Atheists attack religion* because they are ignorant

[JustWondering]

Not hard to understand... just wrong.

You can't be argued out of a position you weren't argued into to begin with. I've lost track of how many times I've watched theists perform mental gymnastics to force information to support their beliefs. I've lost track of how many times theists on this forum suddenly go silent and withdraw from a debate because they realize they have lost, that they cannot defend their position (which of course they'll never admit to themselves). Theists with mythological belief systems believe as they do because they WANT to, not because it's logical and reasonable to.

 

[Kenny]

You can't be argued out of a position you weren't argued into to begin with. I've lost track of how many times I've watched theists perform mental gymnastics to force information to support their beliefs. I've lost track of how many times theists on this forum suddenly go silent and withdraw from a debate because they realize they have lost, that they cannot defend their position (which of course they'll never admit to themselves). Theists with mythological belief systems believe as they do because they WANT to, not because it's logic and reasonable to.

I'm not sure the went silent because they lost but rather "it is a lost cause to try". That's been my experience.

 

[tayla]

And when they see that none of those arguments work against my beliefs

It seems to me that neither the arguments of Atheists nor the arguments against Atheists do anything to change anyone's mind. I would prefer everyone lower the volume and discuss the philosophical arguments calmly and rationally, allowing the other person to disagree or to form their own opinion.

 

[Thief]

If you believe in god and Jesus, if you worship god and if you believe in the bible, THEN you most certainly have a religion.

A religion is not a place you worship or congregate or join, it is about acceptance (faith) of belief.

And since you believe in what the bible say, then you do have a religion.

And what is belief, if not superstition.

You believe that god created everything - humans, animals, plants, mountains, waters, sun, moon, planets, galaxies, universe, etc, and you believe that God everything (nature), BUT you have directly seen God, then you are most certainly “superstitious”.

And below is a perfect example of superstition:

nay on all points....
Faith does not require religion
I can believe in God ....without...
congregation
creed
beads for your hand
hats for your head
rugs for your knees
temples for woship
no ritual
no ceremony
no pat on the back for fellowship

and no....I don't need the bible
I believed before I could read

 

[Punta Piñal]

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 (sic) with them not willing to destroy them immediately?

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.

The only relations in history are those of power and circumstance, the "correlation of forces." Things do not happen because God ordains them, but because contemporary factors are aligned, and act on each other in unique combinations. Claiming that God justifies human misery, that God aims to implement contemporary events to punish people and guide the world to the divine New World Order, is merely a self-serving excuse for the present status quo, the material circumstances that put human beings in their state. It is yet another way for the powerful to maintain their power and avoid relinquishing their capital (resources) for the greater good. It is these people who, under guise of religion, impose their selfish interest, using the organs they control, and it is they who are the architects of history. The notion that God plans the configuration of the world in advance not only removes human responsibility, but also encourages those in power to proceed in their designs, deceiving the masses by claiming God is in control. The polyvalent, culturally conditioned currents attached to this loaded proposition merely add to its power, hence the seamless, nineteenth-century convergence of Christian anti-Semitism, pseudoscientific racialism, bourgeois utilitarianism and positivism, biblical justifications for slavery, genocide, and patriarchy, industrial capitalism, militarism, and imperialism, and ethnic nationalism—a combustible influence that retains enormous sway today, especially in the WASPy Anglo-American sphere, which happens to include Israel.

 

[JustWondering]

I'm not sure the went silent because they lost but rather "it is a lost cause to try". That's been my experience.

I'm willing to listen, and have made my expectations clear. If you have rational arguments and (preferably) evidence to back up your position it is not a lost cause to argue your position. The problem for some theists is they don't even have a rational argument for their position. Their idea of debate is stating their opinion and expect that people just have to respect their opinion. That's not how a debate works. Then when they're confronted by someone who is really here to debate and they can't get away with tap dancing around the actual subject of discussion, they just disappear from the thread. That's been my experience.

 

[Kenny]

I'm willing to listen, and have made my expectations clear. If you have rational arguments and (preferably) evidence to back up your position it is not a lost cause to argue your position. The problem for some theists is they don't even have a rational argument for their position. Their idea of debate is stating their opinion and expect that people just have to respect their opinion. That's not how a debate works. Then when they're confronted by someone who is really here to debate and they can't get away with tap dancing around the actual subject of discussion, they just disappear from the thread. That's been my experience.

I think one of the problems is simply the life-paradigm by which we think or make decisions by,. So we end up having two tap dancers with each dancing to their own tune except they are at different beats.

Probably the best way to start is deciding to love our neighbor.

Certainly "some theists don't even have a rational argument for their position". That could be said for both sides. I would also say that there are both theists as there is non-theists who present their position quite well.

 

[gnostic]

Faith does not require religion

I didn’t say it did, but religion does require acceptance of belief, and acceptance of belief is faith.

You believe in a god, you believe in Jesus, and you believe in bible, therefore you have a religion.

Religion don’t require congregation, sect or church.

But religion does require belief and faith, and you have that.

and no....I don't need the bible
I believed before I could read

Without the bible, there is no Jesus. Believing in Jesus required the gospels, at the very least.

 

[Thief]

I didn’t say it did, but religion does require acceptance of belief, and acceptance of belief is faith.

You believe in a god, you believe in Jesus, and you believe in bible, therefore you have a religion.

Religion don’t require congregation, sect or church.

But religion does require belief and faith, and you have that.


Without the bible, there is no Jesus. Believing in Jesus required the gospels, at the very least.

I have no religion.....

start a thread......and name it

 

[JustWondering]

I think one of the problems is simply the life-paradigm by which we think or make decisions by,. So we end up having two tap dancers with each dancing to their own tune except they are at different beats.

Probably the best way to start is deciding to love our neighbor.

Certainly "some theists don't even have a rational argument for their position". That could be said for both sides. I would also say that there are both theists as there is non-theists who present their position quite well.

If a god exists it gave us (most of us, I hope) the capacity for critical thinking. Secondly, most if not all cultures regard honesty as a positive trait (and I agree). I don't think it's honest to apply critical thinking to most things but spare certain favored things/people from it. Doesn't have to be in regards to religion, it could be politics, sports teams, celebrities, anything people take an interest in. I asked a coworker once why he voted for Trump. He really couldn't give me a solid reason why he voted that way. I talked with him about it for awhile and I think it mainly boiled down to his family being Republicans, and he just adopted their position. That's how it was for me, basically, regarding religion. Growing up the only religion I knew was Christianity, so when I had a strange experience I couldn't explain I just chalked it up to the Christian god. Didn't really think any of it through, just went with the flow.

I was a Christian until I applied critical thinking when researching the claims of Christianity. I don't necessarily hate Christianity, there are far worse belief systems than Christianity. I don't hate Christians, many of my family and friends are Christian. My views regarding religion aren't based on emotional reasons/events. My views regarding religion are based on observation, facts, evidence and reason. If something doesn't add up, sounds extraordinary and doesn't have anything to back it up, I'm going to be very skeptical of it. From my perspective the claims of Christianity don't add up, the claims of Christianity are extraordinary but have no evidence to back it up. I have no use for faith. To me, faith is just a different word for gullible. For me, any claims a religion makes have to be backed up the same way any other claim someone makes about anything. Religion doesn't get a free pass.

 

[Kenny]

If a god exists it gave us (most of us, I hope) the capacity for critical thinking. Secondly, most if not all cultures regard honesty as a positive trait (and I agree). I don't think it's honest to apply critical thinking to most things but spare certain favored things/people from it. Doesn't have to be in regards to religion, it could be politics, sports teams, celebrities, anything people take an interest in. I asked a coworker once why he voted for Trump. He really couldn't give me a solid reason why he voted that way. I talked with him about it for awhile and I think it mainly boiled down to his family being Republicans, and he just adopted their position. That's how it was for me, basically, regarding religion. Growing up the only religion I knew was Christianity, so when I had a strange experience I couldn't explain I just chalked it up to the Christian god. Didn't really think any of it through, just went with the flow.

He did and I'm glad you are using it.

I was a Christian until I applied critical thinking when researching the claims of Christianity. I don't necessarily hate Christianity, there are far worse belief systems than Christianity. I don't hate Christians, many of my family and friends are Christian. My views regarding religion aren't based on emotional reasons/events. My views regarding religion are based on observation, facts, evidence and reason. If something doesn't add up, sounds extraordinary and doesn't have anything to back it up, I'm going to be very skeptical of it. From my perspective the claims of Christianity don't add up, the claims of Christianity are extraordinary but have no evidence to back it up. I have no use for faith. To me, faith is just a different word for gullible. For me, any claims a religion makes have to be backed up the same way any other claim someone makes about anything. Religion doesn't get a free pass.

And I respect your position.

My point is simply that on the other side of the spectrum there are intelligent people who are not gullible who critically researched what was written and simply came to a different conclussion.

So we continue to "love our neighbor" whether they are on one side of the coin or the other. I believe we can still live in peace with that foundational universal position.

 

[JustWondering]

My point is simply that on the other side of the spectrum there are intelligent people who are not gullible who critically researched what was written and simply came to a different conclussion.

So we continue to "love our neighbor" whether they are on one side of the coin or the other. I believe we can still live in peace with that foundational universal position.

Perhaps, but why is one religion any more legitimate than another when none of them have ANY evidence to back them up? I've never heard a theist give a good reason for that question.

 

[Kenny]

Perhaps, but why is one religion any more legitimate than another when none of them have ANY evidence to back them up? I've never heard a theist give a good reason for that question.

Perhaps reading the following:

Josh McDowell - Agnostic - Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Lee Strobel - Atheist - Case for Christ - Ivestigative Reporter - Yale Graduate
J. Warner Wallace - Atheist - Cold Case Christianity - Homocide Cold-Case detective.

These three, in their respective efforts, found more than enough evidence to back it up. Each coming towards what was written though their respective fields and each came to the same conlcussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps reading the following:

Josh McDowell - Agnostic - Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Lee Strobel - Atheist - Case for Christ - Ivestigative Reporter - Yale Graduate
J. Warner Wallace - Atheist - Cold Case Christianity - Homocide Cold-Case detective.

These three, in their respective efforts, found more than enough evidence to back it up. Each coming towards what was written though their respective fields and each came to the same conlcussion.

Both Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel made the classic error of shifting the burden of proof. Neither found evidence for their beliefs. I am unfamiliar with the third.

 

[JustWondering]

Perhaps reading the following:

Josh McDowell - Agnostic - Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Lee Strobel - Atheist - Case for Christ - Ivestigative Reporter - Yale Graduate
J. Warner Wallace - Atheist - Cold Case Christianity - Homocide Cold-Case detective.

These three, in their respective efforts, found more than enough evidence to back it up. Each coming towards what was written though their respective fields and each came to the same conlcussion.

Have you read them? Can you site some of their evidence/arguments?

 

[Kenny]

Have you read them? Can you site some of their evidence/arguments?

Yes. Josh McDowell is a thick book that pieces evidence together. Lee Strobel talked to a dozen experts to validate information and question information. J Wallace used techniques on cold cases and came to the same conclussion.

I could give more information... it has been years and I don't want to misquote -- I would have to pull the books out again.

 

[Kenny]

Both Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel made the classic error of shifting the burden of proof. Neither found evidence for their beliefs. I am unfamiliar with the third.

I disagree.

 

[JustWondering]

Yes. Josh McDowell is a thick book that pieces evidence together. Lee Strobel talked to a dozen experts to validate information and question information. J Wallace used techniques on cold cases and came to the same conclussion.

I could give more information... it has been years and I don't want to misquote -- I would have to pull the books out again.

I'll jot down the authors and books on my phone so I can look for them the next time I'm out at the bookstore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree.

Then what reliable evidence did they find?

 

[Kenny]

Then what reliable evidence did they find?

Read them