Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[John V]

You're nullifying theists as people by assuming they were indoctrinated into those positions, rather than reaching them by rational thought.

bold mine. 

Oh please. Do tell me what sort of rational thought, a 4 or 5 year old sitting in a children's church being taught how beautiful the story of Noah's ark is, could possibly have? 

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of believers, do so because their parents taught them about god and how he was good and great. So they grew up thinking that god was real. And then they did it to their children and their children did it to their children ad nauseum. How else do you think religion has survived as long as it has? Indoctrination yes. Rational thought? Hell no. If theists had any sort of rational thought, they wouldn't be theists in the first place. 

You are being completely disingenuous when you say otherwise.

I'm speaking from personal experience. Church was pretty hit-or-miss when I was growing up, and we discussed none of the topics that she mentioned there. So, no, I wasn't indoctrinated.

Sure, lots of believers were indoctrinated in some matters. Even so, are you arguing that it's good to apply stereotypes, rather than treat people as individuals? Sure seems that way.

[Edwardo Piet]

Had no clue Neo. Apparently not everyone.

Fair enough. But I've said it a lot and more importantly repeatedly to the people, like Chimp, who seem to delight in defying my request.

Fair enough. I otherwise like Chimp but he really shouldn't do that. Isn't there a very serious AF rule against that too?

Doxing is not allowed. We consider doxing to be the act of posting private or personally identifiable information about any person, whether they are a member of these forums or not. Private or personally identifiable information includes but is not limited to: real names, ages, locations, details about personal lives and relationships, unless this information has been shared by the person in question via a publicly accessible post, or on their profile page. Further exceptions will be made to information which is already deemed "public knowledge" such as information regarding famous people. Staff reserve the right to determine whether the information is public knowledge or not.

The punishment for violating this rule will be a permanent ban.

My bold.

Fair enough, your former username involved your real name so to many it's just like calling you by your former username. But, you may have noticed since you told me about WHY you changed your username I've never, ever, called you by it on AF. So if you catch someone calling you by your real name after you've told them on open forum not to, I recommend reporting it.

P.S. I believe Tiberius used to also have his username as his real name but there's also a reason why he changed it and doesn't wish to be called by his real name on AF, as well. I haven't told anyone my username on open AF, as far as I know, only in private.... but I certainly would never wish anyone to call me by my real name on open AF either.

[Catholic_Lady]

But that's the thing though. People here say terribly offensive things and make generalizations and assumptions about theists all the time lol. Just look through the threads and even some of the thread titles alone. The generalizations and offensive things Neo said about atheists on the debate thread don't really compare to the amount aimed at theists throughout the rest of the forums.

I'm not saying this to complain about it. It's an atheist forum, so of course. I get it lol. My point is simply to point out the double standard I'm seeing. People think Neo is a horrible person for the things he's said about atheists, while everyone else is fine and dandy for what they say about theists. Don't you guys see that?

And yes, Neo is a smartass a lot of times and come off cold and says some insulting things to people that piss them off. But nothing I've seen him say to people is as bad as what I've seen people say to him. And a lot of the reason he is like that is as a response to people having done it to him first, not as the instigator of it all. I am being a completely objective observer here when I say this. I'm not saying he's right to insult people right back or that his generalizations are fair. What I'm saying is that I'm seeing a double standard here, in some people thinking he's awful or sociopathic for saying these things, when many of you guys do the same thing... and do it worse even lol.

Mathilda made a comment to me on a thread that got deleted, that I supposedly "know very well" that as long as us theists are nice, you'll be nice to us. I'm sorry, but this hasn't necessarily been the case lol. It took a while for me to earn respect around here, despite me being very careful to be respectful right off the bat. Someone with less patience and less faith in humanity than myself would probably have given up on trying to stay nice pretty soon after joining.

Again, I'm not complaining about this. I just don't think some people are seeing the double standards when they're pegging Neo as this awful person who insults people and makes mean generalizations about atheists.

And now comes the truth of why a special section is really wanted. 

Theists also dish it out. But evidently theists need a special place in order to do just that so that they don't have to deal with the backlash. 

AF is just that. Atheist Forums. Theists are welcome here but as the rules implicitly imply - when you all post or respond, you need to be mindful of the community with which you are responding to. 


I'll let that marinate.

As I've said. The section I proposed isn't just for theists.

[Joods]

I don't think many of the generalizations made here about theists is correct.

Neither are many of the generalizations made here about atheists. 

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think many of the generalizations made here about theists is correct.

Neither are many of the generalizations made here about atheists. 

I agree.

[Joods]

And now comes the truth of why a special section is really wanted. 

Theists also dish it out. But evidently theists need a special place in order to do just that so that they don't have to deal with the backlash. 

AF is just that. Atheist Forums. Theists are welcome here but as the rules implicitly imply - when you all post or respond, you need to be mindful of the community with which you are responding to. 


I'll let that marinate.

As I've said. The section I proposed isn't just for theists.

Clearly your post that I just quoted speaks mounds that you feel that it should be just for theists. We all know how that section is going to end up and as many have already predicted, it will be in favor of theists who just can't handle having the same words thrown back at them that they throw at atheists, yet want a place on an atheist forum where they are free to be as judgmental as they want to be. 

Congratulations for finding a loophole in allowing the religious to antagonize the non-religious on their own turf.

[Edwardo Piet]

bold mine. 

Oh please. Do tell me what sort of rational thought, a 4 or 5 year old sitting in a children's church being taught how beautiful the story of Noah's ark is, could possibly have? 

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of believers, do so because their parents taught them about god and how he was good and great. So they grew up thinking that god was real. And then they did it to their children and their children did it to their children ad nauseum. How else do you think religion has survived as long as it has? Indoctrination yes. Rational thought? Hell no. If theists had any sort of rational thought, they wouldn't be theists in the first place. 

You are being completely disingenuous when you say otherwise.

I'm speaking from personal experience. Church was pretty hit-or-miss when I was growing up, and we discussed none of the topics that she mentioned there. So, no, I wasn't indoctrinated.

Sure, lots of believers were indoctrinated in some matters. Even so, are you arguing that it's good to apply stereotypes, rather than treat people as individuals? Sure seems that way.

Most believes were indoctrinated. It's not a stereotype... it's a statistic. It's very much like Neo said... it's only like saying men are taller than women rather than saying "most men are taller than women". It's just shorthand. Only a total moron would think that a person was claiming "Absolutely 100% of theists are indoctrinated, without exception" or "Absolutely 100% of men are taller than women, without exception". If someone literally said "All theists are idiots" or, even, yes "all theists are indoctrinated" then that would be an unfair generalization and a stereotype--as opposed to a statistic--yes.

[Joods]

bold mine. 

Oh please. Do tell me what sort of rational thought, a 4 or 5 year old sitting in a children's church being taught how beautiful the story of Noah's ark is, could possibly have? 

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of believers, do so because their parents taught them about god and how he was good and great. So they grew up thinking that god was real. And then they did it to their children and their children did it to their children ad nauseum. How else do you think religion has survived as long as it has? Indoctrination yes. Rational thought? Hell no. If theists had any sort of rational thought, they wouldn't be theists in the first place. 

You are being completely disingenuous when you say otherwise.

I'm speaking from personal experience. Church was pretty hit-or-miss when I was growing up, and we discussed none of the topics that she mentioned there. So, no, I wasn't indoctrinated.

Sure, lots of believers were indoctrinated in some matters. Even so, are you arguing that it's good to apply stereotypes, rather than treat people as individuals? Sure seems that way.

Oh but you weren't speaking from personal experience. You literally generalized all theists in your comment.

[RoadRunner79]

You're nullifying theists as people by assuming they were indoctrinated into those positions, rather than reaching them by rational thought.

bold mine. 

Oh please. Do tell me what sort of rational thought, a 4 or 5 year old sitting in a children's church being taught how beautiful the story of Noah's ark is, could possibly have? 

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of believers, do so because their parents taught them about god and how he was good and great. So they grew up thinking that god was real. And then they did it to their children and their children did it to their children ad nauseum. How else do you think religion has survived as long as it has? Indoctrination yes. Rational thought? Hell no. If theists had any sort of rational thought, they wouldn't be theists in the first place. 

You are being completely disingenuous when you say otherwise.

I would beg to differ.  There are plenty of people who come to believe in and have faith in God; later in life.  And many of them are quite intelligent, and do cite rational reasons for their belief that Christianity is true.  I would also point out that learning something when you are young, does not preclude a greater understanding and foundation for that belief later.  So I would say that you are just flat out wrong.  And I don't think that you have much to support the statements you make.

[Edwardo Piet]

Christ did end up being crucified you know.

That's the story they invented later.

I'd put the odds at it being true as told at about 1 in 10,000.

Wow that's a lot more generous than I'd be.