Why Anti-Christian Posts are a Pain

[!Fluffy!]

Here is the post: "On the other hand, it is a fact that Christians often perceive themselves as being "attacked" when they are not actually being attacked, but are only being taken to task for accepting and promoting irrationality.

Clearly your assumption is: belief in Christ is irrational. At this point, may I take you to task for bias, while you prove Jesus Christ the Son of God never existed.

"Faith based" belief systems often presume themselves to be reality based on faith rather then on evidence or reason.

Please reword this sentence to make sense. It is missing a word or has one too many, you be the judge. I have a rational and logical answer but I want to make sure you said what I think you said.

When "non-believers" question the validity of such a position, the "believers" often take this as an attack on their "faith". But it's not meant as an attack, necessarily, it's simply a reasonable expression of skepticism.

While I am skeptical of the validity of your position as a non-believer, I have no intention of attacking the personality/psychology/morality or any such perceived traits of "the unbeliever", nor of ascribing to any individuals comprising the entire community of "non-believers" a particular motivation, mindset or worldview, which would be the height of presumption.

Unfortunately, the kind of "faith" these folks practice (faith as blind assumption) cannot tolerate skepticism, and so they view any expression of skepticism is an "attack".

Actually, the kind of blind assumption practiced by unbelievers cannot remain unchallenged as if it were fact. Your posts alone prove that unbelief cannot tolerate skepticism, but must relegate same to the realm of "irrationality". I hope you do not view my expressions of skepticism as an "attack", as I am only expressing doubt as to the validity of your claims (which of course remain unproven and unprovable and to us, using your own standards, "irrational"). Again, no personal offense intended at all.

Let's use an example: creationism.

Perfect! I have no idea why one would presume to know the universe was not created. Please start another thread about it (I have no interest in getting into a cut and paste war), unless you can give a one or two sentence logic-based, rational scientific proof that the universe was not created. For example, who or what caused the Big Bang? I have yet to see evidence that God wasn't behind it.

To "non-believers" this is an irrational proposition based on "faith" that is essentially just an unquestioned presumption: "the bible says so, so it must be so".

Actually, that's another bias. I would believe in God the creator whether the Bible told me so or not, based on scientific evidence. If your assumption is: all Christian faith is based upon Sola Scriptura, your assumption would be very wrong or maybe just uninformed.

And this position is being doggedly held in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.

Again, I would like very much to see evidence that God doesn't exist, that the universe wasn't created, and that Jesus Christ doesn't exist. Scientific proof would be nice.

So when the non-believer expresses his skepticism of such "faith", it is seen by the believer as an "attack" on the believer's faith because skepticism is in fact antithetical to this kind of blind and dogmatic (irrational) "faith".

The kind of blind and dogmatic (irrational) "faith" you describe is virtually nonexistent in my sphere of Christianity, thus it is an easy strawman to knock down. The real issue (was the universe created, or not) (does God the Creator exist, or not) is not such easy pickings and therefore consistently dodged by SOME unbelievers. For SOME unbelievers, it's just too hard to deal with the reality of a rational and even a skeptical faith. Thus the irrepressible urge of some to shove us all into a little box marked "irrational", "blind" or "ignorant".
:angel2:

Not all Christians practice or promote this kind blind and irrational faith, but many do.

How many? Most? Half? Several? Do you have a number? Names, addresses? How about a percentage? Have you seen studies, do you have evidence? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here but truly you can't issue such a hollow sounding disclaimer, after making so many presumptuous generalizations and expect to be taken seriously.

And it's those who do that most often perceive themselves as being "attacked" when they are not being attacked, but are simply being confronted with the natural skepticism of others.

What's your evidence for this startling assumption? By what standard do you measure the sincerity, rationality, lucidity, comprehension skills and intelligence of the average Christian?

I'm not insulting anyone by saying that they have adopted an irrational position.

Sure you are, especially when you have, in the view of many, adopted one yourself (using your own standards of what is rational and what is irrational).

I'm simply pointing out that their position is irrational (perhaps illogical would be a better term, if that helps anyone) and that as a result, they are misperceiving the actions of others.

:bow:
Translation: "If you don't believe as I do, you are irrational (or illogical, if that makes you feel better). Being irrational/illogical, you misperceive the actions of others, including the insult I just gave you."

Please don't take personal offense at what I am about to say, I've rewritten it three times and just can't seem to say it any other way: Congratulations. This is quite possibly the most pretentious, biased display of anti-Christian rhetoric I've ever seen.

I have no doubt you didn't mean it to be, but well, there you have it.

Frankly it makes me happy to see it out in the open, so thank you for your honesty.

And thanks for proving the point of my OP.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think its best to remember that Christians, anti-Christians, Pagans, Atheists, Coffea arabica-ists, et al. are still just human and trying to make the best sense they can out of existence. While we attack and defend religious faith, we are really just bumping against each other's experiential worlds (and emotions), trying to interpret and glean some sense of it all.

Anti-Christian posts are a pain to some, as anti-anything posts are to everybody. They still represent some aspect of that person's world, and perhaps some truth can be taken from them. Emotional responses are natural, but shouldn't become the doppelganger (in no way referring to RF's Doppelganger) to the attack, as it shuts off true discussion.

 

[PureX]

Wow, that's rather belittling. Maybe they believe in a God because, to them, it is an undeniable fact. Or maybe they just want to believe it. You make it sound like some kind of disability.

There is nothing in my post that would indicate that needing to believe in God is a disability. If you are seeing it, there, it's you who is putting it there.

Suppose theists start calling atheists, "people who need to deny God" or "people who are spiritually challenged." It really is possible, with just a little bit of thoughtfulness, to phrase things in a way that does not constitute a backhanded putdown. I think maybe you don't realize how the things you're saying sound to others.

I am not putting down anyone. You are perceiving insults where none were written. I have in no way implied that to need to believe in a God makes anyone less than anyone else. It's you who is taking the concept of need as a handicap, not me.

I have a need to believe in a God of love. And I am in no way ashamed of that need, nor am I handicapped by it.

 

[Ozzie]

Because they are generally hostile and unproductive

Because there are so many of them, and they all seem to sound the same after a while

Because they always seem to be full of broad-brush, unoriginal overgeneralizations

Because they are divisive and of little value at reaching mutual understanding

Because they are attacks rather than attempts to understand

Because I just keep wanting to say: What's yr damage, bro?



edit: in response to http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45765

Do you mind if I say this comes across largely as an emotional reaction? BTW Glaswegians critique of Christians is also highly emotional, something several posters allude to.

I would say anyone has a legitimate interest in critiquing Christian belief, but no-one has a legitimate interest in attacking your religious belief.

 

[lilithu]

There is nothing in my post that would indicate that needing to believe in God is a disability. If you are seeing it, there, it's you who is putting it there.

Not only him. Most theists do not perceive their belief as coming from need. And most people perceive need as a weakness. I just had a conversation where someone very politely took issue with what he thought was my implying that God has needs.

At the very least, you might see how your statement presumes to know the motivations for belief.

 

[PureX]

Clearly your assumption is: belief in Christ is irrational. At this point, may I take you to task for bias, while you prove Jesus Christ the Son of God never existed.

I believe in Christ. And I don't believe I'm being irrational in doing so. I can't verify the existence of Jesus one way or the other, nor do I see any reason I would want or need to. It doesn't matter to me much whether Jesus actually existed or not, as Christ is both real and rational, regardless. I personally choose to believe that Jesus did actually exists, though the stories told about him are likely highly exaggerated, and some of the quotes attributed to him are almost certainly not his words.

"Faith based" belief systems often presume themselves to be reality based on faith rather then on evidence or reason.

Please reword this sentence to make sense. It is missing a word or has one too many, you be the judge. I have a rational and logical answer but I want to make sure you said what I think you said.

The key to understanding this sentence, and the paragraph, is in my using the quotation marks. I see now that this was too subtle.

I used the quotation marks to imply that what is being called faith in this instance is not really faith. When some Christians use the term "faith", they mean that they choose to believe that something is so even though they are aware that it may not be so (that they can't prove to themselves or others that it is so) but they are choosing to believe it, anyway, because they HOPE that it will come to be so. And I believe this is in fact what faith is.

Other Christians, however, mean something very different when they use the term "faith". What they call "faith" is actually a blind and dogmatic assumption of their own righteousness, in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary. This isn't really faith at all, it's just pretense. But they call it faith, and they believe that it is faith, though it's really just blind pretense.

So in the sentence: "Faith based" belief systems often presume themselves to be reality based on faith rather then on evidence or reason." the belief system I am referring to is of the self-righteous pretense variety, which is why I used the quotation marks. I also see that I may have neglected to us a coma after the word "realty" ... so to correct the sentence for you: "(pretense based) belief systems often presume themselves to be reality, based on (blind pretense) rather then on evidence or reason".

While I am skeptical of the validity of your position as a non-believer, I have no intention of attacking the personality/psychology/morality or any such perceived traits of "the unbeliever", nor of ascribing to any individuals comprising the entire community of "non-believers" a particular motivation, mindset or world-view, which would be the height of presumption.

Well, you have already presumed me to be a "non-believer" (*wink*) so why stop now? (just teasing)

I'm not particularly offended by people making wrong assumptions about me. No one can read my mind, and language is an inexact craft, so we're all bound to misread each other fairly often. I would only mind such a misunderstanding if someone persisted in it even after I've clarified that I am not as they originally presumed.

Actually, the kind of blind assumption practiced by unbelievers cannot remain unchallenged as if it were fact. Your posts alone prove that unbelief cannot tolerate skepticism, ...

Most "unbelievers" of religion are unbelieving because they're naturally skeptical. I think you're just being irrational, here, because you're ticked off at me.

Perfect! I have no idea why one would presume to know the universe was not created. Please start another thread about it (I have no interest in getting into a cut and paste war), unless you can give a one or two sentence logic-based, rational scientific proof that the universe was not created. For example, who or what caused the Big Bang? I have yet to see evidence that God wasn't behind it.

I believe the universe WAS "created" (and still is being created), but by natural means. So for me there is no antipathy between science and God, and no need to irrationally dismiss vast quantities of scientific evidence.

Actually, that's another bias. I would believe in God the creator whether the Bible told me so or not, based on scientific evidence. If your assumption is: all Christian faith is based upon Sola Scriptura, your assumption would be very wrong or maybe just uninformed.

I did not make this assumption, nor did I write it in my post. You are perceiving errors and insults that aren't there. Like you, I would believe in God whether the bible existed or not.

Again, I would like very much to see evidence that God doesn't exist, that the universe wasn't created, and that Jesus Christ doesn't exist. Scientific proof would be nice.

I personally would not like to see this at all. It would mean my having to let go of some values that I really cherish.

The kind of blind and dogmatic (irrational) "faith" you describe is virtually nonexistent in my sphere of Christianity, thus it is an easy straw-man to knock down.

Oh, come now ... "virtually non-existent"??? I think you have some mighty big blinders on if you really believe that. There are a whole lot of bible-belt literalists out there who would beg to differ with your assessing them "virtually non-existent". And I can introduce you to a few web sites where you can communicate with hundreds of them and learn about many thousands of them.

The real issue (was the universe created, or not) (does God the Creator exist, or not) is not such easy pickings and therefore consistently dodged by SOME unbelievers. For SOME unbelievers, it's just too hard to deal with the reality of a rational and even a skeptical faith. Thus the irrepressible urge of some to shove us all into a little box marked "irrational", "blind" or "ignorant".

This is true. But just as some unbelievers do this, so do some believers, and interestingly enough, they do it FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS! The absolutist type Christians are just as unable and unwilling "to deal with the reality of a rational and even a skeptical faith" as the unbelievers are. And they are just as willing to shove all Christians into a little box marked "we know what God wants, so to disagree with us is to disagree with God". And as such they make themselves Irrational, blind and ignorant. Which is why they get labeled that way.

Unfortunately, you and many others get labeled that way along with them. But has it occurred to you that maybe THEY ARE PART OF YOUR PROBLEM? That if there weren't so many literalist extremist Christians out there spouting off their self-righteous and irrational literalist nonsense, and trying to force everyone else to comply with their beliefs through political action, that you wouldn't be getting lumped in with them so often? Yet the people you get angry at isn't these extreme literalist Christians, who you pretend don't hardly even exist, it's the non-believers who are reacting to them by over-generalizing that bother you. Why is that?

My whole point is that these groups are acting together. They are feeding off the animosity of the other, and becoming more irrational and extreme, themselves, as a result. And this thread was trying to address one side while ignoring the other. And I'm reminding us all that they are in fact both halves of the same whole. And more interestingly still, they are both motivated by the SAME FEARS.

 

[Stairs In My House]

There is nothing in my post that would indicate that needing to believe in God is a disability. If you are seeing it, there, it's you who is putting it there.

No, it is a completely plausible interpretation that any reasonable person is likely to arrive at. Perhaps you missed the part where I wrote, "I think maybe you don't realize how the things you're saying sound to others."

 

[PureX]

No, it is a completely plausible interpretation that any reasonable person is likely to arrive at. Perhaps you missed the part where I wrote, "I think maybe you don't realize how the things you're saying sound to others."

Well, I'm being as clear as I can be. A lot of people NEED to believe in a God. That's just the way it is. And many of those people happen to be Christians. That's also just the way it is.

A lot of Americans are fat. That's also just the way it is. But my pointing this out is not the same as my saying that fat people are idiots. Nor is my pointing out that a lot of people need God the same as my saying that they are weak or stupid for it. Whoever assumes so is reading their own prejudice into my words. And I think this is part of the problem.

 

[MaddLlama]

Actually, the kind of blind assumption practiced by unbelievers cannot remain unchallenged as if it were fact. Your posts alone prove that unbelief cannot tolerate skepticism, but must relegate same to the realm of "irrationality". I hope you do not view my expressions of skepticism as an "attack", as I am only expressing doubt as to the validity of your claims (which of course remain unproven and unprovable and to us, using your own standards, "irrational"). Again, no personal offense intended at all.

I think I get that you're just trying to turn the tables here, but really this makes little sense, and doesn't get a point accross at all. Atheists, and even religious people who are not Christian are no more prone to "blind assumption" in believing that Christianity is not the end-all be all, than Christians are in believing that it is. And, the idea that skepticism and non-belief are incompatible is just silly - atheism (and, by that I mean believing in no gods, or simply disbelieving the existance of some gods) is based on skepticism. Why exactly can't they "tolerate" each other?
You are offended by the assertion that Christians are blind and ignorant, and I think that there is a better and more mature way of making your point than simply rewording the statement so that it will offend someone else. Are you offended that people who aren't Christian are insensitive and overly combative in thier opinions, or are you offended that people would not believe in Christianity in the first place? Because, all the talk about science, proof and skepticism in your last post sounds more like you think all atheists are irrational morons.
Skepticism and "unbelief" are no more irrational or rational as believing in God. We've all got our own opinions about everything, and I think that if you really want to make a point about the inappropriateness of being purposely offensive to other faiths for any reason, then I think that maybe you should find a better way to make your point. Turn the tables, and you just sound like the people you're trying to criticize.

 

[Stairs In My House]

A lot of people NEED to believe in a God.

The quantifier a lot of wasn't present in your previous post, and that changes the meaning significantly. Americans are fat is not the same proposition as A lot of Americans are fat.

 

[MaddLlama]

Not only him. Most theists do not perceive their belief as coming from need. And most people perceive need as a weakness. I just had a conversation where someone very politely took issue with what he thought was my implying that God has needs.

At the very least, you might see how your statement presumes to know the motivations for belief.

This is sort of off-topic, but why would a need be the same thing as a weakness? What kind of person believes such a thing? People need food, and they need water. Is it weakness that when I get up in the morning I eat some oatmeal, or that mid-day I get a glass of water? Is it weakness that even though I don't believe in god, I need some form of spirituality in my life? No, it isn't. And, I would say that the atheists who do believe that my need is a sign of weakness are either insecure, or too self-righteous for thier own good.
Needing god doesn't make you weak, and not needing god doesn't make you strong. Every person has different needs, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[lilithu]

This is sort of off-topic, but why would a need be the same thing as a weakness? What kind of person believes such a thing? People need food, and they need water. Is it weakness that when I get up in the morning I eat some oatmeal, or that mid-day I get a glass of water? Is it weakness that even though I don't believe in god, I need some form of spirituality in my life? No, it isn't. And, I would say that the atheists who do believe that my need is a sign of weakness are either insecure, or too self-righteous for thier own good.
Needing god doesn't make you weak, and not needing god doesn't make you strong. Every person has different needs, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Hi MaddLlama,

I actually agree with you. completely. But many people do interpret need as a weakness. We live in a culture that teaches us to pride ourselves on self-sufficiency (which I personally think is an illusion, or delusion as the case may be).

My point was that it is not unreasonable to read a bias into the statement that theists believe in God because they need to. It is usually said with the implicit assumption that the "need" comes from a fear of self-determination. A great example of that argument would be the evil thread that spawned this one.

I'm not saying that's what PureX was assuming. I'd hope not since he is a theist himself. But I think we need to be careful when ascribing motivations to people (something that I do all the time and have to fight against). More often than not our analyses reveal more about our biases for or against than the people themselves.

 

[Ozzie]

Hi MaddLlama,

I actually agree with you. completely. But many people do interpret need as a weakness. We live in a culture that teaches us to pride ourselves on self-sufficiency (which I personally think is an illusion, or delusion as the case may be).

My point was that it is not unreasonable to read a bias into the statement that theists believe in God because they need to. It is usually said with the implicit assumption that the "need" comes from a fear of self-determination. A great example of that argument would be the evil thread that spawned this one.

I'm not saying that's what PureX was assuming. I'd hope not since he is a theist himself. But I think we need to be careful when ascribing motivations to people (something that I do all the time and have to fight against). More often than not our analyses reveal more about our biases for or against than the people themselves.

I agree with both Maddlama and yourself on this. In fact need is bias. I think it is more reasonable to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they do not admit their bias in the interests of encouraging discussion. That posture is consistent with adopting a philosophical position of being prepared to challenge your own biases. The choice is whether to have the courage/faith to lay your belief on the table and have it challenged versus withdrawing behind bias/need in order to protect it from scrutiny. The latter position is a means to live in fear.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

True but I think that goes without saying. It remains that too many members would rather not address the reason for the OP. I won't get into it here but I have found this common when christians make complaints as opposed to members of other religions. There must be some social concept that all members of a mainstream social institution are basically the same.

yea...you're right.. I guess when i read the op on this thread it seemed, to me, that the person was starting off with a new opinion. I certainly do not agree with anyone who is anti-christian. Although non-chritian is where i fit into.

It's good to have a different view and maybe question something that you may not understand. I guess it's when you start to take those pot shots..i can see how it is disrespectful of anothers faith.

As you may have seen from my postings, I may not believe something or I tend to question it...but If you see me take pot shots... please correct me.

I do apologize if I misunderstood the OP on this thread...:bow:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I really am thinking we should switch this thread from a clothing-optional thread to a clothing-forbidden thread.



:trampo:

Awww yea baby.... DO What You Like.......:tigger:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

not everyone who posts arguments that are anti christian (against the christian view point) are rude or hostile though - i have posted debate posts against christianity in a few areas without attacking people and painting people with broad brushes. my only quarrel is that the OP of this thread, and some of the subsequent arguments, are generalising everyone who is against the christian view point

to recap the OP, anti-christian posts are a pain:



while i completely agree that the thread that prompted this one does fall into this criticism, and there are a large number of other anti-christian posts that do (not necessarily on this forum, though yes there are some) there are also a lot of anti-christian posts that are not like this at all - all i am saying is that the OP makes no reference to that side at all.

Thank you....

That's what I was trying to say....

 

[doppelganger]

Perhaps someone with more patience than myself can suggest to him a different approach. hint hint.

Well . . . I tried.