Religious Spam Round-Up 8: The Phear

BcqwQedCUAAwWyHEvery day social media users, especially those identifying as agnostics, atheists and skeptics, are subjected to a barrage of religious spam from true believers. This tends to be repeated, day in, day out, several times a day with no attempt to engage or discuss the matter. It’s spam, plain and simple. Some groups even seem to use small botnets, multiple accounts or proxies to spam hundreds of identical or similar messages all in one go.

Let’s look at some, all from one afternoon and evening on Twitter and only a small sample…

You’re Going to Hell!

While we’re gratified that you are so worried about the ultimate fate of our immortal soul (that we don’t believe in).

It is very nice of you to warn us that unless we repent god (the one who supposedly loves us and who we don’t believe in) will condemn us to eternal hellfire unless we believe exactly the same thing you do.

Here’s the problem though.

We don’t believe in hell, so the threat is about as terrifying as being told a dragon will eat you if you don’t finish your vegetables. If we don’t believe in god, sin or hell how can it scare us and why would you think this would persuade us?

If I tell you that unless you send me $100 via paypal that Bigfoot will come and kick you in the nards/tits you’re not that worried about it happening, are you? Why? Because you don’t believe in Bigfoot the Debt Collector.

And we don’t believe in hell. So don’t bother.


46 responses to “Religious Spam Round-Up 8: The Phear

  1. The atheist blog, Atheist Assessment puts the lie to your complaint about Christian spam.

    I mean those fools don’t even allow any comments.

    Atheism by nature is propaganda.

    And part of that nature is to create a standard of conduct and apply it to everyone but atheists.

    • *Yawn*

      Atheism is ‘I don’t believe in god/s’ – that’s it. So by nature it is simple non-belief, nothing in that statement about propaganda.

      We hold you to your own supposed standards. Sorry if that’s uncomfortable for you.

      • Grim,

        Here is a quote from Vladimir Lenin, Communist and founder of the Soviet Union, the first Marxist state:

        “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

        He got it right. Atheism is propaganda.

        Your statement about atheism being only ‘I don’t believe in god/s,’ then you don’t know the nature of what you belief.

      • Interesting assumption that reveals more about you than me. What I was told to believe? No.What I have come to believe.

        Given atheism is the absence of a belief, how could its ‘propaganda’ tell anyone to believe something?

      • Grim,

        Atheism is the belief that everything happened all by itself.

        This is the belief in what is obviously stupid.

        Selling stupid is what propaganda is all about.

        Thus, atheism, the belief in what is obviously stupid, is propaganda.

      • Grim,

        God is Creator.

        He caused everything to come into existence.

        Without God, nothing could exist.

        Therefore, atheism, the belief that there is no God, is the belief that everything happened all by itself.

      • You’re going to need evidence.
        Again, atheism is just not believing in god.
        Anything else is outside that wheelhouse.

        Personally I’ll take the naturalism route, because evidence.

      • Grim,

        Common sense, the obvious and what can be reasoned out, do not require evidence.

        It is simple reasoning and completely obvious that if there is no Creator, then everything happened all by itself.

        Common sense says that such a notion is stupid.

        The requirement for evidence in the face of what is reasonable, obvious and common sense, is yet another example of stupid.

      • Grim,

        Atheism has the problem. And I did provide the basis for my reasoning.

        Your solution is to completely ignore it.

        Denial is a mental illness, not an effective argument.

        Until you can explain how everything happened all by itself, you have no standing to question the beliefs of others.

      • There’s no case to deny. Even if we couldn’t explain ‘I don’t know’ is better than a baseless assertion such as ‘god did it’. Rather basic stuff, that assertion is an argument from ignorance. Fallacious. You would need evidence for the god did it part.

      • Grim,

        I presented my case in the language of reason.

        To believe that everything happened all by itself requires the denial of reason.

        Atheism is the denial of reason.

      • You have presented no reason. Just a baseless assertion that ‘god did it’.

        Atheism is simply not believing in god. Why would anyone believe something with no evidence for it?

      • Grim,

        The only assertion I have made is that “God did it,” is more reasonable than, “Everything happened all by itself.

        As an atheist you deny both reason and the fact that you believe something that is totally ridiculous.

        What evidence can you present that everything happened all by itself?

        You require me to provide evidence but exempt yourself from the same requirement.

        That is another example of atheism’s denial of reason.

      • And it’s not more reasonable, given there’s no evidence for a god and it only adds an iteration and complication. The necessity for a god to also poof out of nothing.

        I suggest reading Krauss’ ‘A Universe from Nothing’.

      • Grim,

        Krauss’ “A Universe From Nothing,” is total nonsense.

        For Krauss to be right, the laws of quantum mechanics had to happen all by themselves.

        By definition, God is the First Cause. That means He always was. Therefore, He didn’t happen all by Himself.

        Only creation can happen. God the Creator, by nature and by definition cannot happen because He was not created.

      • For you to be right a hugely complex, intelligent agent, whole and complete has to magically appear out of nothing and create the universe.

        The evidence does not support this.

        The evidence does support a naturalistic universe, unfolding from simplicity to complexity over time.

        So, just to recap – no evidence for your outlandish claim, plenty for naturalism. Your argument fails on an evidential, logical and ockham’s razor basis.

      • Grim,

        “God is simple,” comes from Saint Thomas Aquinas who got it from Aristotle.

        Which means “God is simple,” is self-evident.

        Which means you are the one who needs help.

      • Then I’m afraid – at least on this topic – they are simple.
        If you regard an intentional consciousness as simple and able to spontaneously arise from nothing then there would be no ‘need’ for you to insert god into the proceedings.

      • Grim,

        If something is self-evident it is knowable through reason.

        That means you, the atheist, don’t get to define reality for the rest of humanity.

        We, the rest of humanity, have minds that think and reason which means we don’t need atheists to tell us what to think.

        It means, we, the rest of humanity, can figure things out for ourselves even though atheists refuse to.

        God is simple, by nature and definition.

        There is nothing you, the atheist, can do or say to change what is and what isn’t.

      • Except that it is not self evident, else we would not be having this conversation.

        God is a simple explanation, but a complex idea. It is also one we do not need and for which there is no evidence.

        If you believe something as complex as a god can poof into existence out of nothing then your objection to something as simple as the early universe poofing into existence out of nothing holds zero water.

      • Grim,

        The reason we are having this conversation is part of the message of the Bible and one of the prime drivers of philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

        Human beings are not like animals that are born ordered to their nature.

        Man is born denatured.

        That means we have to learn how to be human beings.

        We have to learn how to reason, for it is the ability to reason that makes us human.

        Atheism demands the rejection of reason which is a rejection of human nature.

        By what model are human beings to pattern themselves after so that they can fulfill their human nature (Aristotle called the fulfillment of human nature, “telos”)?

        The Christians name that model human being, Jesus Christ.

        So as wise as the ancient Greeks were, they had no model toward which to direct the human pursuit of excellence (virtue).

        By understanding basic human nature as just described we can know for sure that atheism, by nature and definition, is incoherent.

        That is because without form or nature or God as a model of excellence, the individual human being has no direction and neither does the polis (government) or the culture at large.

        Atheism reduces truth to mere personal opinion.

        Whereas, my comments are based on 2500 years of Western Heritage, you are expressing mere personal opinion.

        And since you are an atheist, that’s all you think anyone is capable of.

      • Jesus is a myth.
        We are animals, just human animals.
        Your desire for there to be a god does not mean that it exists.

      • Grim,

        Western Civilization is proof that Jesus lived and transmitted his teachings to mankind.

        The belief that Jesus is a myth is demonstrably absurd.

      • I’m not sure how you can take modern, secular, progressive western civilisation as proof of the real existence of a mythical prophet or even of the effectiveness of the faith, since all our advances have occurred at points where the grip of religion has loosened.

        If Jesus were real there should be some scrap, some fragment, some indication of any sort that he ever lived – and there is not.

      • Grim,

        I’m not taking “modern, secular, progressive western civilisation as proof of the real existence of a mythical prophet.”

        Pulling modernity out of context as if it happened all by itself is what atheists do.

        Learn the history. Following the history back in time to its source.

        The history of Western Civilization leads directly back to Jesus Christ.

      • Grim,

        Western Civilization is distinct from the Greek and Roman civilizations and was powered by Christianity, the religion that finds its source in Christ.

        That is common knowledge.

        Beliefs that reject common knowledge in favor of an agenda, like atheism does, are called propaganda.

      • Still no evidence for Jesus.
        The legal and philosophical groundwork is Greco-Roman, in no small part this is responsible for the tendency of Western governmental architecture to resemble Greco-Roman monuments.

        Atheism is an absence of a belief. Not a belief. Ideas that seek to impose themselves and imprint themselves on others to their own purpose, like religion, are more accurately termed propaganda.

      • Grim,

        Common knowledge is not only evidence, it is proof.

        What you are doing here is proving that atheism is the rejection of reason, science, and modernity.

        Atheism is in fact a trip way back to the prehistoric past, a time when man was governed not by reason but by atavistic passion.

        Christian Western Civilization rose further than any other civilization in human history because discovery didn’t have to conform to personal bias.

      • ‘Common knowledge’ like ‘Common sense’ is frequently incorrect. Popularity doesn’t make an idea true.

        Again, atheism is simply not believing in god. A god for which there is no evidence and no reason to believe in. Modernity is an escape from religion which is an atavism.

        Personal bias is what you’re displaying at present.

      • Grim,

        Common knowledge is an academic term.

        You, the atheist, don’t get to redefine terms used by scholars and scholarly institutions.

      • And common knowledge can still be wrong. The average man on the street (the definition of common knowledge) holds a great deal of information that is wrong.

      • Grim,

        You, the atheist, have set yourself up as Supreme Judge of Truth.

        In other words, you are the god of your own private Idaho.

        Private Idaho is only as big as your own skull which is minuscule.

        And that makes you exactly what you are campaigning so hard against.

      • Grim,

        When you don’t believe in God it means you become your own personal god.

        And as such you don’t have to accept what anybody else says even if it’s true.

        That’s because god is all-knowing and doesn’t need to learn anything.

        And that is why atheism is a clarion call to malignant, ingrained ignorance.

      • No. It just means you don’t believe in god. I’ll accept what people say on the basis of evidence. Ignorance is required for religion, not skepticism.

      • Grim,

        Without an objective standpoint there is no way to ever tell if evidence is valid.

        As god of your own private Idaho, you will reject any reasoning or evidence that contradicts the Great You and what the Great You has determined to be true or false.

        You have demonstrated that principle exactly in this discussion.

        You can say, “No. No. No!” all day long but your negation doesn’t change the nature of things.

      • And the only way we can approach objective reality is via evidence. I reject reasoning that doesn’t work, I reject ‘evidence’ that isn’t evidence. Everything must be subjected to examination and attempts to refute it to determine its validity – or lack.

        You’ve offered no evidence for anything. I can probably ask until I’m blue in the face and never get any.

      • Grim,

        Evidence has absolutely no meaning without the ability to reason out whether evidence is really evidence.

        Since you have demonstrated conclusively that reason means nothing to the atheist, evidence is whatever the atheists says it is.

        Personal bias is the only measure by which the atheist is able to label something as evidence.

      • Reason means everything to me. Evidences are facts and observations that support/lead to a conclusion.

        I shall await you providing any evidence for your PoV and any more attempts to broad-brush ad hom or make unfounded assertions simply won’t be approved for comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s