Why don't atheists accept they are so evangelical and apologetic?

[Revoltingest]

Well... Except judaism or jainism.

I actually have a book about the joys of bacon.
Written by a Jew (a Zingerman's Deli founder).
There are 2 kinds of bacon lovers....
1) Those who admit it.
2) Those who deny it.

 

[ChristineM]

No. I am stating facts. Sorry those facts dont suit your bias but that's the way it goes when you make irrelevant claims.

Only my claims were not irrelevant to your statement and backed up by several links

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You can interpret however you want. It would be nice if you allowed others the same honour.

I don't believe many are; at least not in person. We're personally indifferent to other people's theistic religions. Many I met have ill feelings about the church and/or christianity in general but only christians tend to debate about it when you (general sense of the term) open the door to conversation.

Any subject, my defense has less to do with the topic, and more to do with emotions. If someone makes me feel threatened whether tone of voice, words used (regardless which words), or something like that my body goes into flight/fright. Maybe childhood issues or inherited trauma, I don't know. However, if I didn't have that, I'd be pretty much indifferent to most things that does not affect me. Online I can just shut my laptop but in person, unless I say I believe, no one really cares and I personally don't care vis versa.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Recently there was an argument about a particular verse where the atheist picked up this argument from a "missionary website" but had no clue about it. Very dogmatic faith in a missionary website. What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.

Ultimately, I don't care about much of anything in the OP even one iota. From my position as an atheist, what I care about is whether or not any claims you make about the realities of your religion should be entertained for further inquiry/investigation according to the caliber of the evidence you are able to provide. That's it. Atheists may display "tribalism" or may be "religious" after some definition of the word or another. Who cares? All that would mean is that we are ALL imbeciles. An idea I can easily live with.

Can you evidence your outrageous claims? That's all I care about in the end. And if you can't, be gone! Hahaha...

 

[ChristineM]

You replied, but as I already said, you are trying your best to build an argument to make character analysis of myself rather than addressing the points in the OP.

So I am sorry that facts like that upset your Applecart but that's how it goes.

No need for character analysis of you, did that months ago and still you try to do the same thing. You attempt to make any argument that contradicts your claims into a personal attack against yourself. Which is why i blocked you. Last night i cleared some if my ignore list and voila, you are still at it.

Facts, see my links and educate yourself

 

[firedragon]

Only my claims were not irrelevant to your statement and backed up by several links

Well, you see, you can provide 10 links to prove a strawman you created. Thats not relevant to me.

Anyway, though I know you will try to discredit and dogmatically refute whatever said, since you asked something about "how does algorithms help communication" let me give you some pointers. By the way, you have been saying "communication" in order to create a strawman but I was referring to this particular discussion, on the computer, through the internet. Not telephony of the cable or network phone calls (as an example). And of course you maybe aware of algorithms and all that needs to be said, so you can try to degrade me later if you are offended because I seem to be teaching you or something, but I am not. I am stating these things because you asked.

Algorithms is a computational policy or a plan of action that is precisely defined. Basically you put in a number of values and this will go through a particular, set number of steps and in the end it outputs a particular value. Now this is applied for many many things and even analysis of digital resume's. A Turing machine is one of the most famous examples and is used to define algorithms as a process or procedure done by a Turing machine is basically algorithms. And as I remember vividly, Sir Roger Penrose says that all computers are Turing machines. Yes. Algorithms are helping us right now in this communication, and that was the original post made by someone that I responded to. Algorithms are used all the time in mathematics and computer science, and to ask "how does it help in communication" was just a question you asked as a retort, but I am sure you are much more intelligent than to ask that question really.

It was Muhammed bin moosa al hawarizmi who's name this is named after. He was the first to introduce algorithms as a procedure that could be used in complex mathematics, and provided the idea that it could be used in most anything. Lets say there is an encryption your computer is using, or the internet is using to provide security to this particular exchange of words, or your password, this is all because of ciphering and deciphering, encryption and decryption. So, definitely it is helping this communication.

So before you try to degrade this guy or discredit him by some means you find somewhere, I would like to urge you to not discredit people because they are not your kind and just for the sake of argument.

Anyway, its your wish ultimately I suppose.

 

[firedragon]

Ultimately, I don't care about much of anything in the OP even one iota.

oh nice. So that ends the discussion. Super.

 

[firedragon]

No need for character analysis of you, did that months ago and still you try to do the same thing. You attempt to make any argument that contradicts your claims into a personal attack against yourself. Which is why i blocked you. Last night i cleared some if my ignore list and voila, you are still at it.

Facts, see my links and educate yourself

Nah. Thats fine. I can cut and paste your own statements right back at you. Thats the nature of rhetorical responses.

And thanks for the irrelevant links. I will read them and educate myself for sure. Surely they have great information though irrelevant.

Have a great day.

 

[firedragon]

Well, um, you did, actually.

Read the comment I responded to, understand the context rather than cherry picking one sentence from one post you cherry picked already from a series of posts.

And also try and realise that you are defending your fellow atheist tribalistically. I have already said that in the OP. Not even some of the most dogmatic religious people defend themselves so strongly, no matter what. It seems like you prove more than what the OP said. You are more religious than these so called theists.

You guys have proven the OP very well.

 

[firedragon]

I think anyone going through this thread can see the display of proof for the OP. This is amazing really.

 

[McBell]

Already done in the OP. But of course, dont hold your breath.



You want a name? No problem. But of course you will make up some excuse to dismiss people because they are theists. If you dont do that, that's fantastic. The normal responses here are character analysis of the man, and some other thing like where he is from, or something like he was not the first, or that because he was scientific not religious, etc etc etc which are just show of the users character, and I have already addressed that type of response in the OP.

It was "Muhammed bin moosa al Hawarizmiy".

You do understand that he is not the only theist who has helped make significant advances in science, right?

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

 

[firedragon]

No need for character analysis of you, did that months ago

I dont know you. Yet, I find it curious that you claimed "did that months ago" so you did the "character analysis months ago" and you are stating it yourself. That means this is what you do. "Character Analysis". Not address the point made. Not good.

 

[firedragon]

You do understand that he is not the only theist who has helped make significant advances in science, right?

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Of course. Why would you think that anyone would ever think that one guy and one guy alone in the whole history of this world "made significant advances in science"?

 

[McBell]

It could very well be a problem with my communication. But when someone addresses that, I want a specific. Hope you understand. There is one person who said that it is a problem with the OP, but I want a specific, not a generalisation. But Never got it.

Strawman?
From you?

I did not state there was a problem with the OP.
I SUGGESTED there MIGHT be a problem with the OP.

I even stated that the evidence of there being a problem with the OP is how you told so many posters they missed the point of the OP.

Anyway, I have many years of interaction with missionaries in both camps of Christianity and Islam. Most of these missionaries are taught a specific skill set to evangelise and counter criticism. I see the same pattern with the atheists in this thread. Of course not all, but most.

You see quite a bit that isn't even there.
Your "best defense is an over kill offense" approach does not help you any.

For example, I predict that instead of taking this here post and trying to understand what is being told to you, you will pounce on me, like you have already done numerous times in this very thread.

Then you call out how your prophecy has come true....

Sorry, I took a long time to respond and in the middle of this post I had many disturbances and now I have lost the plot.

Happens to the best of us.

 

[McBell]

Of course. Why would you think that anyone would ever think that one guy and one guy alone in the whole history of this world "made significant advances in science"?

I am basing it on your sermon of an OP and the long winded accusatory post the above quoted post is in reply to....

What would you make you think that I think "one guy" when the specific was not "one guy" but theists?

 

[Left Coast]

I have seen arguments like "this verse in my opinion says this" with no regard to what it means. I mean "dogmatic refusal". I have also seen arguments like "God SHOULD HAVE kept languages without changing" so that we don't have to study an ancient language.

Recently there was an argument about a particular verse where the atheist picked up this argument from a "missionary website" but had no clue about it. Very dogmatic faith in a missionary website. What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.

Generally atheists accuse the "religious" of these same traits, but my opinion is that Atheists display these traits immensely but they so religiously deny it, together. The United Nations publication "State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples" has a definition for religion that has all of these traits as the definition. Its a strange thing. One would find the refusal of this also to be "Highly Dogmatic".

Let me state something from the Islamic point of view. The word used in the Qur'an for "religion" is the arabic word "Dheen". But, in all honesty, these two words are very different in meaning. Of course even this explanation can expect a dogmatic retort from someone who says "no. In my opinion they mean the same" . Nope. Try to analyse it rather than making a dogmatic faith statement. After all, atheists are supposed to be analytical and scientific as most would claim.

The etymology of the word “religion” is very different from that of dheen, and are in fact, different concepts. Some maintain, as did Cicero, that it comes from relegere, meaning, “to treat carefully.” Others follow the fourth-century Christian apologist Lactantius, who maintains that it derives from religare, “to bind.” As Lactantius writes, “We are tied to God and bound to Him (religati) by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration (relegendo), that religion has received its name. In Arabic, the word dheen means "way or system" in its essence. There have been usages where statements are made like "submission is a system based on reason". In that sentence, submission and system should be replaced by the words Islam and Dheen. The reason to adopt the famous word religion is because people are "bound" together. Does one not see that Atheists display the same symptoms? Maybe they display traits to the word religion more than a so called "religious" person would because its "dheen" for them, not religion. But I have noticed that most atheists do not with to analyse the meaning of the word Religion because they do not want to be associated with it, so they will resort to evangelical methods of denial of simple language. Also may argue that "etymologies dont matter". Actually, whatever argument that they could muster up to deny this. Thats dogmatism. The Romans used this same word as a binding to the state. Not religion. The famous Roman scholar who lived in the 1st century BC called "Cicero" accordingly used a rendition like "to select". So this is what you selected if his rendition is the "one".

One of the signs of religiosity we may observe today is this dogmatic worship of "science". Some atheists seem to claim science for themselves and deny the walking ability of science and religion together. What this seems to bring up is that dogmatic denial of a persons exegesis of his religion to be aligned with science by "hook or crook". This is a dogmatic faith that blinds reason. I address those who deny by default, and never even try and understand someones explanation but just deny no matter what. By Hook or Crook. Also they take their information predominantly from apologetic websites. Evangelical websites.

The general missionary response of atheists to "Religere" is that "religion is worshiping a divinity, and we don't" or something similar. But general refusal to analyse the meaning of it, and that they fit the bill in itself shows their religiosity and binding to the faith that "we are not religious". I think this is the definition of being "religious".

Another phenomenon of this level of dogmatic religiosity is the blind denial of facts when trying to blame religion for all the violence in the world forever. I have noticed that scholars who are also atheists dont do this because obviously they are more aware and I honestly have found them to extremely pragmatic and not so dogmatic. Yet, I am speaking about scholars, not evangelists and apologists that atheists seem to follow more.

Of course I expect some ad hominem and character assassination attempts even in this thread which is almost a norm. But in this matter, most atheists in this forum are pretty nice people. Yet at least one or two posts could be seen trying to attack the character of the person rather than analyse the point made in the OP. Thats ad hominem, and shows the character of the person doing it, not the other way around. One of my favourite sayings in the New Testament comes to mind: "Why do you look at the thimble in my eye when you have a plank in yours".

Anyway, this post was made as a general one and I can plead you not to get offended but try and make an analysis of what was said and provide your insight. I will truly appreciate it.

Some atheists can be "evangelistic" or dogmatic in their anti-theism, certainly. Part of that is out of anger at their religious past, since a lot of atheists were formerly theists of some kind. And once you realize that you were sold a bunch of stuff that isn't true, that makes you justifiably upset.

I also think, just in general, the Internet gives people "balls" to say things they wouldn't say to people's faces if they were sitting across from them at dinner. As other folks have noted, most theists and atheists I know do not go out of their way to push or bash religion. Most of us are just trying to get through our day and take care of our responsibilities.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

oh nice. So that ends the discussion. Super.

I think threads and discussion like these are just attempts to distract from the idea that you don't have, and will not have, sufficient evidence to bring to the table to convince anyone who isn't already predisposed to believe. It's all just a bunch of posturing to keep the spotlight off of the gaping hole where your evidence should be. I also see things like this as an attempt to paint atheists as whatever it is you think they don't like - trying to "insult them into submission" or something. That's honestly what I think this thread is all about - even with the calls to "keep things civil" and "just have a discussion."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Read the comment I responded to, understand the context rather than cherry picking one sentence from one post you cherry picked already from a series of posts.

And also try and realise that you are defending your fellow atheist tribalistically. I have already said that in the OP. Not even some of the most dogmatic religious people defend themselves so strongly, no matter what. It seems like you prove more than what the OP said. You are more religious than these so called theists.

You guys have proven the OP very well.

Completely false, on all counts. I have made no other comment in this thread except to point out that when you asked, "who said that," that in fact, you did. I did not say you were right or wrong, I made no comment about any other person in this thread, atheist or not. That's an amazing amount of reading in that you've done there.

So I can say it now -- your deep bias is showing.

 

[Left Coast]

Also, the whole squabble here about who invented the Internet seems completely irrelevant to the OP.

 

[McBell]

Good observation. Atheism was deemed a religion by the US Supreme Court, and rightfully so. More to the point, it is less a coherent world view than opposed to a world view. By definition, atheism stands for what it is not. It posits a negation. Even then, they remain theistic centered, a-theist.

In dealing with atheists, I prefer to steer the conversation toward practicality. For instance, studies show religious people are happier, are less depressed and live longer. What better standard to use to discredit a flawed religious world view than how it negatively affects ones quality of life? They cannot state what they are for as that would destroy their inherently nihilistic negation philosophy. (Of course, they can speak for themselves individually but not atheists collectively).

I usually end conversations with atheists by telling them I will pray for them. Paradoxically, that seems to annoy them. They don't need no stinkin blessings?!

and NOW I need to get out the chest waders and prep the boat...