Atheists attack religion* because they are ignorant

[Dantedeven]

There are a lot of people in this world. The people you refer to i knew in real life and they were trolling. Back when i was atheist, I knew of one goth troll that stirred up violent debates with religious people on youtube and such, harrassing, attacking. Really foul. I watched him do this and I found his actions very saddening actually. When we did have fun trolling some people on the internet in the past, mostly in online games, or cam sites. But these religious comment trolls i never got into myself.

He was getting out of hand really. And he was a devoted atheist, and one day he said to me: "What if all these things are wrong and we do get judged for our actions" i said: "And then what, would you go to hell or heaven?" He said: "I am on a highway to hell now definately, i need to change myself." And even though he never believed in God, he did change. Left Goth clothes behind etc. and was a 'better' person.

 

[gnostic]

I consider it another meaningless stereo typing attack on atheism. I actually consider many atheists well educated and very knowledgeable about religion.

Most atheists were former theists and formerly religious.

Most of them understand the religions they have left behind and well-versed in scriptures and teachings; they simply just don’t believe any more.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I was trying to find some good atheist arguments on the internet the other day: the only books I can see in libraries (e.g. Dawkins) are journalistic rubbish. I actually found a lot of very good arguments, but every one was an argument that proved that some particular claim of some particular monotheists was false!

As Gnostic said, they understand the religion in which they were raised and can see its illogicalities. But its usually the only religion they know.

Sometimes they only know one sect of their former religion. The argument that the existence of suffering is incompatible with a good, omnipotent creator is very effective against many versions of Christianity. But what if you are the sort of Protestant who defines "good" as "whatever the creator wants"? What if you are an adherent of process theology, who believes that the creator is not omnipotent? And what if you're an adherent of Shinto, who doesn't think there was a creator?

Atheists generally are ignorant, but not quite in the way that the OP probably meant.

 

[JustWondering]

I don't see this. Why couldn't there be multiple maximally mighty beings?

Apparently, simply because he says so. Isn't that a convincing argument?

 

[JustWondering]

so.....if I can't rub it in your face.....it's not real?

and here you are asking for such evidence as if doing so is a trump card

not......

Would you be willing to believe me, simply on my word alone if I started making extraordinary claims about supernatural beings that only I could see? I very much doubt you would, you would probably ask me to back up my claims with something before actually believing anything. That would be the rational stance for you to take. However, you expect people to blindly except your extraordinary claims simply on your word alone. If more theists would be honest and just say that they don't have any good arguments or any evidence for their beliefs I'd have more respect for religion in general. If only for the fact that it's adherents were honest people. In reality however, I see theists bending over backwards twisting logic to fit ancient myths if not being straight out dishonest in their attempts to promote/defend their beloved unsupported supernatural belief systems.

 

[outlawState]

Most atheists were former theists and formerly religious.

Most of them understand the religions they have left behind and well-versed in scriptures and teachings; they simply just don’t believe any more.

Quite the opposite actually. Most persons who become atheists do not understand the religions that they have left. They might understand them on a superficial, outward level, but leave too much to the priests and externalities. The superficial does not satisfy and they cannot penetrate it to get to the substance. This is especially true in Catholicism, where so many ex-Catholics have a view of religion that is entirely legalistic.

 

[JustWondering]

Quite the opposite actually. Most persons who become atheists do not understand the religions that they have left. They might understand them on a superficial, outward level, but leave too much to the priests and externalities. The superficial does not satisfy and they cannot penetrate it to get to the substance. This is especially true in Catholicism, where so many ex-Catholics have a view of religion that is entirely legalistic.

So if someone doesn't believe as you do you smear them for being lazy and/or dense? Yea, why would someone leave religion when it's full of supportive and completely non-judgmental people?

 

[outlawState]

So if someone doesn't believe as you do you smear them for being lazy and/or dense? Yea, why would someone leave religion when it's full of supportive and completely non-judgmental people?

Smear? I rank myself in exactly this category of person, as I had the same experience with Anglicanism. I observed the externalities, I became acquainted with its superficialities but they did not satisfy, and I lost interest. It was only later I re-discovered a completely different kind of internal Christianity.

As for being lazy and dense. Yes I would count myself as that, but then the bible also assumes it too of most "sinners" who neglect their salvation. It is why Christ came, because mankind is too dense and lazy to save himself.

Judgementalism is found in some areas to be sure, but that is a facet of the prevalance of "externalities." All religion must concentrate on the fundamentals. That is why primitive methodism arose in the 18th century, because anglicanism was too busy with externals to save people properly.

 

[JustWondering]

Smear? I rank myself in exactly this category of person, as I had the same experience with Anglicanism. I observed the externalities, I became acquainted with its superficialities but they did not satisfy, and I lost interest. It was only later I re-discovered a completely different kind of internal Christianity.

As for being lazy and dense. Yes I would count myself as that, but then the bible also assumes it too of most "sinners" who neglect their salvation. It is why Christ came, because mankind is too dense and lazy to save himself.

Judgementalism is found in some areas to be sure, but that is a facet of the prevalance of "externalities." All religion must concentrate on the fundamentals. That is why primitive methodism arose in the 18th century, because anglicanism was too busy with externals to save people properly.

I have seen/heard other theists pulling the "they weren't true Christians/they like sin more then religion because they're bad people" argument to blow off the possibility that people left religion for legitimate reasons before. One of the main reasons I left Christianity was that it's claims don't mesh with reality. Another reason is the ridiculous idea of sin and salvation. Sin is simply disobeying god and not groveling at his feet. It simply makes the biblical god look like a tyrant. There is no spiritual or noble lesson in "mindlessly obey authority or else!". Unfortunately, the main take away from the bible is just that, mindlessly obey authority or else!

 

[outlawState]

I have seen/heard other theists pulling the "they weren't true Christians/they like sin more then religion because they're bad people" argument to blow off the possibility that people left religion for legitimate reasons before.

There may be legitimate reasons to leave a church, or a denomination, but leaving a religion is somewhat different. When you leave a religion, you leave "all" churches. That is a rather different and far more radical concept.

One of the main reasons I left Christianity was that it's claims don't mesh with reality.

I rather disagree. I think that its claims do mesh with reality. Are you see reality properly?

Another reason is the ridiculous idea of sin and salvation. Sin is simply disobeying god and not groveling at his feet. It simply makes the biblical god look like a tyrant.

Ridiculous? Do you not even have a conscience? Do you disbelieve in the difference between right and wrong? Do you not have any fear that bad things happen to bad people, or if they don't it is because God is longsuffering with them not willing to destroy them immediately?

There is no spiritual or noble lesson in "mindlessly obey authority or else!". Unfortunately, the main take away from the bible is just that, mindlessly obey authority or else!

The authority that the bible inculcates is not the authority of mere men but the authority of your creator. I think your creator has a somewhat higher claim to authority than another human being.

 

[gnostic]

Quite the opposite actually. Most persons who become atheists do not understand the religions that they have left. They might understand them on a superficial, outward level, but leave too much to the priests and externalities. The superficial does not satisfy and they cannot penetrate it to get to the substance. This is especially true in Catholicism, where so many ex-Catholics have a view of religion that is entirely legalistic.

Sorry but belief (including faith) and knowing or understanding are not the same things.

You are genealising that atheists, as in ex-theists, being ignorant. But how do you know.

Belief don't mean intelligence or being logical or rational. Belief don't require intelligence. The only thing belief required is conviction, thus FAITH.

FAITH is the exact opposite of intelligence.

I have met a lot of theists here, some are indeed, very intelligent than others, but not all of them are very bright. Most of them (the not so bright ones) often resort all sort of logical fallacies (circular reasoning, confirmation bias, argument from ignorance, appeal to authority, no truth Scotsman, wishful thinking, god of the gap, etc) and I find those who called labelled themselves "creationists" to be far from honest.

To give you an example. I find that many of the Christians who believe in the virgin birth, miraculous as they may be, would often believe in the (anonymous) author to the Matthew gospel, of Isaiah's sign. (sources: Matthew 1:22-23 cf Isaiah 7:14)

I had recent argument with Deeje on this matter, in another thread.

For me, I used to believe in this sign being a prophecy of Jesus' virgin birth, but 20 years after I have 1st read these verses time, I have reexamine it, and found the gospel's claim to be untrue.

If you read only Matthew's verses by itself, then sure, Christians will think that it is true. But if you go back and re-read the entire chapter of Isaiah 7, you would see that the gospel writer have left something out, the other things it say about the child Immanuel, and none of it had anything to do with the virgin birth or with the messiah.

The sign was given to Ahaz, by Isaiah, as a sign when the war with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram will end with Assyria's intervention. The Assyrian intervention will occur WHEN the boy (Immanuel) reach a certain age.

So clearly the sign have to do with the war in the 8th century BCE, and nothing to with virgin birth and the messiah.

If Christians were honest people, then they should read the WHOLE CHAPTER, and not just as the gospel author did in Matthew 1:22-23.

The gospel author took Isaiah's sign out-of-context, because he had ignored the 3 crucial verses that followed 7:14, relating to Immanuel:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

The "child" in 7:16 and "he" in 7:15 are all Immanuel.

Since Jesus didn't fulfill any of the sign in verses 15, 16 and 17, then Jesus isn't Immanuel.

The sign of the event is not the birth of boy named Immanuel; no, the EVENT of the sign is when the King of Assyria take the wealth (spoils of war) from the lands (thus Israel and Aram) of the two kings (Pekah and Rezin), WHEN Immanuel reach the age of being able to eat curds and honey, and the age when he know the differences between good and evil. Clearly, this isn't Jesus.

The sign of Immanuel relating to the war (and to Assyria), is further confirmed when he mentioned again in Isaiah 8:1-10, in verse 8 "O Immanuel" and in verse 10 "God is with us".

5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

9 Band together, you peoples, and be dismayed;
listen, all you far countries;
gird yourselves and be dismayed;
gird yourselves and be dismayed!
10 Take counsel together, but it shall be brought to naught;
speak a word, but it will not stand,
for God is with us.

It is apparent, that the sign 7:14-17 and 8:3-4, are similar, which would indicate that Immanuel of Isaiah 7 is really Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. So the al-mah "the young woman" in 7:14 is actually Isaiah's unnamed wife - "the prophetess" of 8:3.

8 Then the Lord said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” 2 and have it attested for me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

If Christians were truly honest, then they should know that the gospel author was cherry-pick Isaiah's sign, and taking the original sign out-of-context.

This is coming from understanding the verses, but a lot of Christians take gospel over what Isaiah 7 & 8 are actually saying, which is cherry-picking what they choose to believe to actually understanding the verses.

The problem is Christians have the tendencies to allow their belief to cloud their judgement when interpreting prophecies or signs in the Old Testament. It is called "biases", not understanding of the holy text.

BTW, I am agnostic, not atheist. In the last 18 years, I have been trying to understand the bible, OT & NT as they are, and have been trying to not use Christian preconception on non-Christian books. The Book of Isaiah isn't a Christian book, so it shouldn't be treated as prophecies of Jesus.

And I think most Jews would agree with my interpretations of Isaiah's sign, even though I am not Jewish.

 

[outlawState]

Sorry but belief (including faith) and knowing or understanding are not the same things.

You are genealising that atheists, as in ex-theists, being ignorant. But how do you know.

Belief don't mean intelligence or being logical or rational. Belief don't require intelligence. The only thing belief required is conviction, thus FAITH.

FAITH is the exact opposite of intelligence.

You err greatly. It is impossible to have large faith without large understanding which requires large intelligence. One can have small faith without either, and that is why people leave religions, and why some religions are tyranical as a substitute for real faith.

I have met a lot of theists here, some are indeed, very intelligent than others, but not all of them are very bright. Most of them (the not so bright ones) often resort all sort of logical fallacies (circular reasoning, confirmation bias, argument from ignorance, appeal to authority, no truth Scotsman, wishful thinking, god of the gap, etc) and I find those who called labelled themselves "creationists" to be far from honest.

A theist is not necessarily a Christian. Many are on the road to faith, but not all have got there. Along the road many fallacies will be held, but so what. It does not prove the end of faith is unreal.

To give you an example. I find that many of the Christians who believe in the virgin birth, miraculous as they may be, would often believe in the (anonymous) author to the Matthew gospel, of Isaiah's sign. (sources: Matthew 1:22-23 cf Isaiah 7:14)

I had recent argument with Deeje on this matter, in another thread.

For me, I used to believe in this sign being a prophecy of Jesus' virgin birth, but 20 years after I have 1st read these verses time, I have reexamine it, and found the gospel's claim to be untrue.

If you read only Matthew's verses by itself, then sure, Christians will think that it is true. But if you go back and re-read the entire chapter of Isaiah 7, you would see that the gospel writer have left something out, the other things it say about the child Immanuel, and none of it had anything to do with the virgin birth or with the messiah.

The nature of prophecy is that a very large amount of prophecy has an application to the time that it was written in, but also an extended interpretation. The Old Testament is a type of the New. They are very closely related in fact so closely related that when one understands how closely related it would be impossible not to conceive the divine plan. The skill of Jesus was in opening up the Old Testament to read all the prophecies about himself. It requires a high degree of intelligence that Christ alone possessed.

Luke 24:25-27

"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."​

The sign was given to Ahaz, by Isaiah, as a sign when the war with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram will end with Assyria's intervention. The Assyrian intervention will occur WHEN the boy (Immanuel) reach a certain age.

So clearly the sign have to do with the war in the 8th century BCE, and nothing to with virgin birth and the messiah.

If Christians were honest people, then they should read the WHOLE CHAPTER, and not just as the gospel author did in Matthew 1:22-23.

The gospel author took Isaiah's sign out-of-context, because he had ignored the 3 crucial verses that followed 7:14, relating to Immanuel:

The "child" in 7:16 and "he" in 7:15 are all Immanuel.

Since Jesus didn't fulfill any of the sign in verses 15, 16 and 17, then Jesus isn't Immanuel.

Jesus was acknowledged to be the son of God and thus "God with us." Immanuel does not infer the physical presence of God himself but his spirit / favour.

The sign of the event is not the birth of boy named Immanuel; no, the EVENT of the sign is when the King of Assyria take the wealth (spoils of war) from the lands (thus Israel and Aram) of the two kings (Pekah and Rezin), WHEN Immanuel reach the age of being able to eat curds and honey, and the age when he know the differences between good and evil. Clearly, this isn't Jesus.

The sign of Immanuel relating to the war (and to Assyria), is further confirmed when he mentioned again in Isaiah 8:1-10, in verse 8 "O Immanuel" and in verse 10 "God is with us".

It is apparent, that the sign 7:14-17 and 8:3-4, are similar, which would indicate that Immanuel of Isaiah 7 is really Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. So the al-mah "the young woman" in 7:14 is actually Isaiah's unnamed wife - "the prophetess" of 8:3.

"And I went unto the prophetess;" In Is 8;3 does not infer that he lay with her. The Hebrew word "went" means draw near or approach. There is no inference that she was his wife. The fulfilment was in The Holy Spirit approaching Mary.

If Christians were truly honest, then they should know that the gospel author was cherry-pick Isaiah's sign, and taking the original sign out-of-context.

Out of context? No, this is standard prophetical exegesis. You have to know that so much in the OT is prophetical of what is to come, without replicating exactly the facts which the words, or events, immediately relate to.

This is coming from understanding the verses, but a lot of Christians take gospel over what Isaiah 7 & 8 are actually saying, which is cherry-picking what they choose to believe to actually understanding the verses.

The problem is Christians have the tendencies to allow their belief to cloud their judgement when interpreting prophecies or signs in the Old Testament. It is called "biases", not understanding of the holy text.

BTW, I am agnostic, not atheist. In the last 18 years, I have been trying to understand the bible, OT & NT as they are, and have been trying to not use Christian preconception on non-Christian books. The Book of Isaiah isn't a Christian book, so it shouldn't be treated as prophecies of Jesus.

And I think most Jews would agree with my interpretations of Isaiah's sign, even though I am not Jewish.

I might agree with you if Isaiah's sign was the only prophecy of Jesus. But as there are many, even hundreds of prophecies of Jesus distributed over the entire OT, I think you're stretching your own point unintelligently in not taking into account the plan, and the whole pattern of the Old Testament.

 

[gnostic]

The nature of prophecy is that a very large amount of prophecy has an application to the time that it was written in, but also an extended interpretation. The Old Testament is a type of the New. They are very closely related in fact so closely related that when one understands how closely related it would be impossible not to conceive the divine plan. The skill of Jesus was in opening up the Old Testament to read all the prophecies about himself. It requires a high degree of intelligence that Christ alone possessed.

That’s the sort of sorry excuses I have heard before from Christians, trying to justify their religion.

If you really understand prophecies, they don't come in single verse or two, outlawState.

Look at all the prophecies in the Old Testament, they come in half-a-chapter, or a third of a chapter, or in a whole chapter, two or more. Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah are all prophets, and no where do they spit out their respective prophecy in a single verse.

What the anonymous author did in the Gospel of Matthew 1 & 2, regarding to Jesus' birth, are just single verses or in 2 verses.

Anyone can pick a verse from the Old Testament, and change or twist the verse into anything they like, because a single verse can be taken advantage, since they are open to any multiple interpretation.

Prophecies are found in more than one verse.

Concerning the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1 & 2, there are 3 examples:

1. Matthew 1:23 cf Isaiah 7:14;
2. Matthew 2:6 cf Micah 5:2, 4;
3. Matthew 2:18 cf Jeremiah 31:15

These original verses are not prophecies of Jesus or any event relating to Jesus. No, these are Christian NT propaganda.

How about reading the whole sign or prophecy, instead of snippets?

Muslims do exactly the same things, quoting selective verses from either OT or NT, and trying to promote these as prophecies of Muhammad. Just propaganda.

And outlawState. Jesus didn't write the gospel, nor did this Matthew, or whoever the author really is.

No one really know who really wrote each of the 4 gospels, but they were written 2 or 3 generations after Jesus' death.

Jesus certainly didn't quote verses from Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah; no, the author did, whoever he may be.

Jesus was acknowledged to be the son of God and thus "God with us." Immanuel does not infer the physical presence of God himself but his spirit / favour.

And that really mean nothing, since Jesus was never called "Immanuel".

You are conjecturing on a single verse in the gospel.

As I stated in my previous reply, Immanuel is mentioned in connection not only the sign of 7:14-25 (more precisely in 7:14-17), but also in 8:1-10. Both chapters are about the sign about the Judah's war against Israel and Aram, and Assyrian intervention.

Did you not even read Isaiah 8?

8 Then the Lord said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” 2 and have it attested for me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

9 Band together, you peoples, and be dismayed;
listen, all you far countries;
gird yourselves and be dismayed;
gird yourselves and be dismayed!
10 Take counsel together, but it shall be brought to naught;
speak a word, but it will not stand,
for God is with us.

Do you not see it? Immanuel mentioned again Isaiah 8.

Apparently, you don't see it, or don't want to see it.

I might agree with you if Isaiah's sign was the only prophecy of Jesus. But as there are many, even hundreds of prophecies of Jesus distributed over the entire OT, I think you're stretching your own point unintelligently in not taking into account the plan, and the whole pattern of the Old Testament.

This is exactly why I don't Christians seriously anymore, whenever they quote from the Old Testament. You are just as biased as all others, when it concern with this "supposed" prophecy, you cannot see what right in front of them.

This is exactly what I mean, when belief and understanding don't mean the same things. You are letting the NT propaganda to decide for you, without thinking for yourself.

As a former theist (I am now agnostic), I'd say that you cannot trust some theists to read their own scriptures, objectively. You are case in point.

 

[Thief]

Would you be willing to believe me, simply on my word alone if I started making extraordinary claims about supernatural beings that only I could see?

more like.....show your reason....
that you are not so blind

 

[Mock Turtle]

Atheists attack religion because they have been left out. God only calls certain people to Himself and atheists are the rejects.

Since the more intelligent are more likely not to be religious, what does that say about God? S/He prefers the dimwits?

 

[Mock Turtle]

For myself, being mostly agnostic concerning any God or creator, I just look at the espoused tenets of the various faiths, and, since none make any sense to me, and where the historical evidence is just so questionable, I have little alternative but to dismiss them all, regardless of their usefulness or benefits to mankind. I'd rather any of the possible good they do be based in factual material rather than dogma and myth. Some are worse than others of course but it's mostly shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic as far as I'm concerned. Or actually shifting sand - since that is the (un)firm foundations of most religions.

 

[Thief]

Since the more intelligent are more likely not to be religious, what does that say about God? S/He prefers the dimwits?

after that post......^

I doubt any further memos will be sent your way

 

[Thief]

For myself, being mostly agnostic concerning any God or creator, I just look at the espoused tenets of the various faiths, and, since none make any sense to me, and where the historical evidence is just so questionable, I have little alternative but to dismiss them all, regardless of their usefulness or benefits to mankind. I'd rather any of the possible good they do be based in factual material rather than dogma and myth. Some are worse than others of course but it's mostly shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic as far as I'm concerned. Or actually shifting sand - since that is the (un)firm foundations of most religions.

I agree ....except for that...'dismiss them all'......

I suspect (and will not prove to you)......God....
has choice to make of 7billion+ possible conversations at any given moment
His manner of interaction doesn't need to be heard or written

you might trip over the next memo

hopefully not in front of a bus

 

[Mock Turtle]

after that post......^

I doubt any further memos will be sent your way

Further?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree ....except for that...'dismiss them all'......

I suspect (and will not prove to you)......God....
has choice to make of 7billion+ possible conversations at any given moment
His manner of interaction doesn't need to be heard or written

you might trip over the next memo

hopefully not in front of a bus

Hopefully God won't be distracting me - like S/He appears to do for others.