Why is it ok to bash Christianity but not Atheism?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

JET1971:

Do you really really want to know why athieists are a relativly new thing? because in the past we were tortured and killed by every religion including jewish. to claim god did not exhist was a death sentance.

Fuck jews and the we were persecuted crap they pull. persecuted is better than murdered for not believing. "Waah" "im a jew and my people were persecuted". I am an atheist and atheists were killed for not believeing. fuck jews and all religions.

Is that better? or was that not what you wanted?

Are you kidding me? Did you really just type that antisemitic rant? Unbelievable, completely unbelievable and completely uncalled for. I never used curse words towards you in this thread, nor did I direct hate speech towards you in any way.

Your hate speech aside...
Fist off its called Judaism, not Jewish. Second part of being persecuted was being murdered, or have you never heard of the holocaust?

The simple answer would be that it is not 'okay' to bash either the beliefs of the religious, or the beliefs of the non-religious.

Damien Granz:

blaza:

If I saw some people who do crazy crap I'd count them crazy, and I'd most certainly disassociate them with the ones who aren't and assume they are a minority. People love to see crazy Christians and generalize all are like that. Double standard right there.

That's the thing. From my perspective sane Christians are the minority. That's my point.

blaza:

I get your point of view. I understand I might seem crazy but let me share a verse "I pray that you and all God's people will understand what is called wide or long or high or deep. I want you to know all about Christ's love, although it is too wonderful to be measured. Then your lives will be filled with all that God is." Christianity is all about love for your fellow man and God. It's really simple. I just simply want people to see that all God wants is us to love him as he loves us and to love each other. Bigots don't represent us, I promise. "How can you love a God you cannot see but hate a man you can see?" Comes to mind.

Also I apologize for multiple posts, I'm trying to reply frantically.

Again, because Jesus's love doesn't mean anything to me and the idea I have to love somebody back because they are in the position to give me something cool or because they love me sounds basically like emotional blackmail or coercive rape. Can you imagine me telling my secretary that if she loves me back and gives me her life I'll give her a better job after this one? Or worse saying that if she doesn't, I'll just straight up murder her?

You can pull good Bible quotes if you want. Others can pull just as many bad. I find both to be a waste of my time because I'm not judging you on what Christ says or doesn't say, but on actions.

1 Timothy 2:12:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

Starting with some straight up sexism.

1 Samuel 15:3:
"This is what the Lord Almighty says... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

Followed by some straight up genocide here. Good stuff.

Romans 1:27:
"In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Some good old homophobia in the New Testament.

Judges 11:30-1, 34-5:
"And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, 'If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord's, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.' Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, 'Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.'"

Straight up murdering one human being to teach another human being a stupid lesson. Because his children don't matter for shit as long as some dumb ass learns some shitty language about trusting god to pick a sacrifice.

Genesis 22:2:
"Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you."

Emotional blackmail set up as a loyalty trap that, honestly if I was God and had it been my test, I would had failed Abraham for.

Ephesians 5:22:
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord."

Sexism and a gentle subtle hint to accept intermarriage rape.

1 Peter 2:18:
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

Pretty much tells somebody to surrender to any authority no matter how terrible or willing he is to throw you in hell for not loving him enough for giving you cancer or whatever.

Timothy 1:12 If you read the other parts of the verse that was for simply preaching, which at the time was a male dominated job.

1st Samuel 15:3 That was Old Testament therefore irrelevant because indeed God did kill a lot of people at the time because Jesus hadn't died for our sins yet.

Romans 1:27 God says being gay is a sin, but so is alot of other things.What he does not say is that they should be judged by other people. That's between them and God, not for me or anyone else to decide.

Judges 11:30 Jephthah made a promise to God, he had to own up to it. Don't really see how this is wrong, simply keeping his word. Also Old Testament.

Genesis 22:2 This was, as you stated, a test. God wanted to see how much Abraham loved him. Abraham loved him more than his son, so God stopped him from sacrificing his own son. Merely a test.

Ephesians 5:22 Again, more of a time thing. Husbands where the head of the house at the time, and at the beginning at Ephesians 5:21 it says "Honor Christ and put others first"

1st Peter 2:18 This is meant to just make the best out of what God gives you. He may have a reason for you to be a slave at that time, so be the best freaking slave you can be and you'll eventually become more than a slave. Like Job. He was imprisoned, so he was a good prisoner until he became a guard, then the warden, then eventually King.

Still, nothing I see that makes the Bible some book of horrid nightmares it's sometimes claimed to be.

blaza:

Timothy 1:12 If you read the other parts of the verse that was for simply preaching, which at the time was a male dominated job.

For absolutely no reason, because your book isn't divinely inspired, it was written by bronze age man.

Man isn't no real different now than he was then. If men have better societies now it's because we were taught better as children than our parents were and so on. Not because humanity wasn't 'ready', like I somehow know or give a shit what my ancestor 300 years ago was taught about women.

If "God" was divinely inspired, he could had taught us any way. We weren't magically or genetically inferior then we couldn't understand. If you abducted an infant from cave man times and brought her up in the year 2012 she'd turn out the same as the rest of us, because that'd be all she'd know. At best she might be a bit shorter from her parents having malnutrition when she was conceived. She wouldn't just magically revert into bronze age thinking like it was in her blood or something.

If God had horrible ideas and had a shittier understanding of science than I did as a toddler, maybe it's a clue God's writers were less educated than me.

blaza:
1st Samuel 15:3 That was Old Testament therefore irrelevant because indeed God did kill a lot of people at the time because Jesus hadn't died for our sins yet.

So you're telling me this is the guy that I should root for, who's morality changes on pretty serious subjects to suit his time? Who's to say that bigotry and murder isn't back in?

If morality is an objective thing that is a universal concept, then God shouldn't change his mind. If morality is subject to God's mood it's no more of a use to me than my own society's.

blaza:
Romans 1:27 God says being gay is a sin, but so is alot of other things.What he does not say is that they should be judged by other people. That's between them and God, not for me or anyone else to decide.

Ah, so it's OK that people burn in a lake of fire because of how God made them, as long as you don't send them there first.

I'm not sure at what point that makes me think that Christianity is all that great. If anything you're trying to prove to me that you're better than Christianity.

blaza:
Judges 11:30 Jephthah made a promise to God, he had to own up to it. Don't really see how this is wrong, simply keeping his word. Also Old Testament.

Because he's bartering in somebody else's life. If I said "God, I owe you one Blaza life", do I suddenly get the right to kill you?

No, that would be horrible and barbaric.

It works in the Bible because Jephthah's daughter isn't a human being in the Bible, she's an emotional set piece, a MacGuffin, entirely interchangeable with a sack of gold or a magic coin or some shit.

I find that horrific of the highest caliber. People aren't red shirts to die to teach me a lesson or of a danger like I'm the protagonist of the universe.

blaza:
Genesis 22:2 This was, as you stated, a test. God wanted to see how much Abraham loved him. Abraham loved him more than his son, so God stopped him from sacrificing his own son. Merely a test.

And I stand by that if I tell you to kill somebody innocent to prove your love to me, that makes you a horrible person and you'd fail that test.

It comes back to this thing where other people to these stories aren't 'real' people. They're like, some sort of sick fucking set pieces to teach somebody else a lesson.

blaza:
Ephesians 5:22 Again, more of a time thing. Husbands where the head of the house at the time, and at the beginning at Ephesians 5:21 it says "Honor Christ and put others first"

Yeah, because this wasn't divinely inspired, again, it was written by bronze age man with very specific agendas, and stepping over the rights of women and 'inferior' people was easier for them than to treat them like human beings.

If God was so wise, he wouldn't need to lie to us for 2,000 years about simple shit like 'other people don't live and die to teach you a shitty Saturday Morning Cartoon special lesson'.

If I can't teach you a shitty lesson like 'be careful what you wish for' without murdering a child, then I'm the worst teacher ever.

blaza:
1st Peter 2:18 This is meant to just make the best out of what God gives you. He may have a reason for you to be a slave at that time, so be the best freaking slave you can be and you'll eventually become more than a slave. Like Job. He was imprisoned, so he was a good prisoner until he became a guard, then the warden, then eventually King.

Sounds like some sucker shit the powerful few tell the weak and many to get them to accept being fucked in the ass, really. Again, sounds a lot less like divine inspiration for the masses and more like some bronze age scholars securing their selfish place in society.

Because you don't graduate prisoner school to become the warden. The warden is placed in the prison as the warden from the start.

And you don't 'graduate' being a woman and become a man after you pay your dues or some shit. Or just 'stop' being a slave.

It's easy as shit to be rich and powerful and tell people to accept being shit on and pretend they'll all get their due. That honestly sounds like some sucker shit to me.

blaza:
Still, nothing I see that makes the Bible some book of horrid nightmares it's sometimes claimed to be.

If you don't see the problems then frankly you don't seem much different than the other 'crazy' Christians that I was complaining about earlier.

blaza:
The thing is God doesn't just straight up tell people to murder other people. Of course he was pretty murderous in the Old Testament but that was what Jesus died for so we wouldn't have to be killed. I kinda do get to disassociate myself from a lunatic who murdered people whilst flying a Christian banner, he wasn't Christian, he was trying to get sympathy by saying "I did it for God people!" It's the same as me burning a church down, then raping everyone that survived and claimed I was Atheist. Same concept.

Your god doesn't straight up tell people to do anything. It's all interpretive.
You certainly get to disassociate yourself from a lunatic, but you don't have the authority nor the capability to look into their head and check. See, this is not about "sympathy". This is about conviction. And when somebody is convinced that the right thing to do is fundamentalist or even violent and murderous, that doesn't mean they don't really believe. They clearly don't believe in your standards of what a Christian should be, but you are not the ultimate authority on what a Christian is.
Why do you think there are tens of thousands of denominations, ever more splintering into smaller groups? Because there is no one, clear answer. Because people interpret things differently, resulting in a vast spectrum of different beliefs that all fall under the category of "Christian". If you want to disassociate yourself, do it properly. Point out how much you disagree with their interpretation, how you are a different subtype of Christian or whatever. But we're not going to disingeniously let you declare everything that you disagree with as "not true Christian". Just like I don't get to call Communists "not true left-wingers" because, while I'm a left-winger, I disagree with Communists. Most right-wingers disagree with Nazis, but Nazism is still a far-right ideology. These are vast umbrella terms for a reason and the solution is to use more precise labels, not arbitrarily kick subgroups out of the umbrella categories because we don't like them.

Helmholtz Watson:

Skeleon:
Most of us on here try to specify and qualify.

Do you and I read the same threads? How many times has Katatori-kun had to point out that all religion isn't the same and that criticisms for Christianity don't always apply for every other religion? Your kidding yourself if you think that people don't just ignorantly assume that because some Christians act a certain way, then all religions must act the same way as well.

To be frank, and I've pointed that out to him before, I think Katatori-kun is sometimes disingenious on this issue, reading things into posts that aren't there in order to continue his narrative or straight up ignore the two-sidedness of the issue. Many of his posts seem almost reflexive to me. Doesn't mean he isn't correct when he's pointing actual overgeneralizations out, but that you should probably not take every single one he points out at face value.

Anyway, are there overgeneralizations on Atheists' part? Certainly. And do we need to differentiate between the majority and most influential religion in our parts and religion in general? Again, certainly.
But what I do see regardless are attempts to be specific, what I do see are corrections when the mistake is made ("Yeah, you're right, I meant Social Conservative Christians" or something along those lines). And I and several other posters try to choose our words very carefully so as not to overstep the bounds of the category we're talking about.
Doesn't always work, does warrant further improvement, but you are completely off if you think people are simply ignorantly throwing stuff out there.

blaza:
So I've noticed this site has it's fair share of Atheist.. Especially some who take every chance to bash Christianty and they get away with it. Being Christian myself I always wonder why is this ok? It's a double standard.

If it's a double standard, people who bash atheism do not get away with it.

Can you give me a few examples of...
1. Christians that bash Atheism and get warned/suspended/banned
2. Atheists that bash Christianity and don't get warned/suspended/banned?

blaza:
snip

Most times I'm content to live and let live concerning Christianity, but every once in a while, someone says something that makes me angry, and it makes me say "You know what? Screw this. This is bullshit and I'm not going to pretend it's OK." Your thread title is one of those things that people say that makes me angry.

I don't think you know much about how differently Christianity and Atheism are accepted by mainstream culture, at least in the US. Just an example: It was a big deal when Obama included nonbelievers as Americans in his inaugural address; some people used it to say he was already undermining American values, and some (like me) were gobsmacked because we never expected to hear an American President say Atheists were Americans too. By Contrast, Bush the First said he didn't think Atheists could ever be patriotic Americans. Also this news headline:

Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1

And then there's the harrassment, discrimination and, occasionally, violence and murder in the name of cleansing us devil-worshippers (which confuses the hell out of me because one would think not believing in God would also mean not believing in the devil, let alone worshipping him). Now, that's all fairly rare; only the crazies tend to go that far. Most simply seem to think being atheist automatically means you're incapable of being a moral person (this is an extremely insulting thing to say to someone, don't ever do it, or you will be an asshole).

As for my own experience I've avoided the worst but I've been harassed, I've had people assume I'm a bad person, I've had people tell me I'm going to hell. A friend once said to me "You're an atheist? But you're so nice!". Now, most people on the West Coast where I live don't seem to care so much, but because of the above I don't consider it a good idea to tell anyone but my close friends I'm an atheist, and the kind of people I make friends with creates a huge sampling bias.

For me, at least, that's why I don't regard Christianity as something the world really needs. The charity is nice and all, but it could be done without the superstitious hogwash that encourages some to go out and be complete douchebags. Some atheists are more vocal about it than I am. But some Christians, rather than considering the possibility that an atheist's being angry might have something to do with the fact that they were just a dickhead to the atheist, form this stereotype that all atheists are just angry, unpleasant people who bash Christians and their beliefs all the time.

And as long as you keep asking questions like "Why is it ok to bash Christianity but not Atheism?", that's what you'll see in atheists, just as you would see it in anyone you were as insulting to.

blaza:
Why I believe in God? The answer is simple, I can feel his presence.

And this is why I think religion is essentially "giving up".

You "feel his presence". Huh. Tell me, in what other area of your life is "I just feel it" a legitimate answer to the question "how do you know something" or "why do you believe something"? Even if you ignore the fairly solid evidence that such "feelings" are composed largely of self-hypnosis, imagination, and similar effects, the fact remains that "I just feel it" is an extremely weak way of demonstrating anything. It's like if someone asked you "How do you know that god exists" and you answered "I just know!". It's completely worthless as evidence for anyone beyond yourself, and even there its validity can be called heavily into question. And you use this as a basis for explaining the "big questions"? "Where do we come from", "What is our purpose", "what happens after we die"? Do I need to point out why I consider that incredibly weak? You've taken your own intuition, jacked it up to 10, and used it as an explanation. That's not good enough.

I know that sounds like I'm crazy (I swear I'm not) but it really is the answer.

See, that's the thing. The only reason you don't sound crazy from that is because we're all so experienced with exactly this argument, and we know that a lot of people make it. What you need to understand is that the only thing separating you from the guy who thinks an alien lizard is whispering in his ear is millenia of (equally baseless) tradition. Were it not for that, you'd sound just as insane to us, if not more so.

When I'm praying, playing/ making music for Jesus, taking part in bible studies I get a feeling that I never get anywhere else.It's euphoric. It's hard to explain unless you experience it for yourself. [...] I've seen people burst out in tears and start praying after hearing a scripture.

This is, as far as I have heard, a fairly well-understood element of psychology and neurology. It has largely to do with how we as a social species interact with others when placed under social pressures, and how our memories can be very selective when it is convenient to do so.

I've seen friends stop addictions cold turkey after finding God, with no side effects.

This I just find incredibly hard to believe, I'm sorry to say.

I've even seen narcissistic, and selfish people break down and become some of the most generous people I've met. It's hard to explain, it really is but what I, and others feel, it isn't fake. I'm getting excited typing this, so I apologize if this seems rushed or crazed.

It isn't fake. It doesn't mean it's god, either. It's your brain running on haywire.

blaza:

Stagnant:
why you believe in God.

Why I believe in God? The answer is simple, I can feel his presence. I know that sounds like I'm crazy (I swear I'm not) but it really is the answer. When I'm praying, playing/ making music for Jesus, taking part in bible studies I get a feeling that I never get anywhere else.It's euphoric. It's hard to explain unless you experience it for yourself. I've seen friends stop addictions cold turkey after finding God, with no side effects. I've seen people burst out in tears and start praying after hearing a scripture. I've even seen narcissistic, and selfish people break down and become some of the most generous people I've met. It's hard to explain, it really is but what I, and others feel, it isn't fake. I'm getting excited typing this, so I apologize if this seems rushed or crazed.

Ah yes the God drug. I seen science explain it. When you do something religious, some brains release drugs into its system. I heard this years ago, but its there. Its tied to the genes that make people believe in God.

Its not god you are experience, its your brain drugging itself. Not only that, its the psychological effect of being in a mass of people.

I THINK its this after a quick search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

If not, I am sure someone will point you and me in the right direction.

The AIDS epidemic in Africa (Contraception).
Abortion.
Homosexuality.
And many more...

These are just a few of the reasons why it's "okay" to bash Christianity.

blaza:
So I've noticed this site has it's fair share of Atheist.. Especially some who take every chance to bash Christianty and they get away with it. Being Christian myself I always wonder why is this ok? It's a double standard. Especially when Atheist exhibit the close minded attitude they claim to hate. "All religion should be destroyed!"

"Um.. There's a difference between God and religion, true Christians and religious Christians"

"NO! RELGION IS TERRIBLE AND GOD DOESN'T EXIST YOU BACKWARDS INBRED REDNECK!"

That's the thing I'm talking about. Of course some religious Christians are idiots like boy dotting Oreos and the Westboro Baptist Church, but all of Christianity shouldn't be judged on those. It'd be the same if I claimed all atheist are condencending pricks who attach Christianity at every turn and refuse to accept actual Christians aren't religious, because even Jesus himself didn't like religion.

Of course I feel I'm going to be flamed for this, but I seriously want to know why it's ok. It's hypocritical.

Allow me to enlighten you on some history of my country.

Well up to the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1921-2, there had always been a fear among unionists that a Dublin Government would base most of its laws on that the Church dictated. (A hypocritical standpoint since most unionists wanted a privileged position for protestants).

However as far back as the United Irishmen there was a secular/ecumenical core to Irish revolutionaries, many of them (including leaders) belonging to non-Catholic churches. This was also reflected in the GAA, Douglas Hyde wanted to bring together people regardless of religion through Irish sport and culture. As well as this Sinn Fein was the first political party to admit women as full members, Countess Marcevitz was among the first female MP's to be elected.

Then as time went on, the church gained more and more influence in Irish Politics and organizations, during the Irish War of Independace and Civil War the more republican members of the IRA took on a sectarian stance against protestants (Though an extreme stance, it shows the sentiment that been built up).

When the Irish Free State was started, it was the most Liberal state at the time, full women's rights, proportional representation and fully secular to prevent sectarian violence. But then Fianna Fail set about undoing a lot of that. When they were elected in the early 1930's the implemented changes that restricted social rights to what the church wanted in exchange for religious endorsement of the church. Banning, for example, divorce, contraception, abortion, pornography as well as encouraging the censoring of many books and films (We had the one of the worst and most narrow minded censor board in history). In addition the Church largely controlled the State's hospitals, schools and remained the largest provider of many other social services. They used their power to repress any criticism or insubordination of church doctrine and of the theocratic system they had set up.

They banned women from having jobs if they married, stating their ideal place was in the kitchen. (No, seriously)

It took 50-60 years to undo most of it, and the cultural wastage they caused remains.

Here is a quick list of what happened throughout my time in public secondary education, Mass, prayer, sitting watching the choir, being told how sex before marriage and abortion is wrong using clips from Passion of The Christ, my brother almost being expelled for having long hair.

I never had a choice on participation in the sacraments.

Tell me, when did an Atheist do anything to this degree? Why is it a double standard for calling out the Abrahamic Religions for the damage they have caused over their existence?

blaza:
So I've noticed this site has it's fair share of Atheist.. Especially some who take every chance to bash Christianty and they get away with it. Being Christian myself I always wonder why is this ok? It's a double standard. Especially when Atheist exhibit the close minded attitude they claim to hate. "All religion should be destroyed!"

"Um.. There's a difference between God and religion, true Christians and religious Christians"

"NO! RELGION IS TERRIBLE AND GOD DOESN'T EXIST YOU BACKWARDS INBRED REDNECK!"

That's the thing I'm talking about. Of course some religious Christians are idiots like boy dotting Oreos and the Westboro Baptist Church, but all of Christianity shouldn't be judged on those. It'd be the same if I claimed all atheist are condencending pricks who attach Christianity at every turn and refuse to accept actual Christians aren't religious, because even Jesus himself didn't like religion.

Of course I feel I'm going to be flamed for this, but I seriously want to know why it's ok. It's hypocritical.

Just to clear a few things on this subject, since it's not the first time it came up:

"Bashing" of any kind is not really allowed here. That said, we can't see everything, so some things might be missed. If you think we missed something, report it, we'll take a look.

That said, "bashing" isn't expressing dislike, even if extreme, towards something, especially on a topic about said subject. "Bashing" would be going out of your way to needlessly attack, insult and/or demean something.

For example, if you make a topic asking people what they think about religion, and someone answers with "it's a horrible thing, and the cause of everything that's wrong with the world", that's a valid opinion, however distasteful you might find it. If, on the other hand, someone posts something along the lines of "it's shitty, and all religious people are retards! fuck you!" or "It's bad, and you're a horrible person for being religious!", then that is not ok. Using your own example, the "religion is terrible and god doesn't exist" part could be perfectly acceptable, if it was indeed relevant to the topic at hand. The "backwards inbred redneck" comment, on the other hand, would never be deemed acceptable.

The key is whether someone is expressing their opinion in the topic created, which is kinda the point, however disagreeable that opinion might look to you, or going out of their way to attack something.

If you're asking why you find more negative opinions towards religions than towards atheism on this website... Well, I'd hazard that would be because most people are atheists? I have no hard data on this, so no idea, but it seems like the most plausible, at least. Occam's Razor and all. You find more negative opinions towards Christianity here because there are more negative opinions to find. That can't really be helped.

Hope that mind things clear.

And on the subject of making things clear, I gotta ask:

blaza:
and refuse to accept actual Christians aren't religious, because even Jesus himself didn't like religion.

My brain just exploded on this one. I mean... what? Religion isn't religious? Please elaborate in what fashion can religious people not be religious... By definition, even.

This seems pretty straight forward here: Christianity is a religion, by definition. Christians are people who follow Christianity, a religion, ergo, they're religious. That's pretty much the exact definition. That's literally what the word means. What am I missing?

I read in the local papers a couple of weeks ago that the municipality I live in wanted to stop funding all the church towers in their district. Every village, no matter how small, has at least one of those things, and it is costing the local government quite a lot without getting anything in return.
But it was overturned because of the Christian Union. They want churches, yet everybody has to pay for it. The same does not apply to synagogues or mosques. I think that is wrong.

In Kapelle, a gigantic, overbloated and decadent church was build for the reformed denomination; a fringe group. Where did they get the money? Why did they spend it on such a monstrosity? Couldn't they use the money to take their towers from the governments hands?
I am, however, happy to say that the church I am talking about has not one, but three lightning rods.
I think that is saying something.

These are just some very small, very local issues that demonstrate that Christianity has a tremendous advantage over atheists and other religions in the western world. You are not being oppressed; you are the oppressors. Get it in your skull: This is you. You lot do things like this and get away with it, because.

And another thing, concerning Blaza's reason why he believes: (@ Blaza:) Don't you think those deluded people you write off as mad "feel" that their delusions are just as real as you feel about yours?
To feel that something is true is the worst argument I have ever heard. A family member of mine got in a psychosis, he felled that the Illuminati were a real force in the world, he could just feel it, you know? And the psychiatric hospital we send him to; he just knew it was a death camp.
His reality was just as valid as yours, it had the same type of evidence, in the exact same amount.

But let's take it a step further, how about all the other religions in the world? There are a lot of them, and each and every one of them has people like you who just feel that their gods are real.
Hell, there are people who believe with all their heart that Christ has returned to earth in the form of his Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie. Do you believe Rasta Fari was Christ? How can you tell? How can you tell anything is real if all you need is to feel it's real?

Helmholtz Watson:
Are you kidding me? Did you really just type that antisemitic rant? Unbelievable, completely unbelievable and completely uncalled for. I never used curse words towards you in this thread, nor did I direct hate speech towards you in any way.

Your hate speech aside...
Fist off its called Judaism, not Jewish. Second part of being persecuted was being murdered, or have you never heard of the holocaust?

Weren't you the guy who posted IRA rebel songs awhile back? Yeah, you get no moral high ground for that strawman to even be valid.

blaza:
"NO! RELGION IS TERRIBLE AND GOD DOESN'T EXIST YOU BACKWARDS INBRED REDNECK!"
That's the thing I'm talking about. Of course some religious Christians are idiots like boy dotting Oreos and the Westboro Baptist Church, but all of Christianity shouldn't be judged on those.

Why not? It's the extremists and the literalists who have the teachings behind them. As much as I'd like to see a statement like the Old Law being invalidated holding true, it doesn't because it's based on a far fetched interpretation of a single word alledgedly spoken by Jesus, just after he said the Old Law was still to remain fully in effect. It's biblically indefensible to not enforce the Old Law.

Also you're of course free to not subscribe to such ideas if you don't like the label applied to them.

And that's the difference between the bashing of atheists done in for example your posts and well, and the criticism of religions: Criticising religions is done with argument and open judgements people can include or exclude themselves from as they like. Bashing atheists is done without any justification and is a closed judgement that applies to everyone regardless of who they are and what they think.

blaza:
It'd be the same if I claimed all atheist are condencending pricks who attach Christianity at every turn and refuse to accept actual Christians aren't religious

We have a topic that claims something like that about weekly.

Although, actually I think we went for 8 or 9 days between the last one and this topic.

I'm neither Christian nor Atheist and, excluding extremists on either side, I do think it is pretty hypocritical. Then again, here there's the demographic issues (predominantly non-religious from what I've seen), and elsewhere there's also the case that religious extremists do tend to make waves for some pretty ugly things which kinda paves the way for hate to be channelled back towards them.

Damien Granz:

You want a better example? Imagine if I told you imps personally cause your television to work, and are the sole and only real motivating factor behind it. You can point out the electrical schematic of your TV, so I ask you, can you prove how electric works. You can point out atomic theory, so I'll ask you to prove how quantum physics works. Eventually you'll fall into some trap of SOMETHING you don't know 100% because science is an ongoing process and not a closed book, and then I'll go "Ah hah, you don't know this! There for it must be Imps!"

It's a terrible type of argument.

The god of the gaps is also a terrible argument because the god of the gaps only ever shrinks.

Ultratwinkie:

Ah yes the God drug. I seen science explain it. When you do something religious, some brains release drugs into its system. I heard this years ago, but its there. Its tied to the genes that make people believe in God.

Its not god you are experience, its your brain drugging itself. Not only that, its the psychological effect of being in a mass of people.

I THINK its this after a quick search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

If not, I am sure someone will point you and me in the right direction.

Come on guys, as far as I've seen they're not hurting or oppressing anyone as far as I've seen. Yes we know how it works, but there's a time and a place... and a subpopulation :\

It all comes down to two things:

The vocal anti-Christians post more prolifically than the vocal pro-Christians, and

the moderators of this site support an anti-Christian bias with their choices in what to moderate.

And as a result, it's acceptable to bash Christians here.

In other environments these things may be different. In many communities in the US for example, the authorities might have an unspoken alliance with vocal Christian bullies. In neither case is it right, but unfortunately it's all too common when people are unwilling to take a critical look at their own behavior and are willing to do harm to others in order to feel good about their own group.

blaza:
Also you do have a point, being really nothing to bash. I just find it rather infuriating that many atheists get away with being dicks whilst riding on their high horse of not believing in God and if a Christian even dares to say they're Christian gets crap for it. An example is the whole Tim Teabow thing. You can find many comments and such as him being "Full of ****" because of it. I just want to know why this is so acceptable, except in the Bible Belt of the U.S.

I don't know how many people bashed Tebow purely because he prayed on the pitch, but there are certainly several reasons for criticising the guy for what he did that strike me as legitimate:

1. He has the usual naivete of someone who prays for a parking space and gets one, or prays to find their keys and finds them, and thinks that God did it especially for him. To those people not so utterly wrapped up in their own lives who are aware that things like world hunger, disease etc exist, it's a bit of a pisser to be reminded that there are people who still genuinely believe God will answer prayer but that the god in question apparently couldn't give two shits about starving children in Africa because he was too busy watching the game.

2. I think you could be genuinely pissed off if you were also a praying player, because a lot of players pray in the changing rooms before a match, instead of showboating during the match (and arguably there's a Biblical indictment of this also).

So no, it's not simply bashing Christians for the sake of it or for the lolz.

blaza:
I was hoping the dialog thing would be seen as an exaggeration really, not to be taken seriously. But I really don't believe it hinders our judgement, but rather sets our mind free.

No, if you're going to complain in such general terms, actual examples would be great. As with the Tebow thing, there may have been an actual argument present in the "bashing" that you might have missed.

Also I hate religion as well, it's man made crap. I refer to spiritual Christianty when I state Christianty. There's a difference.

Ah, I remember this from my church days. "Christianity isn't a religion it's a relationship". Pure semantic one-up-manship, with a large helping of No True Scotsman fallacy on the side.

Jesus hated religion for one. He never liked church folk because they where hypocrites, and liars.

Except he read in the temple, taught in the temple, befriended Nicodemus etc...

So he had a drunk (Peter) an assassin (Judas) a theif (Mathew) etc. as disciples instead of the priests. Science doesn't disprove God, it shows how amazing and lovingly he crafted us and our universe.

Yeah, good one.

What many people neglect to recognize is you never get Christ like Christians on the news. I've met poor people who know God who are content on minimum wage and rich people who own half of my town be miserable as slaves because they are never content. They always want more.

I'll give you this one. No news is good news, if you see what I mean.

That said, I think it's as simplistic to simply reduce Christian fuckwittery to WBC and those that whined over the rainbow Oreo. I really do wish Christian dickishness was that limited, however it is not.

blaza:

The thing is God doesn't just straight up tell people to murder other people. Of course he was pretty murderous in the Old Testament but that was what Jesus died for so we wouldn't have to be killed. I kinda do get to disassociate myself from a lunatic who murdered people whilst flying a Christian banner, he wasn't Christian, he was trying to get sympathy by saying "I did it for God people!" It's the same as me burning a church down, then raping everyone that survived and claimed I was Atheist. Same concept.

Woah, steady on there. You're making a definite statement that these people truly don't believe in God. How do you know what? Maybe they really do believe and they're simply doing what they think is right?

The other really ironic thing here is that you are behaving in exactly the same way as the extremist Christians. You are looking at someone's else's expression of what it means to be a Christian, and saying "no, that isn't it. They must be faking it". The only difference is thankfully your personal interpretations of the Bible are moderate rather than extremist.

So from our point of view, there is not so much of a difference between you and the crazies as you might think.

It's not about believing. Christianity centers around love for your fellow man and God. The "Not a true Scotsmen" argument isn't being used as "Oh I don't agree with what he's doing so he has no relationship to me." It's being used as "Crazy people using God for their own agenda." Christianity centers around love, not hate. It's people that screw up the image, not Christianity in itself.

Except "crazy people using God for their own agenda" IS the no true scotsman fallacy. Again, you do not know for sure whether they really believe it or not. It is entirely possible that they could.

blaza:
If I saw some people who do crazy crap I'd count them crazy, and I'd most certainly disassociate them with the ones who aren't and assume they are a minority. People love to see crazy Christians and generalize all are like that. Double standard right there.

Some do, not all do, and again, you made the same generalisation in return when describing that.

And again, some people may just not see that much of a difference. I see a lot of people using a profoundly unreliable book and their own personal experiences and bias to justify a whole bunch of wildly varying stances, ignoring the bits that don't, and damning every other group as not being proper Christians.

I'm kinda gonna be in opposition to that if only because it's evidently so profoundly unreliable a way to run your life.

blaza:
Timothy 1:12 If you read the other parts of the verse that was for simply preaching, which at the time was a male dominated job.

So? Surely the time was right to open the job up by divine command?

1st Samuel 15:3 That was Old Testament therefore irrelevant because indeed God did kill a lot of people at the time because Jesus hadn't died for our sins yet.

Ha! It is hardly irrelevant. The point is that doing a good act in the future doesn't change the fact that you're responsible for a horrific act in the past. We wouldn't treat anyone this way in real life, let's not make an exception for deities either.

Genesis 22:2 This was, as you stated, a test. God wanted to see how much Abraham loved him. Abraham loved him more than his son, so God stopped him from sacrificing his own son. Merely a test.

"Merely" a test that involved severe mental torment and could have gone wrong.

Also....an omniscient deity needs to ACTUALLY ISSUE THE TEST in order to know the outcome? Riiiiiight.

1st Peter 2:18 This is meant to just make the best out of what God gives you. He may have a reason for you to be a slave at that time, so be the best freaking slave you can be and you'll eventually become more than a slave. Like Job. He was imprisoned, so he was a good prisoner until he became a guard, then the warden, then eventually King.

Joseph. There's also no indication given that Potiphar's wife was doing something RIGHT by getting him thrown in jail under false pretences.

Still, nothing I see that makes the Bible some book of horrid nightmares it's sometimes claimed to be.

You're not looking hard enough then, or are too emotionally invested in your beliefs to see.

blaza:

Skeleon:

Also, last but not least, I noticed you basically snuck a "No True Scotsman" in there. See, that is annoying. When a Christian, say, murders somebody, plenty of people will jump up and say "not a true Christian". Why do you get to decide that? You can certainly say "I disassociate myself from this guy, I hold different, better values than he does" or whatever and you can isolate yourself in a subgroup (say, you're a moderate Christian and he is a violent fundamentalist Christian) but you don't get to disassociate yourself from him by simply saying "he never was a true Christian to begin with". That's a fallacy.

The thing is God doesn't just straight up tell people to murder other people. Of course he was pretty murderous in the Old Testament but that was what Jesus died for so we wouldn't have to be killed. I kinda do get to disassociate myself from a lunatic who murdered people whilst flying a Christian banner, he wasn't Christian, he was trying to get sympathy by saying "I did it for God people!" It's the same as me burning a church down, then raping everyone that survived and claimed I was Atheist. Same concept.

I didn't realise killing people disqualified you from being a Christian.

It's OK to bash both (in a manner of speaking) but it's harder to bash atheism without saying something incredibly stupid.

Basically, there's this thing called 'reality', and our statements can be consistent with it or inconsistent with it. Sometimes we don't know whether our statements are consistent with it, but we can sometimes, if we are so inclined, figure out whether an idea is well-founded or ill-founded. It would be astonishing if the 'Christian God' idea were not of the latter variety, with centuries of organized philosophy arguing in the affirmative having failed to make a persuasive case. The best that has been come up with on 'His' behalf are arguments for Deism, and even they are pretty awful.

As a Christian, I don't have a problem with atheists expressing their views. Sometimes the debate can be interesting. However, my problem rest with those atheists who say things like, "Line up and shoot all the Christians," or, "Burn the churches," and whatnot. The militant, openly hostile atheism that is sometimes found here (and elsewhere) is sickening. How can anyone actually be proud or supportive of that way of thinking? It is no better than the ultra hardline Christians that kill abortions doctors. Can they not see that they are thinking the same way?

There is really no justification for it.

Katatori-kun:

the moderators of this site support an anti-Christian bias with their choices in what to moderate.

Excuse me, but I'm calling bullshit on this. Sure, there are more atheists, but the mods definitely don't seem to have a clear bias.

tsb247:
As a Christian, I don't have a problem with atheists expressing their views. Sometimes the debate can be interesting. However, my problem rest with those atheists who say things like, "Line up and shoot all the Christians," or, "Burn the churches," and whatnot. The militant, openly hostile atheism that is sometimes found here (and elsewhere) is sickening. How can anyone actually be proud or supportive of that way of thinking? It is no better than the ultra hardline Christians that kill abortions doctors. Can they not see that they are thinking the same way?

There is really no justification for it.

There are atheists here saying line up and shoot the Christians? Examples please.

This double standard exists because a majority of the people on these forums are atheist. In real life, they are probably a minority wherever they happen to live. On the internet, however, they can meet up and become a majority. Because they are now the majority, they can freely bash religious people on the internet like how religious people bash them in real life.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Oirish_Martin:

tsb247:
As a Christian, I don't have a problem with atheists expressing their views. Sometimes the debate can be interesting. However, my problem rest with those atheists who say things like, "Line up and shoot all the Christians," or, "Burn the churches," and whatnot. The militant, openly hostile atheism that is sometimes found here (and elsewhere) is sickening. How can anyone actually be proud or supportive of that way of thinking? It is no better than the ultra hardline Christians that kill abortions doctors. Can they not see that they are thinking the same way?

There is really no justification for it.

There are atheists here saying line up and shoot the Christians? Examples please.

I did not mean to imply that there are people on these forums saying that Christians should be killed, etc. That would incur the wrath the almighty ban hammer at some point. The sad thing is that I have met people who say things like that here in the real world.

However, the militant, openly hostile attitude is often found here, and that saddens me. I have friends here in the real world that are atheists, and we get along just fine, so I guess I just don't get it.

Perhaps I should have indicated the start of a new paragraph.

blaza:

Also you do have a point, being really nothing to bash. I just find it rather infuriating that many atheists get away with being dicks whilst riding on their high horse of not believing in God and if a Christian even dares to say they're Christian gets crap for it. An example is the whole Tim Teabow thing. You can find many comments and such as him being "Full of ****" because of it. I just want to know why this is so acceptable, except in the Bible Belt of the U.S.

It's like any issue that divides people. Go to a conservative area and try talking about being a liberal socialist and you'll get heckled like crazy while someone is a radically right winger might get off a bit easier. When people have a similar viewpoint their less likely to call you out on your BS.

Not to say we'll let arseholes away with anything, overstep the mark and you'll generally get sorted from both sides.

If you're going off responses on sites like the escapist it's not surprising anyway. Most people here are younger, more liberal and more likely to be religious than the whole population. Forums generally have a very narrow demographic so don't be surprised if some views seem more prevalent on them.

blaza:
Of course some religious Christians are idiots like boy dotting Oreos and the Westboro Baptist Church, but all of Christianity shouldn't be judged on those.

I do not judge religions on the idiots. There are idiots in every camp no matter the belief or the lack of it. I judge on religious claims for which there are not a shred of evidence.

You want to be taken seriously, but you do not see why you should present the criteria for this. This is how it works. Back up your claims, if not, do not expect any respect.

Christianity is something, an ideology with shared history and a set of beliefs.

Atheism is absolutely anything that isn't theistic, from communism to secular humanism. Just like its counterpart - not Christianity, but Theism - is absolutely anything that isn't atheistic.

Atheism has no ethical/ideological meaning, it's entire meaning is: "Theistic gods don't exist". Who would say the same for Christianity?

tsb247:

Oirish_Martin:

tsb247:
As a Christian, I don't have a problem with atheists expressing their views. Sometimes the debate can be interesting. However, my problem rest with those atheists who say things like, "Line up and shoot all the Christians," or, "Burn the churches," and whatnot. The militant, openly hostile atheism that is sometimes found here (and elsewhere) is sickening. How can anyone actually be proud or supportive of that way of thinking? It is no better than the ultra hardline Christians that kill abortions doctors. Can they not see that they are thinking the same way?

There is really no justification for it.

There are atheists here saying line up and shoot the Christians? Examples please.

I did not mean to imply that there are people on these forums saying that Christians should be killed, etc. That would incur the wrath the almighty ban hammer at some point. The sad thing is that I have met people who say things like that here in the real world.

However, the militant, openly hostile attitude is often found here, and that saddens me. I have friends here in the real world that are atheists, and we get along just fine, so I guess I just don't get it.

Perhaps I should have indicated the start of a new paragraph.

I agree. But there's still a false equivalency here - you're comparing words to actions that resulted in people being killed. As Damien Granz said earlier - even if people are ragging on theism, at worst all you're getting slung your way is words. Atheists tend to react rather badly to complaint threads like this because they're frequently based on such false equivalencies.

As for online vs offline, it's a different environment. Everyday life is not a no-holds barred forum for discussion.

It's because Christianity is an easy target and actually have organizations with clear sets of rules with common interpretations. Atheism is much more fluid, doesn't have any organizations or rules (it's literally just the lack of belief in any deity) and isn't as closely tied to Anti-Theism as Christianity is to such frequent topics as homosexuality.

Also, Atheism in general is more vague and doesn't say anything with such certainty as Christianity (or just Theism in general). Many Atheists just say, "I don't believe in God, but I'm not 100% sure that a higher power in any form doesn't exist." Many Christians/Theists say, "I'm 100% certain that God exists, which is why I spend so much time praying to him in church and pretty much basing my entire life around him." Basically, Atheism seems much more logical, and doesn't have a book that was used to prosecute and oppress women and other minorities throughout history like Christianity. Basically, Atheism doesn't have any substantiated power on the state. Christianity does, which is why stuff like gay marriage is still illegal in so many areas.

It's much easier to explain why you don't believe in God than why you do believe in God, without sounding like a crazy person. No offence, but saying, "I can feel his presence" does make you sound as crazy as a certain breed of pot-smoking hippies. I don't want to make this admittedly poor comparison, but that's like a murderer saying, "There was a voice in my head that told me to kill this woman" and using it to justify why he did it. And that's a thing: "I can feel his presence" being a reason that shapes your entire outlook on life can be quite, well, isolating and even frightening to modern-day people that tend to align themselves more with the laws of science and rational thought. Essentially, believing in something that you have no proof or evidence of - like God, or unicorns, or dragons, or the Tooth Fairy - is irrational and goes against all the logic, common sense and education that we, as an intelligent species, are meant to go by. Nor do I understand the "phenomenon" of "finding God". I thought, if you now believe in him, he should've been there all along. Did you just hit rock bottom and think, "Fuck it, rather than seek out therapy for my depression, I'm just going to start believing in a sky fairy and that'll cheer me up?" Just...why?

It's pretty hard to bash an Anti-Theist Atheist who says, "I think religion's harmful to society" when they have substantial events throughout history to support their opinion, as opposed to a Christian who says, "I think men having sex with other men is wrong" when their only real arguments are "God said so" and "it's icky". The minority of "good" Christians that just get on with their life and don't inherently oppose shit for flimsy reasons simply aren't speaking up to drown out the fundamentalist crazies that have the compulsion to get up on their podium and talk like they've just stepped out of a time machine.

If you don't want to be associated with these backwards discriminators, then you've got to get yourselves in the public eye and make your case. Don't back down whenever some idiot brings up a Bible verse of his own interpretation. You are a majority, and you're not oppressed, so stop trying to act like you are, because no-one's going to listen if you take the victimized attitude. Oh, and try to talk about Jesus less, because that just pisses everyone off. It doesn't help your point if you continuously use a group of people from hundreds or whatever years ago as your role models.

Ninjamedic:

Helmholtz Watson:
Are you kidding me? Did you really just type that antisemitic rant? Unbelievable, completely unbelievable and completely uncalled for. I never used curse words towards you in this thread, nor did I direct hate speech towards you in any way.

Your hate speech aside...
Fist off its called Judaism, not Jewish. Second part of being persecuted was being murdered, or have you never heard of the holocaust?

Weren't you the guy who posted IRA rebel songs awhile back? Yeah, you get no moral high ground for that strawman to even be valid.

It was related to the topic that was being discussed, I never advocated terrorism. Thanks for the character attack though.

blaza:
"Have a real relationship with god"

Its a little complicated for me. I like your post. Sure theres a "no true scottsman" in there but it isnt that bad. Anything calling for tolerance is good. However i find pure zero dogma ZERO documents deism or bahism (spelling bleh) to be the only religions i have NO issue with. The thing that really ruffles my feather is this:

Im an atheist. You probably think im going to hell :/ Or at least not heaven. Many many people do, so even if you dont keep reading. I think youre a nice person from what you wrote. Hell if i ever met you maybe Id buy you a beer and we could talk. Maybe youd do the same for me. But at the end of the line its this. You can look me in the eye and be nice to me and know i will suffer an eternal torment of roiling agony where every moment is a billion deaths and my eyes will boil in their sockets ect and somehow rationalise that i deserve it. I mean sure maybe you dont think i do because ive been nice to you. But you unconditionally love the being thats going to condemn me for this. Just because he couldnt jugde me on character. Youre going to love him and take his side against mine and agree i deserve torture. So no offence, ill STILL have a beer with you. But my feelings are always a little hurt that any christian friend i have loves the being that they think will make me suffer eternally. And that my suffering is warranted. Because if it wasnt they wouldnt love God. It ruffles my feathers is all.

It makes any kindness feel hollow. Forced. Why are they nice to me? By their own beliefs i deserve a billion infinite agonies forever in every ounce of my being. I deserve it because god says i do. Why waste time with me? What good is a 60 year run of kindness when they know the infinite horror will eclipse it utterly. Ill be participating in a SAW movie orchistrated by God and they seemingly take no issue. I cant say i particularly look forward to it if true.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked