The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians

[Neo-Scholastic]

As a general rule, pious followers of Christ model the highest virtues of which humanity is capable.

Phew, that's a tall order. Care to define pious follower by giving a few examples?

I already mentioned Dietrich Bonhoeffer but you can add William Wilberforce, Eric Liddell, Helen Keller, David Livingstone, Joan of Arc, J. S. Bach, and Florence Nightingale, for starters. The list is endless.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I don't know about "pious" equaling the highest values of our society. Indeed, I tend to find that the more pious people are, the more likely they are to be literalist about Broze Age moral ideals that I find morally repugnant.

On the other hand, I will concede that to the degree a Christian follows the teachings of Jesus (and less of the "add-ons" by Paul and the Old Testament barbarity), the more I think they match the "highest ideals" of Western civilization.

I don't think PT is referring to individuals who defied Nazism based on their beliefs, but the fact that without the specific version of Christian culture in Germany, which had a long history (like much of Europe) of hatred and oppression toward the Jews, it would not have been as easy for Hitler to play on those principles to justify the things he did to them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Having an intellectual belief is not the same as living according to that belief. As a general rule, pious followers of Christ model the highest virtues of which humanity is capable.

And this addresses my point how? Morality is how a person behaves, not what they avow. The fact that Christians fall into both moral and immoral columns means that their faith is irrelevant.

Your comment only makes sense if you discount the efforts and influence for Christians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who consciously and courageously applied the teachings of faith to his life.

Not so. For every Bonhoeffer, there were tens of thousands of Christians who turned away from the moral road in working for the machinery of death. It is entirely lucid to point that out.

By what standard to you assess moral progress other than the cultural norms of contemporary Western society?

Empathy, mutual respect, and doing no needless harm to others. Be aware that those aren't just Western values. They're broadly shared around the world by many different cultures.

[abaris]

Not so. For every Bonhoeffer, there were tens of thousands of Christians who turned away from the moral row in working for the machinery of death. It is entirely lucid to point that out.

And there were communists, socialists and other non believers doing the same and perishing the same for their efforts. They just fly under the Chad radar.

Not to mention that I wouldn't look at a raving fanatic like Joan of Arc for a moral example. All she did was granting the French a few victories in the bloodbath of the 100 years war.

[Mystic]

What you said is true, but Atheists usually take it further. They take the stance that people should not believe in God. And I've only seen one person (Tiberius) be humble enough to say perhaps people do know God exists, he doesn't know that, just that he doesn't believe he knows God exists.

That to me is a respectable Atheist. I respect him for that. But to argue you don't know whether or not God exists, and other people should then all not know it, is another stance all together. The only way to justify the stance is either to show God doesn't exist or why if he does exist people can't have knowledge of his existence. Good luck with either.

There is a whole other word for what you're describing: anti-theist, someone who thinks people shouldn't be theists and is vocal about it. It's like if I said Musilms take the stance that Sharia law should be imposed on all the nations. All the Muslims who don't agree with that are going to resent being included in that generalization.

Tiberius's view is a common one among atheists, I subscribe to it myself. Maybe you should assume less about what other people's opinions are.

It may common. I don't know. You are right I shouldn't generalize.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

There is a whole other word for what you're describing: anti-theist, someone who thinks people shouldn't be theists and is vocal about it. It's like if I said Musilms take the stance that Sharia law should be imposed on all the nations. All the Muslims who don't agree with that are going to resent being included in that generalization.

Tiberius's view is a common one among atheists, I subscribe to it myself. Maybe you should assume less about what other people's opinions are.

It may common. I don't know. You are right I shouldn't generalize.

We appreciate not being generalized, but as an agnostic atheist, I think that it's clear that the question is impossible to know.

We can think it, we can feel it, we can personally conclude based on the bulk of the circumstantial evidence (in combination with feelings/thoughts) are enough to convince  us that gods do or don't exist. But we cannot know.

As an agnostic, this is my philosophy, that anyone who says they know is lying to me, and probably to themselves.

As an atheist, my opinion is the conclusion, based on the bulk of the circumstantial evidence (such as the fact that everyone says they believe in gods, but no one agrees on the characteristics, nature, or even name of these gods), that all gods are made up. Not real. Product of human imagination. But I'm honest enough to admit I don't know.

I say all this because it makes me a little mad when a theist says that we are not humble (or respectable) unless we "admit" that perhaps people have absolute knowledge of the existence of deities. Of course, as above, each person would expect me to conclude that their god is the "right one" that they know exists. And MK would say it is Allah, and GC would say it is Jehovah, and so on ad infinitum, until I am bending over backward to "admit" that they all might really know the truth about all these different gods.

No way. No. Way.

[robvalue]

Right. It makes no difference how firmly someone insists that they know something is certainly true. It doesn't stop them being potentially wrong. It just means they have blinded themselves from ever considering such an eventuality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Exactly. Or as I've read one place or another, certainty is the surest obstacle to learning.

Certitude is the death-knell of thinking.

[houseofcantor]

There is a whole other word for what you're describing: anti-theist, someone who thinks people shouldn't be theists and is vocal about it. It's like if I said Musilms take the stance that Sharia law should be imposed on all the nations. All the Muslims who don't agree with that are going to resent being included in that generalization.

Tiberius's view is a common one among atheists, I subscribe to it myself. Maybe you should assume less about what other people's opinions are.

It may common. I don't know. You are right I shouldn't generalize.

Why not? Everybody does it. 

[Neo-Scholastic]

And there were communists, socialists and other non believers doing the same and perishing the same for their efforts. They just fly under the Chad radar

But the question is whether they were motivated by their unbelief to do so in the same way that the Christian exemplars were? In other words can you honestly say that any particular social reformer or hero stood up and said that their atheism compelled them to fight for their cause? Please give me an example.