Do we have the ability to withstand on-going attacks — the unremitting assault on common sense? Fortitude means courage over time.
Bill Whittle and AlfonZo Rachel create two new episodes of The Virtue Signal each week thanks to our Members. Join us now and meet the people who make this and dozens of other shows each month.
Video below hosted at Rumble.
Listen to the Audio Version
23 replies on “Fortitude: Can We Withstand the Unremitting Attacks on Common Sense and Values?”
Alinsky rule #8 “Keep the pressure on.”
Thank you for standing up for Jesus Christ and the Word of God! The Lord expects us to keep doing the work at hand that God has planned for us. We will keep getting up and fighting. The war is in our souls, our thoughts. The Bible says that hope (elpis) is confident assurance that the Lord is controlling our lives. If you want to think I’m stupid and gullible for believing in Jesus Christ, go ahead and think it. I’m a hell of a lot happier daily than you are even during this messed up government. And I don’t have to call anyone names or label them, either!
Like boiling a frog!
I have to post my comment as an image, because the host of this website keeps classifying me as a spammer.
Anyone eighty years old and seeing the total mess they have purposely made of a country and the west in general, and guessing the time needed to put things back to truth and accepted common sense will take longer than your remaining time, is just another weight to carry, a rather large one though.
You are courageous when you swallow the apologetic interpretations of a collection of myth? No, you are gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate.
Wait a minute … So Bill Whittle, Alfonzo Rachael, Sir Isaac Newton and the vast majority of our Founding Fathers swallowed “the apologetic interpretations of a collection of myth” and then according to you are thereby “gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate”?
Really? That means you put yourself above all those people and everyone who shares that similarity, at least in the regard that they are “gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate” where you are not simply because you do not adhere to any religious conviction?
Wow. You’re quite the amazing individual if you’re that far above all those intellectual weaklings. I’m impressed.
Seriously, why the attack language? That’s not atheism, that’s anti-theism.
An atheist doesn’t care about someone’s religious beliefs any more than I care to inject criticism into a discussion of whether knitting or crocheting techniques make better doilies. I neither knit, crochet nor tat, I don’t care a bit about the subject. For all practical purposes to me those things may as well not exist but I’m not going to put myself above anyone who does them.
On the other hand, anti-theism is a religious belief. It is the religion of no-religion practiced as fervently as any other religious zealot practices their belief. This is proven when an anti-theist claims that anti-theism is not a religious tenet. It is a religious tenet to make that claim. This evidence is amplified by the fact that an anti-theist feels the need to attack other faiths and can even rationalize things like putting themselves above greater minds and principles. This puts anti-theism in dynamic tension driven to compete with other religious beliefs and with the intellectual dishonesty that no religious belief is being practiced by the anti-theist zealot.
A religious belief is a religious belief, even if that belief is that there is no valid religion but it’s own. In fact, especially because of the belief that there is no other valid religious beliefs … This is nothing more than simple, logical objectivity and the failure to employ such logical objectivity is simply further proof that anti-theism is in fact a religious belief.
Even Freeman Dyson, arguably the greatest living mind of our day, says he’s a “practicing Christian but not a believing Christian” … Obviously Dyson sees some benefit to the Christian faith whether he believes it or not and I’m pretty sure he’s smarter than both of us. I’m fairly confident in stating that Freeman Dyson is not “”gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate” because he calls himself a “practicing Christian” and does not attack those who both practice and believe.
Not being an atheist myself it would never occur to me to adopt the arrogance of belittling someone’s character or intellectual capacity thereby.
For my part, anti-theists are welcome to practice that religious belief. My religious beliefs do not compel me to call them names and belittle them for doing so. Funny then that anti-theists often feel compelled to do just that.
People are welcome to their religious faith whether you like it or not. In fact, that was so important to our Founding Fathers that they included it in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Arguably that makes it a Pillar of the Republic. You don’t have to subscribe to any sort of religious beliefs, that was guaranteed by the same amendment, as was your freedom to say that you do not.
Being rude about it is your right also, as it is my right to point out your incivility and the ridiculousness of saying people are less than you by reason of their faith. Having that right did not give you carte blanche to attack people who don’t agree with you calling them “gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate” without the consequence of me exercising my right to free speech in pointing out that greater minds than yours and mine think/thought otherwise.
Which means your self-elevation is unfounded and you should perhaps consider climbing down from the pedestal and joining the rest of us.
I am not picking a fight with you. Much of what I have seen you say I very much agree with. I just do not agree with you denigrating people on the basis of their faith nor see any need for you to attack people or their Judeo-Christian religious faith. That is a seriously un-American, un-Conservative thing to do and considering the little I know about you from what you’ve said previously — Surprises me. I find it curious that someone so reasonable on so many topics would do that.
There are plenty of other fish to fry.
Wait a minute … So Bill Whittle, Alfonzo Rachael, Sir Isaac Newton and the vast majority of our Founding Fathers swallowed “the apologetic interpretations of a collection of myth” and then according to you are thereby “gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate”?
Argument from authority, are you kidding me? I no more assume any of these as infallible and having all knowledge than you consider me to be. IMO Mr. Zo says some very absurd things coming from his faith. For instance, he says that the science of genetic modification (of plants and animals) is humans acting as god, and implies that it is not only heresy but deserving of a punishment like the slaughter of the “Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites Dt 20:16-17.
“Really? That means you put yourself above all those people and everyone who shares that similarity, at least in the regard that they are “gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate” where you are not simply because you do not adhere to any religious conviction?
Wow. You’re quite the amazing individual if you’re that far above all those intellectual weaklings. I’m impressed.”
Did I say anywhere that I am far above anyone? Or is it you interpreting my stated opinion in a way that conveniences your feelings?
“Seriously, why the attack language? That’s not atheism, that’s anti-theism.
What? Attack language? Ideas and opinions are expressed via language. And via written language in venues such as this as we are limited to text and not the spoken voice. The use of attack is, I suspect, a deliberate emotive use on your part. There are no ideas, no opinions that are so sacrosanct that they cannot be criticized or challenged. You obviously agree with this as you are criticizing my stated opinions and ideas. Are you far above me that you can do that and I am rude to do so and attacking when I do?
“An atheist doesn’t care about someone’s religious beliefs any more than I care to inject criticism into a discussion of whether knitting or crocheting techniques make better doilies. I neither knit, crochet nor tat, I don’t care a bit about the subject. For all practical purposes to me those things may as well not exist but I’m not going to put myself above anyone who does them.”
I’m pretty sure the premise of the above is logically fallacious. It should be obvious that I do have an interest in religious beliefs. You aren’t as well informed about atheists as you think you are. Your lack of interest in anything and thus your declination to discuss such things is irrelevant. You don’t get to impose that upon me, nor do you get to assume my interests for my ideology.
“On the other hand, anti-theism is a religious belief. It is the religion of no-religion practiced as fervently as any other religious zealot practices their belief. This is proven when an anti-theist claims that anti-theism is not a religious tenet. It is a religious tenet to make that claim. This evidence is amplified by the fact that an anti-theist feels the need to attack other faiths and can even rationalize things like putting themselves above greater minds and principles. This puts anti-theism in dynamic tension driven to compete with other religious beliefs and with the intellectual dishonesty that no religious belief is being practiced by the anti-theist zealot.”
Oh please, begging the question. LOL
BTW, just because you want to make me so, I am not anti-theist.
“A religious belief is a religious belief, even if that belief is that there is no valid religion but it’s own. In fact, especially because of the belief that there is no other valid religious beliefs … This is nothing more than simple, logical objectivity and the failure to employ such logical objectivity is simply further proof that anti-theism is in fact a religious belief.
Even Freeman Dyson, arguably the greatest living mind of our day, says he’s a “practicing Christian but not a believing Christian” … Obviously Dyson sees some benefit to the Christian faith whether he believes it or not and I’m pretty sure he’s smarter than both of us. I’m fairly confident in stating that Freeman Dyson is not “”gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate” because he calls himself a “practicing Christian” and does not attack those who both practice and believe.”
Humans are born into religion. They don’t get there via self reflection, observation of reality, and assessment of experiences. They are indoctrinated from infancy and take it on because it means membership in the tribe. Not exploring even the possibility that some portion of that is incorrect IS intellectual laziness and facilitates emotional immaturity because it is childish to believe in a supernatural parent who cares for you in perpetuity and will punish your enemies.
“Not being an atheist myself it would never occur to me to adopt the arrogance of belittling someone’s character or intellectual capacity thereby.”
Ad hominem is not argument. If you see a shoe, and you decide to try it on, don’t then whine because it’s ugly and fits.
“For my part, anti-theists are welcome to practice that religious belief.”
Your part gives you no authority to issue permissions.
“My religious beliefs do not compel me to call them names and belittle them for doing so. Funny then that anti-theists often feel compelled to do just that.”
Blah blah blah, “I’m so virtuous”, blah. And yet you have made assumptions about my character and the worth of my ideas and whether I should even be expressing them.
“People are welcome to their religious faith whether you like it or not. In fact, that was so important to our Founding Fathers that they included it in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Arguably that makes it a Pillar of the Republic. You don’t have to subscribe to any sort of religious beliefs, that was guaranteed by the same amendment, as was your freedom to say that you do not.
Being rude about it is your right also, as it is my right to point out your incivility and the ridiculousness of saying people are less than you by reason of their faith. Having that right did not give you carte blanche to attack people who don’t agree with you calling them “gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate” without the consequence of me exercising my right to free speech in pointing out that greater minds than yours and mine think/thought otherwise.”
Nowhere have I asserted that people are not welcome to their religious faith. This is a discussion venue. When people in a discussion make statements then those statements et al are available for response. Such responses might be and can be critical, and all assertions, statements and ideas can be challenged. I am not wrong for doing it.
“Rude” and “attack” (there you go again) are subjective reactions, emotive, and deliberate on your part to taint the atmosphere of the discussion and color my content and me in an unattractive light. It is dishonest and hypocritical.
“Which means your self-elevation is unfounded and you should perhaps consider climbing down from the pedestal and joining the rest of us.”
Making assumptions again with a passive aggressive ad hominem tactic.
“I am not picking a fight with you.”
No, no, you are schooling me. I reject your elevation of yourself such that you take the position that you have status to do that.
“Much of what I have seen you say I very much agree with. I just do not agree with you denigrating people on the basis of their faith nor see any need for you to attack people or their Judeo-Christian religious faith. That is a seriously un-American, un-Conservative thing to do and considering the little I know about you from what you’ve said previously — Surprises me. I find it curious that someone so reasonable on so many topics would do that.”
Your having found some of my thoughts and ideas agreeable to you does not encumber me to insure that all my content be agreeable to you. You don’t get to have that and I will not be careful to try and be that.
Since we both value the intentions of the First Amendment then it can’t be said that challenging ideas–even religious ones–and being openly critical is “un-American” or “un-Conservative”. Identity politics is anathema to freedom. You don’t get to bind me to your criteria of what it means to American or conservative. Implying that I don’t meet the measure for not being in concert with all of what you are is reprehensible. (there’s and emotive word for you).
Your knowing little about me is obvious, as is your willingness to fill in what conveniences your POV.
“There are plenty of other fish to fry.”
Then go fry them.
For the record I am not avoiding discussions or feeling defeated and staying away, I keep getting locked out by some feature of the program and have to ask to be reinstated. From what I have read it isn’t just happening to me.
That’s as far as I read.
I made no claim of nor appeal to any authority whatsoever and I certainly never approached anything resembling an opinion of infallibility, not stated nor implied. Using someone’s name as an example is not an Appeal to Authority. (The fallacy you’re referring to is actually the “Appeal to Authority” argumentum ad verecundiam, you missed the correct name of the fallacy but yeah, whatever … I’m fairly certain by context that “Appeal to Authority” is what you’re referring to.)
I was merely pointing out your clearly ridiculous evaluation of the men I used as examples being ““gullible and intellectually lazy, maybe emotionally immature and desperate”. The absurdity of making that claim should be obvious to anyone, yourself included. I never made them out to be authorities, I was pointing out their failure to display the traits you ascribed to them in your use of the “Hasty Generalization Fallacy”. (I mean hey, if you’re going to start throwing around classical logical fallacies maybe you should be mindful of your glass house.)
That you took that as an “argument from authority” as the way to build your “Strawman Fallacy” is quite telling. You accused me of “arguing from authority” when I did no such thing, that was the straw feet of your strawman which you no doubt then gleefully proceeded to burn down. That wasn’t what I said, however. So you had to ascribe something to me which I did not say … A classical “Strawman Fallacy” indeed.
Anyone who is familiar with the logical fallacy of “argument from authority” (and assuming you actually meant the well known “Appeal to Authority Fallacy”) should know better than to try to build a “strawman” argument. This gives me no reason to have further interest in what you had to say in your reply and I did not read further. If you’re going to build strawmen there’s nothing left to discuss and it was pretty silly of you to think I wouldn’t recognize that tactic for what it was. That negates further interest in your opinions on this topic as it would for any reasonably intelligent person.
That’s not “tu quoque”, nor is is me running away in terror of your superior argument, which superior argument is something you do not present. It’s a genuine lack of interest in pursuing this particular topic with you personally in particular — Because of your break in good faith with this “argument from authority” nonsense.
I’ll be happy to discuss other topics with you but as far as this one goes there’s clearly no point and I will not engage with you further on the matter of religious faith. I’ve made my points, you’ve made yours.
You reacted exactly as I would expect someone to when their zealotry is exposed so maybe you’re easier to read than you think you are.
All of that said, I love to discuss logical fallacies anytime with anyone. You seem to have an amusingly pretentious interest in that topic so go ahead if you like.
Everyone commits logical fallacies fairly often, myself included, so you’re not special or deficient in that regard.
Here’s a suggestion though — It does little good to point out a logical fallacy as such, it’s better to counter by dismantling the fallacy than by naming it. Naming the fallacy is pretentious, it sets up your own “Appeal to Authority” with you as the authority. If you’d had formal training in logic and debate you’d know that and avoid that fallacy too.
I wouldn’t have gone there if you hadn’t and I admit that it’s kind of fun to play this game so being as you opened that door I played too. Just for shits and giggles I snuck in some fallacies above to see if you’d catch any of them. Which you should do with little effort if you know what you’re talking about regarding logical fallacies. One is crafted quite well and I’m rather proud of it, I bet you don’t find that one … They’re biggies so let’s see if you can name one, correctly this time. 🙂
The purpose of knowing the classical logical fallacies is to be able to recognize and counter them when they crop up. It’s not so that you can fire off something like “argument from authority” erroneously like an arrow that wins the discussion. I wasn’t trying to win anything at all, btw.
The last point I’ll make about this is you really should avoid trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. That’s an adage, if you don’t know what it means you should look it up.
In the context of this episode, it does take fortitude to be a non-believer (since childhood) in a society and culture that is 80 to 94% believing in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Fortunately as an American I/we have the 1st Amendment to bolster our respective freedom of conscience, regardless of the minority – majority religious fractions in our society and polity.
Regardless of the exact details of the Jewish and/or Christian history or the veracity of that (those) belief system(s), it did end up strongly influencing our Western society to adopt ideas that in turn support our current political and practical interpretations of human rights [or natural rights]. No other 1st through 18th century society did that.
Fortitude’s linguistic base means strength. Over time, yes. Try holding a book out at arms length a long time. The stronger you are, the longer you can hold it.
I always get a chuckle out of people who say things like “Jesus was a statist” or “Jesus was a socialist” or any of that nonsense spewn from ignorance. People who try to drub Christians with their faith should at least make an effort to educate themselves at least a little bit on what Christianity is. Because …
Jesus is a Monarchist. They must have missed the “Lord of Lords and King of Kings” thing completely.
I’ve yet to discover convincing evidence that this Jesus ever was. More like quatsch.
… which is a purely subjective position as you set your own standards for what does and does not convince you on any given topic.
I.E. subjectively I’m not convinced that global warming is a bad thing. I have no doubt that the globe is in fact warming and find it irrelevant what the cause is, be it human induced or otherwise. The planet has warmed un-catastrophically before and it will do so again.
You’re welcome to whatever standard you set to be convinced, as am I.
I was speaking to the character of the entity very well known as Jesus and that character is very well established, whether you are convinced or not is irrelevant. That Jesus as an aspect of His character is a Monarchist is indisputable. I notice you didn’t dispute that either but rather took a different tack.
Frankly I’m not concerned with what convinces you any more than you are with what convinces me and that’s irrelevant to what I said in any event. Because …
I’m not proselytizing or arguing the historical record anyway. When people speak of Jesus saying “He was a statist” or “He was a socialist” they are speaking to His character, not His historicity.
You don’t have to believe in Him, be convinced of anything or otherwise leave your comfort zone in order to address that character as character.
There are enough things we are mutually convinced of, like the ideals of our Republic, that this sort of disagreement is inconsequential. At least to me and that’s something I’m convinced of. I’m completely willing to let you be convinced of whatever you choose and ask that the same courtesy be reciprocated.
You may already be aware of the book Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill. He compares the Gospels to Josephus’s War of the Jews, and presents an hypothesis that the Roman and Jewish aristocracy created or commissioned the Gospels as a hoax to persuade the Jewish community to avoid rebellion against Rome. The explanation provided by Atwill has a lot of “just so” coincidences so it requires a lot to accept it uncritically. I probably need to do some additional searching myself, but I have been waiting for qualified biblical scholars and/or historians of the 1st century Roman society/ culture/ religion to support or refute his ideas.
Countering this is the book Did Jesus Exist?, by Bart D. Ehrman, the respected professor of religion and New Testament lexicography at Chapel Hill, NC. Ehrman was a devout believer who later became an atheist, but I gather he still believes in the historicity of Jesus as a man, based on the presumed “Q” document as a precursor to the Gospel write ups. I did not find his argument persuasive, but I still respect that he has some of the credentials and depth of scholarship to not be rejected out of hand. But Ehrman’s view is criticized in turn by Zindler and Price, editing a 21 chapter book with rebuttals by various authors, but I don’t recall the details right now.
[As to why the Gospels were written in Greek, I have recently been reading material that emphasized the Hellenized nature of the Levant at that time, and thus that Greek was much more prevalent among the educated classes in that area than the impression I had at the end of my 6th grade history class. So much to learn and read; so little time!]
Interesting and I thank you both for the intelligence displayed in your reply and the good faith you demonstrate by not being belittling to people who hold opposing views on this topic. However …
I did say that I was not addressing the historicity of Jesus. Physical or documentary proof of the historicity of Jesus has little or nothing to do with the character of Jesus. I doubt seriously that proving the historicity of Jesus would make any difference to those without Faith. In fact, the Bible says exactly that.
Proving His historicity is an intellectual exercise and Faith is not a function of intellect. I still have faith in the American People and if that faith were purely intellectual considering the shenanigans and result of the last election cycle that faith might not seem well founded … Intellectually.
Intellect is important but it’s not everything. Speaking from purely a theological viewpoint reliance solely on one’s own intellect is a form of self-worship idolatry. There are many forms of theological idolatry which all of us are guilty in some manner or another. This is not derision of you or your intellect, it’s a simple statement of point-of-view.
I.E. I do not understand nor fully grasp the mechanics of the recent (2016) direct detection and observation of gravitational waves. I understand intellectually the principles involved but I do not intellectually grasp the means by which gravitational waves were deemed “proven” by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations. It’s not my field of discipline and I can’t read and comment on the relevant scientific papers with authority. I’m willing to accept what I do not grasp because I’m not so convinced of the scope of my intellect that I would claim gravitational waves cannot exist because I do not understand them. There is a certain amount of “faith” involved because I believe the published results of the gravitational wave studies are made in good faith by people who do grasp the importance of their observations.
The scientists and I agree on one major point. Proof of gravitational waves is a breakthrough in human knowledge.
I would not presume to argue orbital mechanics with Sir Isaac Newton, debate the merits of 18th century regular and irregular warfare with George Washington, critique literature with Charles Dickens or J.R.R. Tolkien, nor criticize music with Mozart or Bach (etc., John Locke, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Edison, Tesla, Planck, Churchill, Marconi, Bell, Fermi … ) — but I feel that I’m in good company with them and other great minds on the grounds of Faith.
I know these are not a perfect analogies and there are probably a lot of holes that can be poked in them. However, the point that I don’t have to actually understand something intellectually in order to accept it is sound. Intellect is important but it’s not everything. You’re welcome to your opinion and thank you for presenting it in a non-derogatory manner. I’ve tried to reciprocate.
and I might add that you have done it very well in my opinion. Sometimes reading the comments of some here I am reminded of the Ray Stevens song, “Everything is Beautiful, In It’s Own Way” with the line that says “there is none so blind as he who will not see”. I walk by faith and not by sight. The light of Christ is not to enable us to see him but that in his light we are able to see everything else.
I’m pretty sure no one has ever been convinced intellectually to become a Christian. It’s the wrong approach for the wrong application.
I’m also fairly certain that no one has ever been belittled and insulted into, or out of, any kind of Faith, including the no-god religion of anti-theism.
If people are decent and civil I’m happy to discuss this, as the exchange between Walter and myself clearly demonstrates. If they want to be belligerent and uncivil, we can play that game too.
I do not go around bashing on anyone because they do not Believe. I will not countenance being bashed because I do. As long as everyone has that straight we can be mutually respectful.
Christianity and Christians have done far, far more good in the world in the name of The Faith than any ills done by people claiming to be Christians. It is easily arguable that our Republic would never have been founded and prospered to the degree it has without Christianity specifically and Judeo-Christian values in general. No group of people in the name of their Faith nor any secular group has contributed as much time and treasure to the betterment of their fellow men than have Christians. With those facts in mind, insulting Christianity is childish and ignorant.
You can tell which you’re dealing with, genuine atheist/agnostic or zealous anti-theist Jihadi, by how they approach those simple facts.
Andrew Klavan, maybe?
Meh … I don’t think so. Andrew Klavan says he came to be sure of a Divine Being, “God”, by subjective, deductive reasoning, not by objective evidence.
According to Klavan, it took over 5 years of prayer directed to the Divinity deduced, after that foundational admission, before he had what he describes as an epiphany — A “voice as clear as if it were spoken aloud” and became an actual Christian by baptism at the behest of that epiphanic experience…
So, no, I don’t think I would say that Klavan became a Christian and came to his Faith by dint of the preponderance of evidence. In context I think I made it clear that’s what I meant but I did say “intellectual” …
Klavan did “intellectualize” the process wherein he came to the conclusion that there is indeed a God, but without the presence of objective evidence — So I’ll split the difference with you.
Klavan does not ascribe his Faith to the piecing together of physical, historical or documentation evidence. He most certainly does ascribe his Faith to a process of mental vigor. He says he “figured out that things don’t make sense without God”, he found in that conviction the existence of God and the need to be a Christian.
In the case of Klavan I think it’s a wash. He was seeking, he found what he was looking for, he did not find it through iron clad proof but through his own reasoning process.
My point was that people have never been converted to Faith by pointing out evidence such as what Gallstones and George Walter are demanding on this forum page.
The reason for that is obvious, even with overwhelming evidence people still choose to believe whatever the heck they want to.
The fact that Joe Biden is in the White House is all the proof you need in that department. Any serious scrutiny of Ol’ Joe and his record would have prevented his election.
Sure, cheating put him over the top but it took a heck of a lot of voters to get him in range of where cheating made the difference..
The media lied about Trump to his detriment and lied about Biden to his advantage. People predisposed to embrace those lies don’t give a flyin’ rat’s distal alimentary exhaust orifice about being convinced intellectually by facts. Lots and lots of facts.
This sort of thing is even worse and more pronounced in matters of Faith. Someone who says “Prove to me to my own satisfaction that there is a God, or that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed” is just picking a fight. It really doesn’t matter what proof you offer, it’s never going to meet their standard of satisfaction no matter how many times they have to move the goalposts. They’ve made up their minds and are just looking to be combative.
Which is fine with me, what’s not fine with me is those who they think they can condescend and insult the rest of us who do not believe as they do.
Sometimes that behavior is ingrained after too many encounters with holier-than-thou hypocrites, sometimes it’s a matter of intellectual vanity, sometimes it’s the result of not realizing (or admitting to themselves) that they are indeed practicing their own religious doctrines through the sect of Anti-Theism or “Science” selectively and conveniently applied.
Whatever drives them to it does not constitute a license to go around bad-mouthing people of Faith.
Sadly, many Christians think that the precept of “turn the other cheek” means that they should fail to challenge such abuses. This only serves to amplify and encourage that sort of negative behavior. It is the cowards excuse to avoid confrontation.
Dennis Prager says that “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain” means “to do evil in the name of God”. I find Dennis to be correct in this assessment.
Failure to confront abuse and injustice when those are encountered is a flavor of evil. This is a well known, well founded Judeo-Christian principle of very, very long standing. Failure to act while claiming the righteousness of “turning the other cheek” in the name of Jesus Christ is therefor evil also.
It doesn’t matter what a bully is bulling people over. A bully is a bully.
I think you can debate the divinity, but the person is mentioned in sufficient historical accounts to clearly establish existence.
There are written, historical accounts for Quetzalcoatl and Hanuman.
Having existed =/= having been divine.
Every generation goes through a certain level of this. Civilization progressively deteriorates. The thing that makes this particularly painful is losing trust in the media, our leadership, and the feeling of losing control. Zo is right in saying that God has not lost control and is still the same he has been throughout the decades. The place in which you stand says far more than the result of your standing. Even as others rob you of exposure you have a voice that speaks encouragement to so many.