christians share this view.
    2. Other Christians say that, while the bible tells them that there is a hell, they have experienced God as a God of mercy and grace and would therefore not be surprised if God ultimately decided that everybody could go to heaven. I would guess that at least another 10% of Christians share this view.
    3. Some Christians even make this perspective an explicit part of their set of beliefs. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation )
    4. Among those Christians who believe that there is indeed eternal punishment in hell for non-believers, many, probably most, Christians say that, while they believe that hell is God’s will for non-believers, this is not their business. In their view, only God is entitled to judge people. Regarding this group of Christians, the conclusion that they are prone to violence dos not hold.

    In sum: Christiany is complex and the statement about bigots prone to violence is completely over the top. In other words: fortunately, most Christians are not like Fred Phelps.

  4. on 15 Jun 2010 at 8:54 pm 4.Xenon said …

    Props to my man Pastor Paul. He nailed every aspect of the new atheist movement to the letter. Even the obsession with religion.

  5. on 16 Jun 2010 at 2:03 pm 5.Martin said …

    The Shroud of Turin has been proven to be a hoax, anyone who understands human anatomy will look at the Shroud and see that the measurements are all off. The relationship between the arms and legs, neck and torso is ALL wrong. FAIL

  6. on 16 Jun 2010 at 2:08 pm 6.Martin said …

    EVERY human is a bigot in some way or another, it is part of human nature, it also is a part of culture. It is the level of bigotry that is alarming. I worry about atheists who get overy worked up as much as Christians; but, I promise you Christians are far more violent and virulent than most atheists. I think that Christians feel entitled to have their opinions heard, it’s evidenced by their open expression of belief. IF Atheists use public platforms to express lack of belief, it is considered an affront on religion and their “rights.”

  7. on 18 Jun 2010 at 4:34 pm 7.Martin said …

    “Third, let’s look at Great Curses? The Romans and their Arena, was that of Christian belief? How about the sacrifice of Children by many Pagan religions? Look at the Genocide committed by the Romans, the Egyptians, the Huns, the Nordics, the Communist Russians, the Communist Chinese, the Nazi’s. Was that all Christendom? I think not. Your statement reveals how little you actually know about the Human condition.”

    I was amused at this post on the original story referenced in this blog. To me it is proof of the invalidity of RELIGION in general. Most, if not all, of the atrocities listed above were committed in the name of a god, some god, or against some religion. Without religion would any of those things have happened, perhaps, but it would not have been done because of religion. Oh, and the Nazi’s DID indeed do most of what they did because of religion, they were devout, at least they claimed to be.

  8. on 19 Jun 2010 at 10:12 pm 8.stae of ..? said …

    “The Shroud of Turin has been proven to be a hoax, anyone who understands human anatomy will look at the Shroud and see that the measurements are all off. The relationship between the arms and legs, neck and torso is ALL wrong. FAIL”

    Please provide sources of which where I can read information. The information from where I been collecting from may be a wrong source. Anyone who understands anatomy? really, Human Anatomy will always appear “disfigured” if put on a cloth like the shroud.
    Human anatomy will not play a strong role or will likely be considered in this investigation, photography will. People who understand/study photography, will know that this is not a hoax.

  9. on 20 Jun 2010 at 1:33 am 9.Martin said …

    I have to admit that I don’t have the name of the source where I learned about the physical dimensions of the Shroud of Turin, I’ve been looking for it. But, even if the shroud turns out to be authentic to the first century, which I can’t see possible, what is the proof that it is the or an historical Jesus? Further, and I’m really interested in this, not trying to debunk it at all, but from an historical point and a curiosity sake issue, the physical features of the Shroud appear to be more European than Middle Eastern?

  10. on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:33 am 10.Severin said …

    1 Ste of…
    “Shroud of turin may be one divine evidence.”

    Radiocarbon dating proved the thing dates from 12/13th century.
    Please see refernces yourself by just writnig “shroud of turin” in searching machine.
    Radiocarbon dating is today VERY precise!

  11. on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:43 am 11.Severin said …

    2 Lou
    “person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;”

    The definition icludes PREJUDICES!

    “So atheist are bigots as well.”

    Not according to this definition! We are not obstinently or intolerantly devoted to PREJUDICES.

    In fact, most atheists are not obstinently/intolerantly devoted to anything/anyone.

    Prove me god exists, and I will become a believer that very moment.

    Or, why wouldn’t we let god to prove himself?

  12. on 20 Jun 2010 at 4:37 pm 12.Martin said …

    “Human anatomy will not play a strong role or will likely be considered in this investigation, photography will. People who understand/study photography, will know that this is not a hoax.”

    I think that science will have to be the method that we either accept or reject the claim of the Shroud. It has been said that the time in which Jesus was buried, Jews did not use the method of entombing that would have resulted in the creation of the Shroud, instead they “wrapped the body in cloth” not draped the body as the Shroud would indicate. Given the Catholic Church’s obscession with religious relics from the 10-14th centuries, and some would even say today, this alone has to cast serious doubts on the authenticity of the Shroud. I’m not saying that there aren’t some relics from the first century, just not sure this is one of them.

    I guess for me, I just can’t seem to get over wondering WHY god has to be so mysterious? Why do Christians accept that he “should remain hidden” but then bring out so much evidence, ie the bible, the shroud, etc, to prove him? “God works in mysterious ways” can also be interpreted that god doesn’t exist and this is a very convenient way of explaining his absence from the world. Just my thoughts, again.

  13. on 20 Jun 2010 at 8:42 pm 13.State of ..? said …

    “Radiocarbon dating proved the thing dates from 12/13th century.
    Please see refernces yourself by just writnig “shroud of turin” in searching machine.
    Radiocarbon dating is today VERY precise!”

    First, Radio carbon dating is precise. Do you know where they cut the piece of the cloth to provide the carbon dating for the investigation? Second, recent research saids that the cloth can date back to the age of the knight templars(7th cen.) or even to the beginning of the Common Era. I am not saying that the Radio carbon dating is wrong. The piece of the cloth which they used was from the bottom left corner(I believe). This piece may have been influenced with the carbon from a later source.

    Martin, I have my reasons why He is my Lord. Unfortunately, for some Atheists find it easier to reject a Religion God and believe in Science because it provides “evidence”. Other Atheist label themselves Atheist because they know something/one is out there, but do not know what/who. The rest just do not seem to care for it. I tell you one thing and you probably already know this, but No Atheist is 100% that there isn’t a God(s), regardless of religion. At least, I have not met one ’til this day.

  14. on 20 Jun 2010 at 9:38 pm 14.Severin said …

    # 13
    “At least, I have not met one ’til this day.”

    Pleasure to meet you!

    I do not believe in any sort of god, neither I believe in any supernatural creature of any kind or supernatural events or supernatural causes of anything.
    In my mind everything has strictly natural cause.
    I do not say I know them all, I do not say anyone know them all, but only natural causes are what know, recognize and count.

  15. on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:03 pm 15.state of ..? said …

    “Pleasure to meet you!

    In my mind everything has strictly natural cause.
    I do not say I know them all, I do not say anyone know them all, but only natural causes are what know, recognize and count.”

    Pleasure to meet you,

    Natural causes are what you know? really, funny, because you seem to know alot of the Judeo-Christian God and mock His word. Are you sure you know of everything that is in your mind? In fact, you know that you don’t know that a natural cause does not have an explanation for occuring, or does you? You can only prove as far as Science can prove.

  16. on 21 Jun 2010 at 12:25 am 16.Martin said …

    “Martin, I have my reasons why He is my Lord. Unfortunately, for some Atheists find it easier to reject a Religion God and believe in Science because it provides “evidence”. Other Atheist label themselves Atheist because they know something/one is out there, but do not know what/who. The rest just do not seem to care for it. I tell you one thing and you probably already know this, but No Atheist is 100% that there isn’t a God(s), regardless of religion. At least, I have not met one ’til this day.”

    I both agree with parts of this statement and disagree firmly with others. It is our nature, the nature of man, to seek answers. Why should god be any different, why does god get a pass on seeking his existence?

    I believe that there are five levels of belief. 1. those who are 100 percent sure that god exists.
    2. those who are less than 100 percent but more than 50 percent.
    3.those who are fifty/fifty in their beliefs.
    4. those who are less than 100 percent sure that a god does not exist, but greater than 50 percent sure.
    5. those who are 100 percent sure that a god does not exist.

    I fall in category number four, leaning toward number five. Atheists are not bad people, and most of us do not seek to convert anyone, we simply feel that religion and those who claim religion, often get an unfair pass on scrutiny. Those of us who do not believe are unfairly labeled, often with labels that reach some pretty ugly lows.

    I have said it before and I think it is worth saying again, if your relationship with a god works for you, and it makes you happy and improves your life, then I have no right nor do I have any reason to wish you anything but the best. Am I allowed any less passion for my beliefs as you are for yours?

    If I “attack” religion, particularly Christianity, but trust me I have problems with all four of the major religions of the world, is it not my right to do so both as a member of the human race, and protected in the US by the constitution. I only seek to apply the same strict and arduous standards to god as we apply to any standard in science, I believe that is only fair. When fantastic and unbelievable claims are made, and there are many in religion, I believe that asking why and seeking proof, is healthy.

  17. on 29 Nov 2010 at 10:34 pm 17.MYSELF said …

    Thank you to Joe for saying what I wanted to. Not ALL christians are bigoted at least not conciously. Perhaps subconciously, but not conciously.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply