Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Audie]

I don’t find it to be a minority position among online atheists, more like the rule though it is always nice to find exceptions. How many do you know who are not rabidly anti religion based only only on their own feeble grasp of religion?

I find no reason to enlist in any faith tradition but had I been raised in one that wasn’t a fundamentalist quagmire I’d be a staunch defender. Even though I see no reason to join them, I do appreciate the insight the best believers find in their way of life. I know no atheists who’ve achieved as much understanding unless they are primarily agnostic and just find the specifics of what believers profess too strained and false without phrasing it in a pointedly allegorical way.

Ok then. It's common. Now give us an example by
name. Or post and page number.

Otherwise, it woll continue to appear that
there is no substance to
this invidious claim against atheisrs.

How many do i know that are not rabid ?

I don't know of any who are.
.

 

[Audie]

What about Buddha and Mahavira of the Jains? Buddha did not care to discuss it and Mahavira dismissed it. We had many more in India like that - The Charvaks and the Ajivakas.

Why should we believe in mystery origin and possible purpose of existence? We, the atheist ask just one question: "Do you have any evidence?"
And you want us to believe in so many things - God, son, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, resurrection, deliverance, end of days, miracles!
All without any evidence?!

One more question. Why, oh theists and philosophers
do any of you need to concoct insulting falsehoods to
fluff up your beliefs?

Any honest minded person will
" countenance the hint of possibility"
or however it was phrased.

Any of you guys capable of " countenancing"
that " god" is imaginary?

 

[Audie]

What about Buddha and Mahavira of the Jains? Buddha did not care to discuss it and Mahavira dismissed it. We had many more in India like that - The Charvaks and the Ajivakas.

Why should we believe in mystery origin and possible purpose of existence? We, the atheist ask just one question: "Do you have any evidence?"
And you want us to believe in so many things - God, son, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, resurrection, deliverance, end of days, miracles!
All without any evidence?!

One more question. Why, oh theists and philosophers
do any of you need to concoct insulting falsehoods to
fluff up your beliefs?

Any honest minded person will
" countenance the hint of possibility"
or however it was phrased.

Any of you guys capable of " countenancing"
that " god" is imaginary?

 

[F1fan]

I don’t find it to be a minority position among online atheists, more like the rule though it is always nice to find exceptions. How many do you know who are not rabidly anti religion based only only on their own feeble grasp of religion?

As if religion as a category is full of virtue and best intentions. Critical thinkers tend to respond more to the most outrageous claims by theists, the creationists, the mystics who misrepresent non-belief as "not getting it" as they can't articulate what there is to actually "get", the dogmatists, etc. It seems that moderate and light theists are often innocent bystanders who suffer damage to their religious beliefs as critical thinkers meet the outrageous claims of more vocal and overly-confident believers. Critical thinkers have no real skin in this game. It is believers who run the risk of putting their heads on the block and daring critical thinkers to swing that axe.

No one ever comes to a conclusion that a God exists via facts and reasoning, it is only due to other mental processes as introduced by one's social experience. Having a good grasp on a religion or not, the basic claims of any religion are not fact-based, and that is the brutal truth of it. No doubt there is millinnia of traditions of belief, but argument by popularity is a fallacy, and having a good grasp on fallacies is more important than a grasp on any religion where it comes to understanding truth.

I find no reason to enlist in any faith tradition but had I been raised in one that wasn’t a fundamentalist quagmire I’d be a staunch defender. Even though I see no reason to join them, I do appreciate the insight the best believers find in their way of life. I know no atheists who’ve achieved as much understanding unless they are primarily agnostic and just find the specifics of what believers profess too strained and false without phrasing it in a pointedly allegorical way.

And what is it they don;t understand? Or is this yet another "you don't get it" bluff? Here's your chance to clear it up. Use facts.

 

[lukethethird]

Too Many Extremes in Disbelief​

Yeah, as in too many I really really really don't believe you. Can you knock it off with the really's, they're really annoying.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Judeo-Christian

The term 'Abrahamic' serves better and confuses fewer people. 'Judeo-Christian' also seems to annoy some Jews. For what reason ask them. Maybe its because they are a minority? Since they are treated so differently it probably feels like being gaslighted when we take credit for their mythos.

 

[Whateverist]

What about Buddha and Mahavira of the Jains? Buddha did not care to discuss God and Mahavira dismissed it.

Oh there are exceptions for sure just as there are even for evangelical Christians. But it seems to me that vast majority I meet on line disappoint.

 

[Zwing]

L

Non-mythical Christianity, and Bible literalism, appear to be more recent developments

This is an interesting thought. Do you suggest that amongst the early, especially non-Jewish Christians, that the ideas that there was a God of which Jesus was, in “spirit”, a constituent, having been born without sperm meeting egg, and that this Jesus performed unnatural miracles, was executed, died and then resurrected from death back to life and ascended into “heaven”, were all merely mythos, and not reflective of reality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

I. 'Christian martyr stories are made up.' Why? Yes, there are many apocryphal tales but it is absolutely true that Christians were at times persecuted and put to all kinds of terrible deaths by the Roman state. These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

That some early Christians were persecuted is without question. But the reason that the extreme martyr stories of the church must be questioned and shown to be very unlikely is because it is some Christians that make this necessary. They try to use martyrs as evidence for Christianity, but when investigated the martyrdom of early Christian was not that different from other groups. I do not know if there are any that absolutely deny all Christian martyrs, but I can definitely quote some believers here showing that they overstate the case for Christian martyrdom.

II. 'Paul was xyz.' (A Roman spy, a false Christian, didn't really see Jesus etc.) Please prove it. Paul probably had more enemies than friends, but the same might be said of Jesus.

III. 'Jesus didn't exist.'

Okay, if people are making those claims I will agree with you.

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

The sources for Jesus are very limited. They are almost all Christian and they went threw a culling event where stories that did not toe the party line were all but obliterated, whether on purpose or by accident is debatable.

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

@Augustus @exchemist @RestlessSoul @Brickjectivity

Perhaps because the religious do not know how to properly support their claims. That does not refute it, but it does make it very easy to treat it the same as beliefs that almost all agree are mythical.

Overall what you are complaining about is usually due to the unwarranted claims of believers.

 

[Zwing]

The term 'Abrahamic' serves better and confuses fewer people. 'Judeo-Christian' also seems to annoy some Jews.

The difference is that the term “Abrahamic” includes Islam and Baha’i (and perhaps Druze as well), while Judeo-Christian does not. In this context, speaking of the first century, Judeo-Christian is more narrowingly focused, and so more accurate a term. I can understand why religious Jews might dislike the term, as it represents the grave sin of claiming that “God is not one”, but the historical reality is that Christianity, like Islam, is an outgrowth of Judaism, by which fact the term in question derives its validity.

 

[Orbit]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

I. 'Christian martyr stories are made up.' Why? Yes, there are many apocryphal tales but it is absolutely true that Christians were at times persecuted and put to all kinds of terrible deaths by the Roman state. These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

II. 'Paul was xyz.' (A Roman spy, a false Christian, didn't really see Jesus etc.) Please prove it. Paul probably had more enemies than friends, but the same might be said of Jesus.

III. 'Jesus didn't exist.'

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

@Augustus @exchemist @RestlessSoul @Brickjectivity

Atheists are not all mythicists, nor anti-theists. I think I would respect theists more if they would just say "I choose to believe, and am unconcerned whether the object of my belief is empirically evidenced", rather than things like (1) mental illness is demonic possession (2) those who disagree with me are agents of Satan (3) gays are an abomination (4) you were never really Christian if you are an ex-Christian.

 

[Rival]

(1) mental illness is demonic possession (2) those who disagree with me are agents of Satan (3) gays are an abomination (4) you were never really Christian if you are an ex-Christian.

This is not the majority of Christians I meet. I don't think I've met a single person like this and I'm a Theology student. This seems a Fundamentalist US Christianity. I haven't encountered this here apart from some US influenced street preachers, but I can ignore them. If that has been your experience I get it, but what seems to be happening here is atheists are reacting rabidly to Christians who aren't the kind with whom they've grown up, they're not fundamentalist oddballs, so when they're accused it makes no sense to them and they come to believe the atheists challenging them are bonkers.

 

[Orbit]

This is not the majority of Christians I meet. I don't think I've met a single person like this and I'm a Theology student. This seems a Fundamentalist US Christianity. I haven't encountered this here apart from some US influenced street preachers, but I can ignore them. If that has been your experience I get it, but what seems to be happening here is atheists are reacting rabidly to Christians who aren't the kind with whom they've grown up, they're not fundamentalist oddballs, so when they're accused it makes no sense to them and they came to believe the atheists challenging them are bonkers.

Nevertheless, these are all statements I have seen on RF. I appreciate that you may not have seen them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The guy who did miracles did not exist.

Jesus as portrayed in the Bible obviously didn't exist, but scholars do tend to agree there was someone who was real who did influence and inspire the Jesus character we see in the Bible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nevertheless, these are all statements I have seen on RF. I appreciate that you may not have seen them.

But it's still a distinct American flavour of Christianity. And American Christianity keeps geeting kore whacky and looney in the mainstream as the years amd centuries have went by.
Compare this to something like the Church of England or Vatican clergy where you just don't find the support for things like believing in demonic possession or Creationism. Plenty of Catholic priests are even on record saying evolution is how it happened. But here in America, where mainstream Christianity has always had it's adherents who must look down upon and demonize education beyond very, very bare bones basics because they know (and often acknowledge) that learning things primes people to leave those dogmatic churches behind.

 

[RestlessSoul]

L

This is an interesting thought. Do you suggest that amongst the early, especially non-Jewish Christians, that the ideas that there was a God of which Jesus was, in “spirit”, a constituent, having been born without sperm meeting egg, and that this Jesus performed unnatural miracles, was executed, died and then resurrected from death back to life and ascended into “heaven”, were all merely mythos, and not reflective of reality?

I imagine that to some early Christians, the Virgin birth, resurrection, the trinity etc would have been literally true, and to others figurative or metaphorical; as some people in the ancient world would have worshipped the Gods as literal entities dwelling on Mount Olympus, while to others they’d have been symbols or archetypes.

Whatever the case, it’s hard to imagine a more classically Greek story than a God made man, born of a virgin mother, descending to hell for three days before ascending to the kingdom of his father. What was truly revolutionary, then and now, was the message of love and peace.

Myth, incidentally, is indicative of reality.

 

[SomeRandom]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

I. 'Christian martyr stories are made up.' Why? Yes, there are many apocryphal tales but it is absolutely true that Christians were at times persecuted and put to all kinds of terrible deaths by the Roman state. These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

II. 'Paul was xyz.' (A Roman spy, a false Christian, didn't really see Jesus etc.) Please prove it. Paul probably had more enemies than friends, but the same might be said of Jesus.

III. 'Jesus didn't exist.'

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

@Augustus @exchemist @RestlessSoul @Brickjectivity

I can see what you’re saying.
But to be fair, atheists are still just people at the end of the day. Some of them will inevitably take such a route to their beliefs.
That said, I wonder if some of it isn’t just a natural result of catharsis.
I mean religion can have a big impact on society and indeed people in general. People lose friends and family and even their own home over less
I see someone brought up the New Atheist movement.
That was pure catharsis really. I think scholars largely got sick of “losing debates” to seasoned oral speakers regarding evolution and literally trained to push back against anti science rhetoric.
At least that’s the history I know. And such a movement was rather angry and started out quite smug. I was all aboard that train for a good while.


That said, it’s easy and even feels good to do that. But it doesn’t do wonders for your PR lol
And arguably as you have pointed out, can cause someone to go a bit far with their “disbelief.”
Today, I was reading some comments under an Athiest channel I like to watch and I found the responses a little interesting. There were many who were praising the channel for being far more respectful of Christian beliefs than some other Atheist channels (this under a video directly criticising extreme Christian interventions on American law. In this particular instance, Oklahoma. I’m not American so I can’t comment either way.) But indeed said channel is always quick to call for respect for people’s beliefs and only ever criticises specific instances where religion perhaps goes a bit too far.

And yeah, I have to agree with those comments. When atheists first flew in to take over YouTube it was a rather angry cathartic move, overall. Embracing the rebellious angry stereotype. But said channels were also quite smug and often condescending. A lot of that came from their own poor experiences with religion or religious upbringing, so it was understandable
Over time a new breed slowly took over and began emphasising respecting other people’s beliefs and maybe consciously trying to tone it all down a bit lol
Some Atheists perhaps go a little too far at times

 

[Brickjectivity]

The difference is that the term “Abrahamic” includes Islam and Baha’i (and perhaps Druze as well), while Judeo-Christian does not. In this context, speaking of the first century, Judeo-Christian is more narrowingly focused, and so more accurate a term. I can understand why religious Jews might dislike the term, as it represents the grave sin of claiming that “God is not one”, but the historical reality is that Christianity, like Islam, is an outgrowth of Judaism, by which fact the term in question derives its validity.

m. Doesn't really change anything of course. Just letting you know it will not win you any friends. They don't like it, because its a term Christian missionaries use to dismiss the validity of Judaism and to suggest conversion to Christianity is a natural part of Judaism.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, I believe many develop an anti-Christian view that carries things too far. I try to look at things as fairly as I can.

In my opinion, and based on the time I've spent on RF, it's not difficult to develop an anti-Christian view when some of the Christians who respond to my posts either accuse me of conversing with demons or are rude and disrespectful to me when responding to my posts about suffering childhood abuse.

With a few exceptions, there are Christians on this forum who are rude to others and often disparage other members, notably atheists. Needless to say, I have a very low opinion of these Christians. I'm aware that I'm not permitted to quote other members' posts in a new thread without their permission, but I assume I could quote my own to provide a reference that substantiates my opinion and shows that I'm not just saying this with no valid reason. I could go on with what I think about this topic, but I should probably stop before I say something that will get me in trouble. In any case, I think I've made my point.

There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

Paul never claimed to be the Messiah...... but there are many who have and here is a few. Which makes it a true prophecy. "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" The Virgin Mandy

www.religiousforums.com

There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

In order to humble yourself to God you must know that God is God. How can any sinner humble themselves to God without knowing that God is God? Where are you getting this from? Whom is telling you these things? Can I ask you a favor... Can you listen to me, and talk to me about what I am...

www.religiousforums.com

Where are the Dead?

I don't see them either because I am not a psychic medium. I was talking to @Sgt. Pepper who does see them. I think it means that the human spirit survives the death of the physical body. Yes, I do see them, and it's been day in and day out since I was 6 years old. It has been 44 years since...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Zwing]

Whatever the case, it’s hard to imagine a more classically Greek story than a God made man, born of a virgin mother…

Yep, undoubtedly the effect of Hellenism.

Myth, incidentally, is indicative of reality.

Yes, but symbolically. It is not indicative of fact.