Why do Athiests challenge Thiests?

[Willamena]

Catholics are not Christians.
If you want to get technical, They're a branch of Christianity.
But they are not Christians, They're Catholics.

If they are Christians, Then by that logic I'm also Catholic.

I get it. It's like the way Canadians are Canadians, not Americans.

If I were American, I'd live in the United States.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I get it. It's like the way Canadians are Canadians, not Americans.

Or how Canadian Bacon is Canadian Bacon and not Bacon.

 

[Willamena]

Or how Canadian Bacon is Canadian Bacon and not Bacon.

Francis? or Kevin? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Now back to our regular programming...

 

[nazz]

Imagine if everyone took everything on faith. How chaotic would the world be?

Pretty much everyone, including atheists, does.

 

[nazz]

If we're talking about discussions like the kind that happen here, I've found that engaging in debate with people who disagree with me and putting my own beliefs to the test can help me find the holes and weaknesses in my positions. Once I've exposed these weaknesses, I can correct them by changing my beliefs.

:yes:

see my signature

 

[Katzpur]

Catholics are not Christians.
If you want to get technical, They're a branch of Christianity.
But they are not Christians, They're Catholics.

If they are Christians, Then by that logic I'm also Catholic.

So I'm assuming one must be a "non-denominational Christian" in order to be a Christian at all. One can't be both a Lutheran and a Christian or a Baptist and a Christian or a Methodist and a Christian.

I gotta say, your "logic" escapes me entirely.

 

[Katzpur]

Francis? or Kevin? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Now back to our regular programming...

Oh darn. This commercial break was much needed.

 

[Astravalon]

'Imaginary gods' would be my answer if I were a christian.

I did get a similar answer from a Christian elsewhere, saying that the other gods were
not living, but just man's creation.

It had left me wondering, since that would mean they're not really 'gods' at all, then,
what all the fuss is about, since there'd be little threat to God Himself from imaginary,
nonexistent entities (in the monotheistic framework).


-

 

[Willamena]

What an arrogant statement. Who in his right mind would say such a thing?

Someone for whom god exists.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

A lot of my Athiest friends challenge my beliefs, And it got me wondering, Why?

Everyone ought to be challenged according to what they perceive. And in this case, atheists and theists alike IMO would do well to be challenged so that their knowledge of their perceptions, experiences, ideas, and bias can be further examined.

I challenge an Athiests beliefs because I want to show them the love of God, To help save their immortal soul, And because I believe one can live a better life with Religion
(I base this on the fact that most morals conincide with the teachings of the Bible)

I've heard that before. Question: do you challenge Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, and (based on what you've stated lately) Catholics for the very same reasons? Or is this specifically a case where atheists are targeted?

So my question is: Why do some non-religious people challenge the beliefs of those who are religious?

I explained above. People do well when they accept a challenge to see how their perceptions can be falsified, examined, expanded, or deepened.

What do you gain from it?

Inquiry. And my own self-examination. Plus, dialogue that is meaningful allows me to understand others, what motivates people, and how to find middle ground.

What is there to gain from 'taking' someone's faith from them?
Is that not immoral to you?

I sincerely doubt that faith can be "taken" or "stolen". Faith isn't an object, but is a perspective and one's personal narrative of what "is" or what "can be." I can have faith that I will live to be 100 years old some day. But if a doctor were to tell me tomorrow that I have Stage 4 liver cancer, and that my prognosis gives me with treatment 8 to 10 months to live, a challenge such as that doesn't "take" my faith in my longevity away from me. I am free to dismiss his perspective if I wish.

Or I can adapt my worldview and how I prioritize my time and energy. But if I change my worldview, it doesn't mean that my faith in my longevity is "taken." I alone have the power and the ability to change my perspective and my personal narrative.

(Also, I'd rather not have the fact that it's because religious people killed others who weren't of the same faith, Wars that were caused by religion because
Most religion teaches you not to kill, So if you go against that, Then you'd kill for greed, lust, politics etc regardless of your faith.)

Most systems of ethics, law, religion, community, tribal dictates, and secular views teach not to kill. Some exceptions have been made in societies for ending someones life in a pre-meditated fashion based on honor/shame codes, for deterrents against various degrees of individual murder, and for vengeance. You perhaps would rather such an argument not be presented in a debate such as this (and I can understand why it might be tiresome), and I have the opinion that religion is not a cause but an enabler for cultural ethics that advocate ending someone's life. These are nuances in the religious/cultural overlap of societies that are understandably questioned.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

see my signature

You first.

 

[Iti oj]

I get it. It's like the way Canadians are Canadians, not Americans.

If I were American, I'd live in the United States.

Don't cuddle her ignorance. She is factual wrong. Your metaphore also falls. Christianity is the umbrella so you would say christianity is north america. Catholics are canada usa are mormons and mexico is protestant. Or we/

 

[Willamena]

Don't cuddle her ignorance. She is factual wrong. Your metaphore also falls. Christianity is the umbrella so you would say christianity is north america. Catholics are canada usa are mormons and mexico is protestant. Or we/

Don't boss me around.

And I made no metaphor. It was a simile.

 

[Katzpur]

Someone for whom god exists.

But not everyone for whom God exists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I gotta say, your "logic" escapes me entirely.

Heck, it escapes logic itself.

 

[Poeticus]

thank you line of boxes.

Don't you mean, thank you M.V.?

 

[Poeticus]

Heck, it escapes logic itself.

Hehe.

Logic = it is just what it is

Proofs = constructs that explain that logic

So, it probably escapes both proofs and logic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hehe.

Logic = it is just what it is

Proofs = constructs that explain that logic

So, it probably escapes both proofs and logic.

Who needs either proof or logic when you've already got the TRUTH?

 

[Poeticus]

Who needs either proof or logic when you've already got the TRUTH?

Lmao.

I know, right?? Especially when that truth is pure Infallibility!

 

[Iti oj]

Don't boss me around.

And I made no metaphor. It was a simile.

May I kindly suggest then. And darn it, some how I knew you were going to say that.