How do religious people react to their own arguments?

[Aliza]

Wow. My first real experience with atheists was online over at TTA, but what I learned there is that many atheists dislike being generalized and being told what they believe by people who don't speak for them.

[Astonished]

Wow. My first real experience with atheists was online over at TTA, but what I learned there is that many atheists dislike being generalized and being told what they believe by people who don't speak for them.

Atheist is generally just an insufficient label. It doesn't tell us enough about a person to make any follow-up judgments whatsoever regarding what their beliefs are. It's literally nothing more than opening a cage door. Are they going to close it back on themselves again? Close it behind them as they walk away from the cage? Stay in the cage but leave the door open? Invite others into the cage or scare others away from it? None of those answers are forthcoming under the mere label atheist.

A rational skeptic is an atheist with a tendency to disregard other woo claims along with god concepts, generally, and that's largely what we appear to have on this site, from what I've observed. Show us the proof or shut the fuck up, is the typical attitude and it's useful in the face of the kind of dipshittitude we see from the likes of GC, LR and Lek to name a few. That's the label I identify with and yes, it does entail a dislike of being told what to do because we are, at least for the most part, unwilling to suspend our critical faculties and settle for easy answers. We tend to form alliances selectively rather than just putting aside differences when those differences are irreconcilable or will bring any benefit to a side we know will only do wrong with it, if we're also secular humanists with a consequence-oriented basis for morality.

I think far too many have a 'live and let live' attitude, however. There are far too many on the other side who aren't happy with that and there must be a counter to that. We're already the most reviled minority on earth, so if we're not doing whatever we can to increase our numbers and prevent theirs from increasing (which, fortunately, looks like is going well, with millennials being less religious than previous generations, and unbelief being the fastest growing demographic from what statistics I've been reading) then I honestly don't know what else we can do.

[Aliza]

Wow. My first real experience with atheists was online over at TTA, but what I learned there is that many atheists dislike being generalized and being told what they believe by people who don't speak for them.

Atheist is generally just an insufficient label. It doesn't tell us enough about a person to make any follow-up judgments whatsoever regarding what their beliefs are. It's literally nothing more than opening a cage door. Are they going to close it back on themselves again? Close it behind them as they walk away from the cage? Stay in the cage but leave the door open? Invite others into the cage or scare others away from it? None of those answers are forthcoming under the mere label atheist.

A rational skeptic is an atheist with a tendency to disregard other woo claims along with god concepts, generally, and that's largely what we appear to have on this site, from what I've observed. Show us the proof or shut the fuck up, is the typical attitude and it's useful in the face of the kind of dipshittitude we see from the likes of GC, LR and Lek to name a few. That's the label I identify with and yes, it does entail a dislike of being told what to do because we are, at least for the most part, unwilling to suspend our critical faculties and settle for easy answers. We tend to form alliances selectively rather than just putting aside differences when those differences are irreconcilable or will bring any benefit to a side we know will only do wrong with it, if we're also secular humanists with a consequence-oriented basis for morality.

I think far too many have a 'live and let live' attitude, however. There are far too many on the other side who aren't happy with that and there must be a counter to that. We're already the most reviled minority on earth, so if we're not doing whatever we can to increase our numbers and prevent theirs from increasing (which, fortunately, looks like is going well, with millennials being less religious than previous generations, and unbelief being the fastest growing demographic from what statistics I've been reading) then I honestly don't know what else we can do.

I just view generalizing people in this day and age to be inappropriate. It's a mode of thinking from a bygone era. Not all theists are the same. We don't have the same argument with a different title. We act differently, we think differently and the differences vary from individual to individual and from religion to religion. The label "theist" does not describe a value system, it does not describe the person's belief system about science or the origins of the universe, and it does not describe the person's tolerance toward others with different views. All it says is that the person believes in a deity or deities. Likewise, not every atheist is some foaming at the mouth, angry ex-christian with an unfortunate, persistent christian behavior pattern that they've only repurposed to serve an atheist agenda. The term "atheist" doesn't describe their religious background or even if they were raised in any religion at all. It doesn't speak to their desire to proselytize their values to others. All it says is that the person doesn't believe in a deity.

Had I not joined TTA (and now AF) to meet atheists first hand, I might have formed my opinion about an entire, very diverse population, from the small sample size available on YouTube. I like my ability to be able to agree to disagree on stupid shit like whether there is or isn't a deity and whether that deity gives a shit about you or not. I prefer to focus on commonalities rather than differences. It's more productive anyway.

[Astonished]

Atheist is generally just an insufficient label. It doesn't tell us enough about a person to make any follow-up judgments whatsoever regarding what their beliefs are. It's literally nothing more than opening a cage door. Are they going to close it back on themselves again? Close it behind them as they walk away from the cage? Stay in the cage but leave the door open? Invite others into the cage or scare others away from it? None of those answers are forthcoming under the mere label atheist.

A rational skeptic is an atheist with a tendency to disregard other woo claims along with god concepts, generally, and that's largely what we appear to have on this site, from what I've observed. Show us the proof or shut the fuck up, is the typical attitude and it's useful in the face of the kind of dipshittitude we see from the likes of GC, LR and Lek to name a few. That's the label I identify with and yes, it does entail a dislike of being told what to do because we are, at least for the most part, unwilling to suspend our critical faculties and settle for easy answers. We tend to form alliances selectively rather than just putting aside differences when those differences are irreconcilable or will bring any benefit to a side we know will only do wrong with it, if we're also secular humanists with a consequence-oriented basis for morality.

I think far too many have a 'live and let live' attitude, however. There are far too many on the other side who aren't happy with that and there must be a counter to that. We're already the most reviled minority on earth, so if we're not doing whatever we can to increase our numbers and prevent theirs from increasing (which, fortunately, looks like is going well, with millennials being less religious than previous generations, and unbelief being the fastest growing demographic from what statistics I've been reading) then I honestly don't know what else we can do.

I just view generalizing people in this day and age to be inappropriate. It's a mode of thinking from a bygone era. Not all theists are the same. We don't have the same argument with a different title. We act differently, we think differently and the differences vary from individual to individual and from religion to religion. The label "theist" does not describe a value system, it does not describe the person's belief system about science or the origins of the universe, and it does not describe the person's tolerance toward others with different views. All it says is that the person believes in a deity or deities. Likewise, not every atheist is some foaming at the mouth, angry ex-christian with an unfortunate, persistent christian behavior pattern that they've only repurposed to serve an atheist agenda. The term "atheist" doesn't describe their religious background or even if they were raised in any religion at all. It doesn't speak to their desire to proselytize their values to others. All it says is that the person doesn't believe in a deity.

Had I not joined TTA (and now AF) to meet atheists first hand, I might have formed my opinion about an entire, very diverse population, from the small sample size available on YouTube. I like my ability to be able to agree to disagree on stupid shit like whether there is or isn't a deity and whether that deity gives a shit about you or not. I prefer to focus on commonalities rather than differences. It's more productive anyway.

Well you actually can generalize theists in at least one way, namely that they believe in something irrational, while you can't say the corollary is true for atheists since not believing in a deity doesn't prohibit them believing in other woo and irrational things. And before someone points this out, if someone wants to define their theism in a way that's nebulous and not the traditional definition of a deity, fuck that, it's still irrational.

[Godscreated]

Well, no one to date has explained to me how the writer of Genesis knew the stars were innumerable and they are, he states an undeniable fact without ever knowing what he wrote was true, other than to believe what God told him

And why don't you consider this statement referring to the vast amount of stars you can see at the sky at night? You do exactly what Islamic clerics do. Interpreting religious texts to meet scientific standards.

 
I did not interpret anything, it's plainly stated in Genesis and it's a fact that only a limited number of stars can be seen at any one time in the night sky, both of these things are undeniable facts and if this is your roundabout attempt at denying the facts it's a poor one. I do not have any idea what Islamic clerics do and do not care except for there attempt to lead others astray. If this is all you can do after all I posted then I guess there's not much left for me to say except that facts are facts and these are undeniable.

GC

---

And why don't you consider this statement referring to the vast amount of stars you can see at the sky at night? You do exactly what Islamic clerics do. Interpreting religious texts to meet scientific standards.

The guy who wrote the Yeshua dialogue in Matthew 24:29 thought that the stars were tiny points of light that will fall to the Earth.  He thought that stars were just tiny meteors.

Matthew 24:29 (CEV) = "Right after those days of suffering,

“The sun will become dark,
and the moon
    will no longer shine.
The stars will fall,
and the powers in the sky
    will be shaken.”

The guy who wrote Revelation 12:4 was even more clueless.

Revelation 12:4 (CEV) = "With its tail, it dragged a third of the stars from the sky and threw them down to the earth. Then the dragon turned toward the woman, because it wanted to eat her child as soon as it was born."

 Why do you insist on showing such a great lack of knowledge and understanding, most goof balls can understand that Rev. 12:4 isn't an actual fact based telling of the story of Jesus birth. It's a representation of what Satan would try and do, kill the child, through king Herod. The deal with the dragon sweeping 1/3rd of the stars from heaven is in reference to Lucifer convincing those angels to follow him.

As for Matt. 24:29 you should have read on instead of doing your usual cherry picking. If you're going to continue to criticize Christians for cherry picking you need to stop this common practice of yours. Now to the meaning of the verse, this is to portray the turmoil the nations of the earth will be going through at Christ's return. If you had read on instead of googling everything you post you might learn to say things like this. With Christ returning to raise up His people then it's not possible for the stars to fall to earth because they would destroy it before Christ could raise up His people. Even if the book of Matthew were a work of fiction this type of reasoning would be appropriate for the story to make sense. You fail at your attempt to discredit this story even if it were fictional, sad, very sad.

GC

---

Weak atheist argument, I know God exists and He says He is the only God and as I said before He knew that the stars are innumerable.

You know G-C, you go away for a while and come back and you are still a blithering moron.

Your fucking god would be so proud of you...... if he existed!

Min you're getting old and faltering, why do you even try.

GC

[JackRussell]

The stars aren't innumerable, it's just a bit tricky, because, well, lots of them and they tend to blow up from time to time. Lucky for us that they do or we wouldn't be here.

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

It can sometimes be harmful to generalize. Sometimes generalization helps because it lets you see things from a different perspective: atheists and Christians are alike in a significant way — both do not believe in all the other gods of all the other religions and mythologies, which amounts in the millions. Atheists and Christians are separated by their belief, or lack thereof, in just one god. But we're exactly the same when it comes to viewing any other god. So in that sense we've made a great deal of progress because the majority of people no longer believe in vast pantheons. We've got a lot less gods to worry about now.

[Little Rik]

There are people of different religious beliefs, but their arguments are the same. 

"Complex and intelligently designed things need an intelligent designer. Something can't emerge from nothing." 

- Who created god then? Oh yes, I know, god has no beginning and hence always existed. But what is his power and intelligence based on? Why does he have the power and intelligence he has? What condition is it based on, that there is only one, your specific god, and not 5 gods, 10 gods or 29403 gods, who always existed, each having their own properties? A super complex and powerful being which god is, needs no cause at all, but a far less complex Universe can't exist with a cause that isn't of intelligent nature?

"What if god exists and you go to hell for being an atheist?" 

- Well, what if you got the wrong religion and go to hell for believing in the wrong religion? 

"I am confident, that my religion is the right one, I can feel it." 

- People of different religions say the same, obviously not all of them can be right at the same time, where is the objectivity? 

"My religious texts are consistent while the texts of other religions are not and are full of flaws. Furthermore, the texts of my religion hold clear evidence of historical or even scientific nature that can't be denied." 

- You can find clerics of different religions, who will find "clear" evidence for the accuracy of their religion, while being well able to disprove that same "clear" evidence of clerics of other religions. There are Islamic clerics, who will show you clear evidence of scientific nature in the Quran while proving, that the evidence Christian clerics came up with for their religion is false for obvious reasons. While Christian clerics will show you their obvious evidence and prove the evidence of Islamic clerics wrong. Again, where is the objectivity?

People of different religions with the same arguments.

God did not start any religion nor He said that atheists or sinner end up in hell.

Always be very careful not to involve God into all sort of dogmas invented by various religions and not by Him.

[Mister Agenda]

Someday, when someone here's you're an atheist, they'll ask a follow-up question or two instead of assuming that's all they need to know about you.

And there are currently 9,096 stars visible to the naked eye across the entire sky.

[Joods]

Religion A: Our book is perfect in every way.
Religion B: Our book is perfect in every way.

Religion A: Religion B's book has xxx number of flaws in it and here they are.
Religion B: Religion A's book has xxx number of flaws in it and here they are.

Religion A to Religion B: You are taking our book out of context!
Religion B to Religion A: You are also taking our book out of context!

Atheist: What's to take out of context when both of your gods tell you that rape, beating and murdering women is okay, think slavery is okay, and having sex with little girls is acceptable? Both of your books and your gods suck.