//If the answe is that you know no Christians that told you this "truth" then it isn't true. Simple as that.//

Now, who to believe: these well researched reports by professional journalists, NNS? Gosh, that's a tough one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo77sTGpngQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUnWNis6oro

This has been said many times before, by many different people, but it bears repeating on this occasion: evangelicals are f%#kin' nuts.

To TL. You said , "Now, who to believe: these well researched reports by professional journalists, NNS? Gosh, that's a tough one."

Let's nip this comment in the bud before it explodes into something that was never meant.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754&page=4

On page 4 on this conversation 5th comment down. Rache said:

"As for the evangelical support of Israel, their real motive is that the returned Jesus will destroy the Jews for them anyway but are happy to use them to bring on their wished-for apocalypse."

The next comment down, my reply went as follows.

"Out of curiosity. How many evangelical Christians do you know, that your slander would count as anything but the truth? If the answe is that you know no Christians that told you this "truth" then it isn't true. Simple as that."

Now onto your comment TL. What part of those you tube videos were on what Evangelical Christians motives? I still stand by what I've said. If no Christian told you this truth (concerning their own motivations), then there's simply no reason to count this as true. Honestly no expert or nor journalist can know my motivation (or anyone else's) unless they've been told it.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’ve known and encountered more Christians than I could ever possibly count (both as a theist and as an atheist) and, in my experience, what rache has said is correct. This is in Australia, too. Such crazy beliefs are bound to be far more prevalent in the US, where 48% of people reject evolution and 74% believe that angels walk amongst them.

If there is any inaccuracy to what rache has said, it’s that some evangelicals don’t pay enough attention to the logical conclusions of their literalist beliefs to get to the point of actually professing to believe such crazy things. I, for example, never got to the point of believing that carnivores were fed vegetarian diets on the ark, because I realised that the story was nonsense long before ever having to rationalise such details. But so-called creation “scientists” do believe this is a valid explanation:

“Many carnivores, including lions and tigers, can readily manage on a vegetarian diet, and this may have happened on the Ark.” (http://creation.com/feeding-carnivores-on-the-ark-and-refuting-an-accusation-of-closet-scientism)

What rache says about evangelical support for Israel is correct, too. They reflect my past Christian beliefs concerning Israel and the Jews, I just never thought of it in those terms. Many evangelicals freely admit that they will see the silver-lining to a mushroom cloud, and although most would never voice such an opinion, the logical conclusion is that Jews are all going to hell anyway because they reject Christ (John 14:6).

<<If the answe is that you know no Christians that told you this "truth" then it isn't true.>>

Whether or not what rache said was true is independent of whether she has had someone tell her this.

It sounds like you need to get out a bit more in the Christian community. Perhaps you belong to a very progressive church? I attended a very moderate and traditional Lutheran church and the beliefs rache cited were fairly standard within my congregation. Attend any megachurch, like Hillsong here in Australia, and you will find even more adherence to such beliefs.

"Still a bit pissy about the last thread, are we mhaze?"

No not at all. I'll admit it gets a bit tedious having to educate some others as to our history but I see it as my small part in raising the level of understanding of those who've failed to recognise the accomplishments of western civilisation.

"Who says we got where we are by dumb luck?"

Oh I'm pretty sure someone used that phraseology at some point in the recent past.

"we’re certainly not seeing the fruits of that yet."

No. You're not seeing it. But its there in plain view for those that don't have an agenda.

"He says, while exercising his free speech to say so. "

Yes because I was clearly saying that free speech was already gone </sarc>. Oh dear.

"thoughtless pessimism"

Pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist.

Just for clarity, western civilisation has been the most economically and materially beneficial civilisation of all time while also providing unsurpassed and unprecedented liberty for those in its embrace. Its passing will be a disaster for humankind with all known replacement candidates being immeasurably worse. That disaster probably won't happen in your or my lifetimes but I fret for my grandkids.

//What part of those you tube videos were on what Evangelical Christians motives?//

For the first one: approx. 00:50-10:ish
For the second: approx. 3:30-9:20

// If no Christian told you this truth (concerning their own motivations), then there's simply no reason to count this as true.//

Are you kidding me? I've linked to direct video evidence of evangelists expressing these beliefs, but because they were talking to an interviewer, a crowd or a camera, rather than talking to rache or I, 'there's simply no reason to count [their beliefs] as true'? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

You've never really got a proper grasp on the whole empiricism thing, have you?

Please feel free to continue claiming that evangelicals don't really hold these beliefs because they haven't personally divulged them to rache or myself, even though we can all see quite clearly that they definitely do. For one thing, it's amusing... actually, that's quite sufficient reason alone.

You haven’t attempted to educated me on anything, mhaze.

<<I'll admit it gets a bit tedious having to educate some others as to our history…>>

All you’ve done to support your right-wing take on history so far, is to fallaciously appeal to ignorance, and assume the extend to which correlation implies causation, without controlling for any other factors.

<<…but I see it as my small part in raising the level of understanding of those who've failed to recognise the accomplishments of western civilisation.>>

Who here has failed to recognise the accomplishments of western civilisation? It certainly wasn’t Stephen Pinker in the video I linked to!

<<Oh I'm pretty sure someone used that phraseology at some point in the recent past.>>

For you to insert a term I’ve recently used into a claim I’ve never made, in order to attached that claim to me, is the height of dishonesty.

<<No. You're not seeing it. But [the fruits of allowing the attributes, which created the most successful society in history, to be frittered away are] there in plain view...>>

And yet you still don’t go into specifics.

I’m aware of the current SJW hysteria at the moment, if that’s what you’re referring to. I subscribe-to/follow your “great thinkers” (and several other conservatives) on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook because they still make some good points occasionally and because it’s too easy in today’s social-media society to lock oneself in an echo chamber. My favourite is Douglas Murray. I agree with him more often than not.

<<Yes because I was clearly saying that free speech was already gone…>>

Lighten up, Mr. Pissy.

<<Pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist.>>

There is a fine line between realism and pessimism.

<<[Western civilisation’s] passing will be a disaster for humankind with all known replacement candidates being immeasurably worse.>>

You’ve got no argument from me there.

<<That disaster probably won't happen in your or my lifetimes but I fret for my grandkids.>>

I remain vigilant, but I’m far from fretting. Sounds like you need to step out of that right-wing echo-chamber of yours from time to time.