This was posted on my page from a girl I went to high school with....She said. "I have struggled to understand this for a long time...A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God......Well said Ravi Zacharias..." How would YOU respond to this? Would you respond to this?

Views: 812

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Belle Rose - ALL religions teach women to submit -just one of the reasons they are all shite. It is where the women then sprout the same nonsense, and say it is thir idea. That is when it gets really scary.

A moral resistance - I started to watch a movie about the bible - and had to turn it off - it was where Samson was having his eyes gouged out - and christians talk about morals and ethics - give me a break. Just cherry pick the bible, the same way they do. I just refuse to follow such a venguful, viscious god.

I would respond that I don't get my sense of morality from a system promoting reward/punishment such as heaven/hell.  I would also say that I do not submit to a dictator even if said dictator is celestial.

I have struggled to understand this for a long time: A man accepts God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the weight of evidence; a man accepts God because of moral insecurity that refuses to admit his need for reason and courage. Well said, people who say specious things.

Tell her you are a follower of Deepak Chopra who says Ravi Zacharias is the love child of Satan and a Black Hole....or....don't waste what little life you have on idiots.

Get out and enjoy life, it's a blast. :)

I wouldn't post a response.
A person may certainly reject the concept of any god based on the absence of evidence, as well as an inability to intellectually accept the idea based on rational thought. However, I would respond that all religions, especially Christianity, are indeed morally unacceptable. The thought of making child sacrifices to prove myself to a god, giving no thought to tomorrow and, thereby, the well-being of any loved ones, the sheer brutality of the Old Testament and Jesus' support thereof, the idea of vicarious redemption, the belief that all are born sinful, and the celebration of death over life are all morally unacceptable to me. Even if I felt a need for a god, it wouldn't be one with that resume.

Ask her why Jesus exists but Santa Clause doesn't. To be honest I'd rather believe in Santa than Jesus or god.

Same way I tell everybody to respond to religious retards: delete them. Why have these halfwit lunatics on your friends list anyway? It's like having an open pedophile who occasionally posts stuff like "Just bumfucked my 4yo niece, #bestdayever." You wouldn't come here for advice, you'd delete that creep. Same thing.

"I have struggled to understand this for a long time...A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God......Well said Ravi Zacharias..."How would YOU respond to this? Would you respond to this?

With the usual laughter. This Ravi Zacharias is telling atheists what we believe and why? There is nothing profound here to "struggle to understand". It's feeble, childish nonsense. 

Zacharias has no legitimate response to demands for intellectual honesty and evidence for God. So he tosses them aside-- effectively denying they are required-- and delivers an illegitimate response instead. He projects a hallucinatory and circular 'denial of the need for God' (whatever that means) onto atheists, which contains the built-in premise that God is necessary (so never you mind that pesky evidence and intellectual honesty).

This is pretty routine stuff, Katie. File it under "denial" and "irrelevance and obfuscation" below.

----------------------

Crackpot: God exists!
Me: Evidence, please.
Crackpot: There is none.
Me: I don't believe you.

That is why I am an atheist. That's all it is. The rest is just the crackpot employing some bit of dishonesty to obfuscate or deny it.

He'll shift the burden of evidence onto me. ("Prove God doesn't exist!").
He'll claim to have evidence when he does not. ("Lookee here! Purely abstract mathematics! That's evidence!").
He'll say he doesn't need evidence ("God is too big for evidence!")
He'll completely ignore the request for evidence and won't respond at all. (This is very popular.)
He'll restate the request for evidence as an accusation or insult. ("You hate God!" "How dare you question my faith!")
He'll respond with irrelevance and obfuscation. ("You refuse to admit your need for God!")
And on and on and on. Anything but evidence!

There is no case to be made about the existence of God. There is nothing to debate, nothing to consider: no evidence, no data, not a shred of the scientific whatsoever. The rest is just the outraged caterwauling of the crackpot, desperately insisting that any such "debate" over God exists at all.

This statement is confused. 

"A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence."  RZ is talking about the Creator God. 

"A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God."  "total confusion"  This sentence is about God's love.  God's love is a real thing.  It is intimately bound up with morality.  Some people are in no state to "face Jesus".  They can't face the truth about themselves and have no integrity.  So - this sentence can stand as given. 

RE: "God's love is a real thing." - question, how can a real thing come from an unreal thing? Quantum mechanics can explain something from nothing, what's your explanation for real from nonexistant?

Here's a plan, let's run over to sub-Saharan Africa, and tell starving little children all about your god's love for the vultures that will soon consume them! Are you packed yet?

RE: "They can't face the truth about themselves and have no integrity." - What truth is that, Paynton? Don't be so cryptic, please share your profound insight with us.

Shouldn't you run on over to Christian Mingle, and leave this site for atheists and liberal theists like Barry Adamson? I'm sure you'd be much more comfortable with others of your kind, whatever that is.

"how can a real thing come from an unreal thing?" - this is a good question. 

"What truth is that, Paynton?" - whatever the truth about themselves is, as the case may be. 

"Don't be so cryptic, please share your profound insight with us." - cryptic for now. 

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 4 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 6 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service