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

[firedragon]

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

Oh. If I misunderstood you I apologise.

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....

Please address the OP.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Ah. So another display at attempting character assassination, not addressing the OP.

Keep going. Its very interesting.

 

[firedragon]

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."

Great thanks for stating what you think.

And of course if I read you right, you are trying to prove in this post that the thread is a dishonest attempt. So bottomline is its an attempt at an ad hominem.

Strange that many atheists in this thread have displayed this attempt, and its ironic I said this in the OP.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Great thanks for stating what you think.

And of course if I read you right, you are trying to prove in this post that the thread is a dishonest attempt. So bottomline is its an attempt at an ad hominem.

Strange that many atheists in this thread have displayed this attempt, and its ironic I said this in the OP.

Yep... I even acknowledged that the OP stated it. I very obviously do not care. What you did in the OP is exactly the tactic used by The Bible to try and convince people that it is "on the level." Exactly the same. A statement like "There will be those who do not believe." OMG!!1!1!!!!! The Bible WAS RIGHT! Who cares? None of that matters. Show me the evidence, then we'll talk. until then I DON'TCARE how "militant" or "dogmatic" or "religious" any atheist is being, including myself! The point will still stand that you don't have good evidence and should not be believed.

 

[firedragon]

Show me the evidence,

For what?

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Please do so, because you will find that on a public forum i can do exactly the same thing

Not irrelevant at all, just facts that blow your statement out of the water

 

[firedragon]

Please do so, because you will find that on a public forum i can do exactly the same thing

Not irrelevant at all, just facts that blow your statement out of the water

Great. Cheers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ah. So another display at attempting character assassination, not addressing the OP.

Keep going. Its very interesting.

No point -- you're on a rant, and I don't involve myself in those.

 

[firedragon]

No point -- you're on a rant, and I don't involve myself in those.

Thanks.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

So atheists are subject to the same faults as everyone else.
There is nothing special about being an atheist other than we personally choose not to have a belief in a god.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Jeez, way to jump in ignorance. You make it clear what your character is, and you have not disappointed me

 

[ChristineM]

Great. Cheers.

Waiting...

 

[firedragon]

Jeez, way to jump in ignorance. You make it clear what your character is, and you have not disappointed me

Nice.

 

[firedragon]

So atheists are subject to the same faults as everyone else.
There is nothing special about being an atheist other than we personally choose not to have a belief in a god.

Well. that's a fair simple statement I think. I cannot disagree with that.

 

[ChristineM]

Nice.

Of course, you asked for nice, you got nice.

 

[firedragon]

Of course, you asked for nice, you got nice.

Thanks.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

For what?

Okay... let's walk through a few steps along the road that leads to someone posting a topic like the OP, and take it finally to rest upon the ideas I have raised. In the OP, you are basically discussing the idea of a "loyal opposition" to your theistic/religious ideas, and whether or not the tactics they use are valid/sound.

1. Theists make claims about their God, and share these very often with others. The evidence for this is that these other people know about their claims. If they didn't actively discuss them with others, then there wouldn't be a "loyal opposition" in the first place (except perhaps ex-converts [apostates], I suppose)
2. This "loyal opposition" to their ideas arises, and this troubles the theists, who adamantly and thoroughly believe their own claims.
3. Many theists often attempt to sway the others into at least understanding why it is that they believe as they do, by presenting their sacred texts, thought exercises and attempts at logical argumentation as "evidence" - never once providing anything usefully and unequivocally tied to our shared reality (except, as mentioned, their thoughts, texts, etc. - basically those items serving as evidence for the validity of those items)
4. People still do not believe, and tend to bring to the table breaks from logic that they feel they are witnessing, troubles they find with scripture, traps of inconsistency that theists often weave themselves into with overlapping tales, etc. - all used as evidence to try and discredit the claims being made, or, indeed, sometimes the claimant (I'm not going to lie here).
5. The theist tends to do many of the same things in kind, LIKE THIS VERY TYPE OF "DISCUSSION" (the OP) where the only function of the discussion is really to discredit atheists. To make them seem hypocritical - that they are engaging in exactly the types of behaviors that they are criticizing, and claiming that they are exactly what it is that they are speaking out against.
6. Ultimately the problem being that the original discussion and the points raised by atheists, in general, really have nothing to do with the theist's character, but the credibility of the claims being made. That is ultimately what started the discussion. All of the rest of this is just distraction.

"Atheism" is not "against theists." It is against assuming that god(s) exist(s). It is against what is seen as only an idea until it is evidenced to be otherwise.

 

[firedragon]

Several people have tried to make character assassination of the poster rather than addressing the OP. This shows how touchy they have got enough to lose their logical thinking prowess. This is a show of very tribalistic retort. Ad hominem. And of course, every single point made in the OP.

I do see this kind of response and tribal mentality in some forums. In particular I can speak of a Christian evangelical forum that was on Facebook by a Christian apologist called Fadi. But that is a group of people who work together, not random people, so when you consider that, this is worse. There was also a discussion group called some Sunni defence or something which is a very dogmatic, modern day Salafi type of group who behaved the same way. This is good analysis.

 

[firedragon]

Okay... let's walk through a few steps along the road that leads to someone posting a topic like the OP, and take it finally to rest upon the ideas I have raised. In the OP, you are basically discussing the idea of a "loyal opposition" to your theistic/religious ideas, and whether or not the tactics they use are valid/sound.

1. Theists make claims about their God, and share these very often with others. The evidence for this is that these other people know about their claims. If they didn't actively discuss them with others, then there wouldn't be a "loyal opposition" in the first place (except perhaps ex-converts [apostates], I suppose)
2. This "loyal opposition" to their ideas arises, and this troubles the theists, who adamantly and thoroughly believe their own claims.
3. Many theists often attempt to sway the others into at least understanding why it is that they believe as they do, by presenting their sacred texts, thought exercises and attempts at logical argumentation as "evidence" - never once providing anything usefully and unequivocally tied to our shared reality (except, as mentioned, their thoughts, texts, etc. - basically those items serving as evidence for the validity of those items)
4. People still do not believe, and tend to bring to the table breaks from logic that they feel they are witnessing, troubles they find with scripture, traps of inconsistency that theists often weave themselves into with overlapping tales, etc. - all used as evidence to try and discredit the claims being made, or, indeed, sometimes the claimant (I'm not going to lie here).
5. The theist tends to do many of the same things in kind, LIKE THIS VERY TYPE OF "DISCUSSION" (the OP) where the only function of the discussion is really to discredit atheists. To make them seem hypocritical - that they are engaging in exactly the types of behaviors that they are criticizing, and claiming that they are exactly what it is that they are speaking out against.
6. Ultimately the problem being that the original discussion and the points raised by atheists, in general, really have nothing to do with the theist's character, but the credibility of the claims being made. That is ultimately what started the discussion. All of the rest of this is just distraction.

"Atheism" is not "against theists." It is against assuming that god(s) exist(s). It is against what is seen as only an idea until it is evidenced to be otherwise.

Alright. Thanks for that post. And I do agree that Atheism is not against theists. All that is great.

Now what is the evidence you wanted?

 

[ChristineM]

Several people have tried to make character assassination of the poster rather than addressing the OP. This shows how touchy they have got enough to lose their logical thinking prowess. This is a show of very tribalistic retort. Ad hominem. And of course, every single point made in the OP.

I do see this kind of response and tribal mentality in some forums. In particular I can speak of a Christian evangelical forum that was on Facebook by a Christian apologist called Fadi. But that is a group of people who work together, not random people, so when you consider that, this is worse. There was also a discussion group called some Sunni defence or something which is a very dogmatic, modern day Salafi type of group who behaved the same way. This is good analysis.

evidence please