• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
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?
Click to expand...
The evidence that points to the validity/truth of the claims you make that atheists tend to come after you about. Evidence for the things that ultimately started the whole debate. "God" and his existence. If you don't have that evidence, then what I am telling you is that I am not going to sit here and listen to you try and discredit atheism over the behavior of some atheists. It is only smoke and mirrors to distract from the idea that you have no compelling evidence for the existence of your God, nor His supposed entourage, nor his realm of residences (wherever that is). I can't imagine why else you would post the OP.

Put it this way: even if I bowed to your "superior" position on the topic raised in the OP, and admitted that I was a lowly, cowering idiot who can't help but be dogmatic, and religious, and servile to science, etc. EVEN WITH ALL OF THAT OUT OF THE WAY - You STILL have no verifiable evidence for the original claims that gave rise to "atheism" in the first place. So, discrediting atheists doesn't really do you much good. It would be like the lawyer for a defendant in a criminal trial ignoring all attempts to produce evidence for their client's innocence, and instead focusing to discredit the prosecuting attorneys, and talk about how "They are such bad lawyers, and the one with the toupee doesn't even brush his teeth twice a day!"
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
The evidence that points to the validity/truth of the claims you make that atheists tend to come after you about. Evidence for the things that ultimately started the whole debate. "God" and his existence. If you don't have that evidence, then what I am telling you is that I am not going to sit here and listen to you try and discredit atheism over the behavior of some atheists. It is only smoke and mirrors to distract from the idea that you have no compelling evidence for the existence of your God, nor His supposed entourage, nor his realm of residences (wherever that is). I can't imagine why else you would post the OP.

Put it this way: even if I bowed to your "superior" position on the topic raised in the OP, and admitted that I was a lowly, cowering idiot who can't help but be dogmatic, and religious, and servile to science, etc. EVEN WITH ALL OF THAT OUT OF THE WAY - You STILL have no verifiable evidence for the original claims that gave rise to "atheism" in the first place. So, discrediting atheists doesn't really do you much good. It would be like the lawyer for a defendant in a criminal trial ignoring all attempts to produce evidence for their client's innocence, and instead focusing to discredit the prosecuting attorneys, and talk about how "They are such bad lawyers, and the one with the toupee doesn't even brush his teeth twice a day!"
Click to expand...

God and his existence is irrelevant to this topic. Also, I didnt discredit atheism. Thats a strawman. Maybe read the OP again. Try and engage it.
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
God and his existence is irrelevant to this topic. Also, I didnt discredit atheism. Thats a strawman. Maybe read the OP again. Try and engage it.
Click to expand...
I will re-read it. I promise.

While I do that, can you answer me one question? The title of the thread is this:

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

I would like to ask what you believe would be accomplished if atheists were to accept or admit to this?
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
I will re-read it. I promise.

While I do that, can you answer me one question? The title of the thread is this:

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

I would like to ask what you believe would be accomplished if atheists were to accept or admit to this?
Click to expand...

What could be accomplished by understanding topics like this is another topic. So, please do open a new thread for that if you like. No problem.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
A Vestigial Mote said:
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.
Click to expand...

Show me the evidence as evidence for that you don't care. I mean it, show evidence. Not feelings, emotions or any other of that subjective kind. Only evidence.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
A Vestigial Mote said:
The evidence that points to the validity/truth of the claims you make that atheists tend to come after you about. Evidence for the things that ultimately started the whole debate. "God" and his existence. If you don't have that evidence, then what I am telling you is that I am not going to sit here and listen to you try and discredit atheism over the behavior of some atheists. It is only smoke and mirrors to distract from the idea that you have no compelling evidence for the existence of your God, nor His supposed entourage, nor his realm of residences (wherever that is). I can't imagine why else you would post the OP.

Put it this way: even if I bowed to your "superior" position on the topic raised in the OP, and admitted that I was a lowly, cowering idiot who can't help but be dogmatic, and religious, and servile to science, etc. EVEN WITH ALL OF THAT OUT OF THE WAY - You STILL have no verifiable evidence for the original claims that gave rise to "atheism" in the first place. So, discrediting atheists doesn't really do you much good. It would be like the lawyer for a defendant in a criminal trial ignoring all attempts to produce evidence for their client's innocence, and instead focusing to discredit the prosecuting attorneys, and talk about how "They are such bad lawyers, and the one with the toupee doesn't even brush his teeth twice a day!"
Click to expand...

Evidence is not truth.
And there is no absolute truth in practice. The idea of truth is no different than God. You don't have to believe in it for you to have a life.
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Not sure of that. Can you clarify how you get to that?
Click to expand...
Through the fact that there wouldn't even be the first inkling of an idea of having a word like "atheist" in any language without there being a theist and their ideas first. Even an atheist who is only "without god(s)" because they are ignorant of the concept is not assuming that god(s) exist(s). And while I admit that a person like that isn't necessarily actively "against" the idea of god(s), I didn't write that with those people in mind. I wrote it with the type of atheist posited in the OP in mind, for very obvious reasons.
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
What could be accomplished by understanding topics like this is another topic. So, please do open a new thread for that if you like. No problem.
Click to expand...
What a horrible dodge. So... you asking the question that is the title of the OP (let's remember), necessarily implies that you feel that something is wrong with the idea that atheists won't accept these things about themselves. Are you telling me that if a theist wrote a reply to the OP and started talking about what might or might not happen if the atheists accepted these ideas about themselves, you'd tell them to "stick to the topic?"

If so, then please inform @paarsurrey (for post #145) that he needs to stay on topic, or open a new thread.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
Ah...
you mean like you have done repeatedly in this thread?
Or do you perhaps think it is only "character assassination" when it is done to you?
Click to expand...

Well, I may have. But see, when someone tells another person "you have done this" and the other person says "you have done that too", that's called a tu quoque fallacy.

Also you should note that as I have said, character assassination attempts were done without engaging with the OP. Thats ad hominem.

Also, displaying a tribalistic attitude where one will defend "your kind" no matter what is a very highly dogmatic, religious, tribalistic display. Anyway, I just wish that you guys had the humility to address the points made in the OP rather than eternally trying to attack the person.

This is happening through out, repeatedly. Maybe a few people truly addressed the OP, at least with one or two comments.

So since this is the type of discussion form you Mestemia, I shall withdraw from discussion.

Peace.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
What a horrible dodge.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

But since you dont understand that this is a different topic, and what you wish to discuss is another topic in your attempt to avoid the OP and attack the person as most people have displayed here, there is no point in responding to you.

Nevertheless, I wish you have a great day. This thread has shown probably the worst type of responses I have ever experienced in this forum. Mostly ad hominem, though people think its "eloquently put".

Now you attempt to ask "why are you asking this question" in a nice way. But the topic is not "why ask this question". Some people dont believe that there is any value in studying something like Sociology of religion, or theology. But some of the best scholars in the world are Atheists. Some. One could ask "Why are you studying that".

This why is a whole other topic and has to have a lot of study and research. Its irrelevant to this thread.

Yet of course since you like others here are looking for opportunities to discredit the authors character rather than addressing the points of the OP, you will of course try your best to not understand this and say things like "dodge". But try to realise, though you won't try, that you have completely dodged the OP and tried an irrelevant attack on the person.

So that's that.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
What a horrible dodge. So... you asking the question that is the title of the OP (let's remember), necessarily implies that you feel that something is wrong with the idea that atheists won't accept these things about themselves. Are you telling me that if a theist wrote a reply to the OP and started talking about what might or might not happen if the atheists accepted these ideas about themselves, you'd tell them to "stick to the topic?"

If so, then please inform @paarsurrey (for post #145) that he needs to stay on topic, or open a new thread.
Click to expand...
I was right on the topic, I understand.
Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top