toldailytopic: Why do atheists spend so much time on Christian forums such as Theolog

[Town Heretic]

Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here!
Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call.
So many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all.

A fine sounding tune, if self justifying and wrong at nearly every point. Too many people have lied in general--so we shouldn't trust the words of any, which leaves us with a problem concerning these and the foundation of our own position. Now then, any thoughts of your own on the point? Or do you have less problem with being evasive in fact than you do with the projected appearance of it that you attempt to establish a little further in...

My queries and/or answers need not be specific to substantiate my position that “evil” exists within religion because of the doctrines of religion.

They don't have to be coherent, for that matter, but you can either make the point or wave hands around it. The latter will get you a bemused smile, and it will be warranted.

Religion “teaches” people to treat his/her fellows in ways inconsistent with itself.

An interesting assertion. An support for it? Now the teachings of Christ are consistent. Men, well, they're frequently another matter, in the singular or collective sense. That noted, an argument against the organized practice of religion should establish the fault you claim and show injury in a particular sense as a result. Further, if your posit holds as a rule, it supports in declaration my contention that the problem is rarely in the idea but in the how of execution. That, in turn, argues that the tendencies of men are the thing to guard against and, it follows, the usurpation of the role of religion by some other institution would be as likely to lead to a similar result as not.

It was a rhetorical statement made for the same reason you outline here.

It asserted a fact not in evidence and contrary to my position, however you felt about it. And so the response.

There is no absence of evidence Christianity exist only an absence of evidence for its basic foundation . . .

We'll get to that in a moment. I hold it a rather meaningless statement.

and reason enough (on my part) to reject it in total.

Says every man about his position on point.

People are offended by what they choose to be offended by.

Said David Duke to an NAACP rally. I'm sure it was moving.

Now that you “know” there is no offense offered you have no excuse for your perceived taken offense.

You don't get a pass on dropping the N-bomb because you don't find it offensive. Your comfort level with it never controlled anyone else's conduct, as it shouldn't.

Sorry my friend. Either develop a thicker skin or answer the question.

Which? You had one on the first when you ignored that bad habit. The second, regarding God's existence, was answered some time ago. I'm frankly surprised you missed it. When a man asks for proof of God's existence without being able to state a standard that, if met, would objectively settle the matter, he hasn't actually said anything substantive. He's simply parroted the form of the reasonable. It's the flaw at the root of both that inquiry and the efforts at apologetics on the part of the faithful. Why this appears to be a mystery to either is quite beyond me. The only proof of who and what and that God is will be found in the subjective experience of Him and the relation to Him.

Any other claim is under thought and irrational.

As you are now (from my perspective), one way makes you look dishonest the other makes you look evasive.

It isn't a question of skin. If you came into my home with underwear showing you'd be shown the door. That you're willing to attach some other significance to it is no more controlling or bothersome than the fellow who firsts insists you called him a name and then suggests, when you inform him that you didn't, that you're calling him a liar. In other words, you don't get to establish the context. Your conduct does.

I reasonably doubt you “waited” for marriage before you had sex the first time though I suspect you will deny it.

I was an atheist for longer than you've lived. Why on earth would I have lived by a code I didn't believe in?

Either way the mere appearance of impropriety makes you seem hypocritical.

Only to someone who makes up his mind before he asks the right questions.

Sorry my friend. Either develop a thicker skin or answer the question. As you are now (from my perspective), one way makes you look dishonest the other makes you look evasive.

A principle demands something of the person who carries it. Sometimes it means turning your back on a fight you'd dearly love to enjoin. Sometimes it means instructing the hard headed by way of example. How it looks to you, given your age and error, is of lesser importance to me than how I know it to be.

Is rugby played outdoors or in?

Is baseball inherently vile or the foundation of all sports?

"He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating the wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often." - Bertrand Russell

A bit like suggesting the Holocaust Museum is founded in some part on titillation. A deviant and sad conclusion, but Russell is a man who sees, as all men do, through the lens of his conviction. In his case, this error is a tragedy of the first magnitude.

:e4e:

 

[elohiym]

Well maybe certain people can't but if you look through the fiction section, I think people's ingenuity is certain not beyond this story.

And do you have any corroborating evidence from those people besides the source of the Bible?

Momo, I am the corroborating evidence. That I am typing this post to you is evidence that I was born and had a father. His father had a father, and his father had a father...all the way back to the time in question at the Red Sea. At that time, tens of thousands of people were simultaneously eye witnesses to miraculous events. You are implying a conspiracy theory that is simply impossible. There is no way to fake that type of evidence, and it stands the test of time because of the genealogy.

But there aren't tens of thousands of sources. There's only one.

Tens of thousands of eye witnesses, who then fanatically followed a religion based on what they witnessed, an oppressive religious system that nobody in their right mind would follow unless they actually witnessed the things recorded in their history.

If your reasoning to be accepted there's also masses of evidence that Achilles was (almost) invincible - thousands of Greek and Trojan warriors saw him fighting!

Arguing that a single source constitutes a huge amount of evidence merely because it mentions lots of people being present demonstrates an exceptionally poor understanding of how historical analysis works.

You haven't read the Old Testament yet. Get back to me when you've done that.

Just as many perhaps allegedly saw Mohammed split the moon.

Think hard about that.

If you can supply a testimony that thousands saw it with a recorded genealogy, I'm going to believe it. But you can't. So...you really have no point there.

Tell, me at what point is the Bible genealogy faked? Starting with which person? At some point you are going to hit real people in that genealogy, right? Have you really thought about this point? I don't think you have.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here!
Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call.
So many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all.

A fine sounding tune, if self justifying and wrong at nearly every point. Too many people have lied in general--so we shouldn't trust the words of any, which leaves us with a problem concerning these and the foundation of our own position. Now then, any thoughts of your own on the point? Or do you have less problem with being evasive in fact than you do with the projected appearance of it that you attempt to establish a little further in...

People have lied in general for sure but why should they lie for a supposed “good” cause such as the one of which Christianity is claimed to be based? Perhaps you should look into yourself for the answers for who is being evasive for no reason other than a claim of being offended.

My queries and/or answers need not be specific to substantiate my position that “evil” exists within religion because of the doctrines of religion.

They don't have to be coherent, for that matter, but you can either make the point or wave hands around it. The latter will get you a bemused smile, and it will be warranted.

:wave:

Religion “teaches” people to treat his/her fellows in ways inconsistent with itself.

An interesting assertion. An support for it? Now the teachings of Christ are consistent. Men, well, they're frequently another matter, in the singular or collective sense. That noted, an argument against the organized practice of religion should establish the fault you claim and show injury in a particular sense as a result. Further, if your posit holds as a rule, it supports in declaration my contention that the problem is rarely in the idea but in the how of execution. That, in turn, argues that the tendencies of men are the thing to guard against and, it follows, the usurpation of the role of religion by some other institution would be as likely to lead to a similar result as not.

Sounds a lot like you’d have the messenger blamed and not the message even though the message is what is indeed flawed.

It was a rhetorical statement made for the same reason you outline here.

It asserted a fact not in evidence and contrary to my position, however you felt about it. And so the response.

If you say so.

There is no absence of evidence Christianity exist only an absence of evidence for its basic foundation . . .

We'll get to that in a moment. I hold it a rather meaningless statement.

It amuses me that your statements are somehow noble insights because mine are “rather meaningless” in your view.

and reason enough (on my part) to reject it in total.

Says every man about his position on point.

If the basis of Christianity fails to hold up to scrutiny then the entire doctrine fails in its entirety and should be rejected.

People are offended by what they choose to be offended by.

Said David Duke to an NAACP rally. I'm sure it was moving.

The statement is true even if no one is “moved” by it.

Now that you “know” there is no offense offered you have no excuse for your perceived taken offense.

You don't get a pass on dropping the N-bomb because you don't find it offensive. Your comfort level with it never controlled anyone else's conduct, as it shouldn't.

People are offended by what they choose to be offended by; your attitude will remain unchanged only if you choose to be unmoved.

Sorry my friend. Either develop a thicker skin or answer the question.

Which? You had one on the first when you ignored that bad habit. The second, regarding God's existence, was answered some time ago.

. . . that it cannot be proven . . . reveals its chances of believability on my part. This stands in contrast to your offended stance on a single word (or phrase).

I'm frankly surprised you missed it.

No surprise there; this is a standard phrase for you.

When a man asks for proof of God's existence without being able to state a standard that, if met, would objectively settle the matter, he hasn't actually said anything substantive. He's simply parroted the form of the reasonable. It's the flaw at the root of both that inquiry and the efforts at apologetics on the part of the faithful. Why this appears to be a mystery to either is quite beyond me. The only proof of who and what and that God is will be found in the subjective experience of Him and the relation to Him.

Any other claim is under thought and irrational.

I find it interesting you, as a lawyer, are swayed by the subjective over the objective.

As you are now (from my perspective), one way makes you look dishonest the other makes you look evasive.

It isn't a question of skin.

Yes, it is.

If you came into my home with underwear showing you'd be shown the door.

When I come to your house I’ll keep my belt cinched a bit tighter.

That you're willing to attach some other significance to it is no more controlling or bothersome than the fellow who firsts insists you called him a name and then suggests, when you inform him that you didn't, that you're calling him a liar. In other words, you don't get to establish the context. Your conduct does.

As I said earlier, I have no control over your “feelings.” I can’t do anything about what you choose to find offensive.

I reasonably doubt you “waited” for marriage before you had sex the first time though I suspect you will deny it.

I was an atheist for longer than you've lived. Why on earth would I have lived by a code I didn't believe in?

I reasonably doubt you have lived strictly by this “code” since your “conversion.”

Either way the mere appearance of impropriety makes you seem hypocritical.

Only to someone who makes up his mind before he asks the right questions.

I have asked the right questions; you have chosen (for a childish reason at best imo) to avoid answering them.

Sorry my friend. Either develop a thicker skin or answer the question. As you are now (from my perspective), one way makes you look dishonest the other makes you look evasive.

A principle demands something of the person who carries it. Sometimes it means turning your back on a fight you'd dearly love to enjoin. Sometimes it means instructing the hard headed by way of example. How it looks to you, given your age and error, is of lesser importance to me than how I know it to be.

Your refusal to answer the question is telling of how tenuously factual you “know it to be.” You can “stand on your principles” and refuse to answer the query or share your less than stellar understanding of what you “know it to be.”

Is rugby played outdoors or in?

Is baseball inherently vile or the foundation of all sports?

Is baseball more violent than rugby and is rugby the foundation of football?

























"The Christian Bible is a drug store. It's contents have remained the same but the medical practice continues. For 1,800 years these changes were slight--scarcely noticeable... The dull and ignorant physician day and night, and all the days and all the nights, drenched his patient with vast and hideous doses of the most repulsive drugs to be found in the store's stock... He kept him religion sick for eighteen centuries, and allowed him not a well day during all that time." - Mark Twain

 

[Town Heretic]

People have lied in general for sure but why should they lie for a supposed “good” cause such as the one of which Christianity is claimed to be based?

Who said they should? I'm only taking your line of thinking to its inevitable conclusion and, in doing so, noting the self defeating nature of the principle in play.

Perhaps you should look into yourself for the answers for who is being evasive for no reason other than a claim of being offended.

Given I've answered every question asked without that insult and, as it happens, the two that were when presented absent it, it doesn't require much looking. You've yet to grapple with the inescapable inference of your own criticism and I find that telling, as I suspect the gallery will or does as well.

:wave:

Sounds a lot like you’d have the messenger blamed and not the message even though the message is what is indeed flawed.

Really? Wasn't your original point or the point of my response, but do tell. I mean that literally. Set out something more than a general impression...say, the basis for it. Absent that you have the makings of a fine soliloquy and little else.

It amuses me that your statements are somehow noble insights because mine are “rather meaningless” in your view.

It interests me that you continue to make declarations that lack evidence while supposedly criticizing Christendom for the practice.

If the basis of Christianity fails to hold up to scrutiny then the entire doctrine fails in its entirety and should be rejected.

The basis of Christianity is Christ. He holds up nicely, though we all appreciate your concern.

The statement is true even if no one is “moved” by it.

Rather it isn't on point and for the same reason, Mr. Duke's or your incredulity notwithstanding.

People are offended by what they choose to be offended by;

Words mean things. And the way they're used says something as well. That you want to offer insult wrapped in "no offense" is either evidence a want of empathy or a misunderstanding of the requirements of civil discourse.

your attitude will remain unchanged only if you choose to be unmoved.

Correct in this much: I can choose to consider your years, disposition and apparent instruction and waive the insult, but to my mind it would be doing you a disservice.

. . . that it cannot be proven . . . reveals its chances of believability on my part.

That you cannot set out the criteria that would allow for it says a great deal about both positions and their reasonableness.

This stands in contrast to your offended stance on a single word (or phrase).

So you declare. Now cite in illustration, if you can.

No surprise there; this is a standard phrase for you.

Another "observation" of yours in want of something like, say, factual support.

I find it interesting you, as a lawyer, are swayed by the subjective over the objective.

That's because you haven't yet, apparently, come to the realization that there's no other means to consider the proposition.

Yes, it is.

No, and unlike you I set out the why of it. When you stamp your foot like this you only succeed in demonstrating your age, not your argument or capabilities.

When I come to your house I’ll keep my belt cinched a bit tighter.

That's the ticket. :chuckle:

As I said earlier, I have no control over your “feelings.” I can’t do anything about what you choose to find offensive.

It isn't a matter of feelings. It's a matter of civility. It's a matter of consequence and manners. Either discourse is civil and the ideas are what matters to you, or you're invested in theater. How you conduct yourself will and does distinguish the truth of your interest and, correspondingly, how you are perceived.

I reasonably doubt you have lived strictly by this “code” since your “conversion.”

Then you're mistaken...and adding a slight to personal honor neither warranted nor permissible between people who wish to remain on friendly terms is a bad practice. Careful with that. I won't discuss your mother and you leave off with my wife, the woman to whom I was engaged at the time of my conversion and the object of the unintended slight you offered for want of asking or considering your thought.

I have asked the right questions; you have chosen (for a childish reason at best imo) to avoid answering them.

Your opinion/feeling is your own business. I've answered both questions you posed after they were set out absent the insult and pointed out a previous explanation on point else. Attempting to frame an unwillingness to engage with someone on a point of honor as a childish response is itself, ironically enough, a rather childish ploy.

Your refusal to answer the question

I've answered you. I refused to encourage poor behavior. A very different thing.

Is baseball more violent than rugby and is rugby the foundation of football?

I suspect baseball given the relation of diamonds and girls. Rugby is to football what a knife fight is to slap boxing.

"The Christian Bible is a drug store. It's contents have remained the same but the medical practice continues. For 1,800 years these changes were slight--scarcely noticeable... The dull and ignorant physician day and night, and all the days and all the nights, drenched his patient with vast and hideous doses of the most repulsive drugs to be found in the store's stock... He kept him religion sick for eighteen centuries, and allowed him not a well day during all that time." - Mark Twain

"The danger is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It is the human heart—the capacity we all have for evil. All human institutions with a lust for power give their utopian visions divine sanction, whether this comes through the worship of God, destiny, historical inevitability, the master race, a worker’s paradise, fraternite-egalite-liberte or the second coming of Jesus Christ."
Chris Hedges

 

[Memento Mori]

Momo, I am the corroborating evidence. That I am typing this post to you is evidence that I was born and had a father. His father had a father, and his father had a father...all the way back to the time in question at the Red Sea. At that time, tens of thousands of people were simultaneously eye witnesses to miraculous events. You are implying a conspiracy theory that is simply impossible. There is no way to fake that type of evidence, and it stands the test of time because of the genealogy.

So you're Jewish and your great to the umpteenth grandfather was there and passed the story on to through the family to you?

Do you know any of the people at the time who lived through the even to have children? How about the people that were supposedly killed and didn't pass on DNA? Or how about a story from the Egyptians which says that some slaves escaped through a miracle (or trickery, since they probably weren't too fond of the Jewish people) of God?

You'd need to prove that so many people are alive today which could only be if x person had escaped the slave holders by crossing the bottom of a sea division... Seems to be a more daunting task than finding a story from that time that says the same thing. But it's your evidence and I'm sure you're up to the challenge.

 

[Nick_A]

The positive atheist feels superior to the believer. What good is feeling superior if you can't demonstrate it through attacks on believers regardless of how misguided the attacks?

What good is believing in denial if you can't express the imagined superiority of denial? But that isn't to say deniers do not have a need for belief.

"He who believes in nothing still needs a girl to believe in him." ~ Rosenstock-Huessy

Human nature.

 

[Flipper]

The positive atheist feels superior to the believer.

Alternatively, the Christian smugly dredges up that "fool saith in his heart" Isaiah quote, which is like unto a Get Out of Jail Free card no matter how bad his arguments are or how horribly he's getting trounced.

 

[Tyrathca]

Momo, I am the corroborating evidence. That I am typing this post to you is evidence that I was born and had a father. His father had a father, and his father had a father...all the way back to the time in question at the Red Sea. At that time, tens of thousands of people were simultaneously eye witnesses to miraculous events.

Because stories have never been developed that were applied retrospectively to long dead people.

You are implying a conspiracy theory that is simply impossible. There is no way to fake that type of evidence, and it stands the test of time because of the genealogy.

No conspiracy needed, people believe in myths about their family history even now despite standardised record keeping. Stories and lists are accidentally edited, merged, split, jumbled, incorrectly extrapolated from true known events, etc.

Tell, me at what point is the Bible genealogy faked? Starting with which person? At some point you are going to hit real people in that genealogy, right? Have you really thought about this point? I don't think you have.

Who is to say that it has a defined cut-off for fake and true? Couldn't fact and fiction be mixed together throughout?

 

[voltaire]

Elo, can you trace your genealogy back to chronicles? Can many other jewish people? If so, with enough people you can validate the people listed at the red sea as real.

 

[Nick_A]

Alternatively, the Christian smugly dredges up that "fool saith in his heart" Isaiah quote, which is like unto a Get Out of Jail Free card no matter how bad his arguments are or how horribly he's getting trounced.

Why do you feel compelled to trounce even if they appear wrong to you? That is the question. If they come into Richard Dawkins site and begin to preach I can see why you would want to trounce. But the question is why come to a Christian site in order to trounce?

 

[rexlunae]

toldailytopic: Why do atheists spend so much time on Christian forums such as TheologyOnline?

To debate, discuss, and make friends. I've spent a fair amount of my time studying theology. Just because I don't believe in it doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it.

I can understand Christians attempting to convert atheists because a Christian believes that the conversion will save the soul of the atheist.

Meanwhile, deconversion may save a person from a life of unnecessary servility.

The atheist however claims to not believe in a God and claims that morality and right and wrong are relative to the individual. Therefore... the atheist cannot make the claim that his understanding is any more right that the Christian's understanding.

I'd absolutely dispute that.

I think that if a person were truly an atheist he wouldn't care what other people believe and he wouldn't waste any time of forums such as TOL.

At the end of the day, I don't care what people believe, as long as they don't impose it on other people by force. But, some people feel the need to impose their beliefs by force, and some people actually enjoy challenging their own beliefs.

The truth is... all atheists inherently know God exists and they participate here and other places like TOL because they are trying to convince themselves one way or the other. They seek reassurance that they can never satisfy (as an atheist that is). They have an internal battle to fight between what the know to be true but never let on (a god exists), and what they present themselves as believing (that no god exists).

Poppycock.

As far as I can tell the evolutionists are here to :spam: every science thread with ad hominem, distortion and general mockery with only regard for the poster's declared affiliation to atheism. :idunno:

I think it's pretty obvious that you've got a large ax to grind, not only with atheists, but with anyone who believes that the theory of evolution is largely true.

 

[elohiym]

Elo, can you trace your genealogy back to chronicles? Can many other jewish people? If so, with enough people you can validate the people listed at the red sea as real.

Unfortunately, the family records were destroyed when the Romans destroyed the temple.

 

[voltaire]

Excellent question Nick A

 

[elohiym]

Who is to say that it has a defined cut-off for fake and true?

The people who came after the faked lineage, the many thousands that would have had to corroborate stories for such an elaborate conspiracy. It's simply impossible at that level.

Sure, people can lie about their lineage to a certain extent. Most of my life I never knew that my mom was adopted, but the records reveal the truth (and she eventually told me).

Couldn't fact and fiction be mixed together throughout?

Not to the extent that would have to occur in the Bible. The Hebrews were big on keeping genealogies, and a lot depended on their accuracy...

Ezra 2:61-62

61 And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name:
62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

 

[ex nihilo]

To debate, discuss, and make friends. I've spent a fair amount of my time studying theology. Just because I don't believe in it doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it.



Meanwhile, deconversion may save a person from a life of unnecessary servility.

Huh. I see... but it seems to me that atheists take up an unnecessary burden then... what use is there in "saving" another when you've no hope of life yourself?

Btw, nice to meet you . Name's Dave.

 

[elohiym]

You'd need to prove that so many people are alive today which could only be if x person had escaped the slave holders by crossing the bottom of a sea division... Seems to be a more daunting task than finding a story from that time that says the same thing. But it's your evidence and I'm sure you're up to the challenge.

The genealogy is evidence enough. But there is archeological evidence that supports the history of the Bible, too. So the genealogy does not exist in a vacuum.

 

[ex nihilo]

I dunno. But I'm glad they do

 

[rexlunae]

Huh. I see... but it seems to me that atheists take up an unnecessary burden then... what use is there in "saving" another when you've no hope of life yourself?

I don't see where there's any saving us from eventual destruction. Might as well make the time we've got a little more pleasant, no?

Btw, nice to meet you . Name's Dave.

Likewise. Name's Rex. Or Eric, if you prefer. And welcome to TOL. :cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't see where there's any saving us from eventual destruction. Might as well make the time we've got a little more pleasant, no?

Except that those who believe tend to self describe as happier, so that can't be your reason--unless you mean more pleasant for you...and that entails harming others, which would make you a sadist.

I know that I was a happy enough person before my conversion, but I'm much more satisfied with my life now. A loss of faith for me would mean a lessening of the experience.

 

[rexlunae]

Except that those who believe tend to self describe as happier, so that can't be your reason--unless you mean more pleasant for you...and that entails harming others, which would make you a sadist.

Well, there's more to happiness than just not believing in a god. There's a whole different way of viewing life, that has to be built up. I don't necessarily place myself as a model of how to do this...but it's a work in progress. What I do know is that I'm a lot happier not trying to believe things which I can't, and that there are a good many people who live in perpetual guilt which is essentially baseless because of religion.

I know that I was a happy enough person before my conversion, but I'm much more satisfied with my life now. A loss of faith for me would mean a lessening of the experience.

Well, I had precisely the opposite experience. I just assume that everyone else is fundamentally like me.