Are some theists afraid of atheists?

[Catholic_Lady]

Hm? Neo is not a troll. He's a respected member here and has been for years.

One doesn't rule out the other.  And I haven't seen any posts worthy of respect.

You may not "reapect" his views, but that doesn't mean he is trolling. I can assure you he is not a troll.

[Harry Nevis]

What he posted about ahteists was condescending and blanketed, yes. But there are many people here who post condescending and blanketed things about theists quite frequently as well. Personally I don't like either being done. But if you're ok with one side of the fence doing it, it doesn't make much sense to call out the other side for doing it as well. Otherwise it's a double standard and a bit hypocritical.

That's because you have the misguided belief that christianity is true and supported by evidence that would convince anyone who examines it.  We're just calling a spade a spade, and asking for proof that we're wrong.  And, not only are we not getting it, we're being insulted for even asking it and not believing the tripe submitted as evidence. Condescension is a reasonable response to bullshit. It's isn't to people who don't share your beliefs.

---

One doesn't rule out the other.  And I haven't seen any posts worthy of respect.

You may not "reapect" his views, but that doesn't mean he is trolling. I can assure you he is not a troll.

He does a great imitation, then.

[Brian37]

What he posted about atheists was condescending and blanketed, yes. But there are many people here who post condescending and blanketed things about theists quite frequently as well. Personally I don't like either being done. But if you're ok with one side of the fence doing it, it doesn't make much sense to call out the other side for doing it as well. Otherwise it's a double standard and a bit hypocritical.

Um who? Specific quotes with names. You have spent lots of time here to know we are all individuals. 

Our blasphemy of holy books and and the words in them, or blasphemy of the bigotry and violence humans get out of those writings is not the same one bit. 

If you are willing for example to accept that the Koran and Hadiths have been used to justify cruelty to others, to say the bible has never been used for such is a lie, it has been. 

I have myself equated the God of the bible as a bully and I stand by that. Not as an indictment of those who believe. But like reviewing a bad movie. You and I go to the same movie, you like it and I find it to be horrible. That is not the same as saying you deserve death because I find that book to be horrible. It just means as a piece of literature I don't find it to be good like you do.

Much like you can point to things in the Koran and Hadiths you don't like. 

Most of us here know how to separate the individual from what the individual claims. Not liking your book does not mean I want you dead, it just means I don't value it. I have always said that I value my species capability of being compassionate and POTENTIAL for empathy. The only difference between you and I is that I don't see our species behaviors as being handed down to us, but in us already.

Criticizing the tribal claims of antiquity, and blaspheming the modern bigotry that still exists today is not lumping everyone int the same camp. 

I can value the likes of Ann Frank without valuing everything modern Israel is doing. I can value Malala without valuing the Koran. I can value MLK without valuing the bible itself. I like you CL but no, I cannot lie to you and say I think the bible is a good book. I do agree your empathy leads you to the kind stories in it, but that same book is used by others to justify very horrible things, in the same way the Koran is used to justify horrible things.

All three of those religions were started in the same region, fighting over the same land and were all written in a very tribal age of kings. Those books do not reflect modern pluralism because the were written for the people of the times the were written in. Now again, in saying that most here, and especially not me, most here are not out to seek the forced end of any religion via use of government. But criticism and blasphemy of old claims is not the same as using those books to promote bigotry and violence towards others. You know most of us here would not nor do not promote violence to theists.

So when you say "you do it too, " Be specific, names and quotes. Generalizations don't give anyone any context to respond.

[Catholic_Lady]

What he posted about ahteists was condescending and blanketed, yes. But there are many people here who post condescending and blanketed things about theists quite frequently as well. Personally I don't like either being done. But if you're ok with one side of the fence doing it, it doesn't make much sense to call out the other side for doing it as well. Otherwise it's a double standard and a bit hypocritical.

That's because you have the misguided belief that christianity is true and supported by evidence that would convince anyone who examines it.  We're just calling a spade a spade, and asking for proof that we're wrong.  And, not only are we not getting it, we're being insulted for even asking it and not believing the tripe submitted as evidence. Condescension is a reasonable response to bullshit. It's isn't to people who don't share your beliefs.

Hmmm I'm not sure where your accusations of me here are coming from, since they have nothing to do with the post you are responding to lol.

But anyways... I wasn't referring to when you guys call for proof. I was referring to the condescending, blanketed things said about theists quite frequently by some people here.

And to clarify, i'm not complaining about those things. Just pointing out the double standard that when a theist does the same thing to you, you think he's a total jerk.

[Brian37]

That's because you have the misguided belief that christianity is true and supported by evidence that would convince anyone who examines it.  We're just calling a spade a spade, and asking for proof that we're wrong.  And, not only are we not getting it, we're being insulted for even asking it and not believing the tripe submitted as evidence. Condescension is a reasonable response to bullshit. It's isn't to people who don't share your beliefs.

Hmmm I'm not sure where your accusations of me here are coming from, since they have nothing to do with the post you are responding to lol.

But anyways... I wasn't referring to when you guys call for proof. I was referring to the condescending, blanketed things said about theists quite frequently by some people here.

And to clarify, i'm not complaining about those things. Just pointing out the double standard that when a theist does the same thing to you, you think he's a total jerk.

WHO? 

There is no "double standard" when someone is standing up to a bully. So when an a theist says, "You do it too" we ask "who, which individual."

You know from being here we as atheists do not always like each other. You also know, or should know by now, that there is a huge difference between valuing human rights, which we all should, and the separate issue of claims, and no, not every single claim a human might make should be blindly valued, even if we defend the right to make the claim.

It is not a "double standard" for example to say that Koptic Christians and Kurdish Christians live under oppressive majorities in the east, while at the same time saying the bible still contains an immovable head figure that does not need human consent to rule over humans. 

It is not a "double standard" to point out that both a bigoted far right Christian is still using the same bible that a liberal Christian is using, in much the same way you can accept that the Koran is still the same holy book that both Bin Laden and Malala value. 

So again, WHO? Which individuals here are you claiming have a "double standard."?

[Catholic_Lady]

Brian, are you really denying that no atheist here ever makes condescending blanket statements about theists? That no one ever says that theism is corrosive, the root of all evil, or something to that effect (just as neo said about atheism)?

Heck, Harry Nevis did it himself in his response to me above: "That's because you have the misguided belief that christianity is true and supported by evidence that would convince anyone who examines it," that is what he said to me. People here who know me know that's not me at all. But here we have this person condecendingly blanketing me into a particular type of person simply because I'm a theist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Because I believe none of those values can be sustained by paradigms that devolve into nihilism, which is where atheism leads. Without some kind of transcendent reference point none of those values can be rationally justified.

By nihilism, you mean the view that life is meaningless? I guess I am a bit of a nihilist... evolution has no goal... we're here because we can be, nothing more. But that doesn't change the fact that we are here and everyone, theist and atheist alike, have their own crosses to bear, challenges to overcome, moral decisions to make... everyone has a conscience... everyone has empathy for others. Are you saying it's all rendered moot... being human regardless of how we came to be human... if our 'worth'/'purpose' cannot be rationally justified in dry philosophy... ie if we come to a nihilistic conclusion?

By corroding human dignity do you mean in this nihilistic sense (as in the view that I have... that we're ultimately just biochemical machines, our reactions governed by the clockwork universe) or do you mean in a more Biblical sense where humans are placed at the centre of the universe, better than, and with dominion over, all other forms of life?

As for civil rights, what do you mean by civil rights? Everyone fights for civil rights, where they see injustice... that's not the preserve of religion. And where atheism is concerned, that fight is based on principles of fairness to all, equality, and empathy for others, unfettered by the prejudices and conformity of religion.

Finally, as for 'aesthetic hierarchies', I have no idea what that means

Thanks for your considered response, Emjay. I was only offering my most basic opinions. I'm encouraged that nearly all the members of AF profess concern about the Western values necessary for liberal democratic societies. At the same time, believing in those values is not the same as have having reasons to hold them. A theist saying that we have those values because people are "Created in the image of God. Full stop" is reflexive and unenlightening. I honestly do not know how an atheist intellectual rationally grounds the notion of human rights etc. beyond cultural preference. Personally, I think it would be wonderful if that were indeed possible. It would bridge one more divide in our society. If I can find the time, I would like to give you a more complete answer, maybe on its own thread. But it's kind of hard to find the motivation to do so since my posts seem to generate an inordinate amount of hostility.

---

What he posted about atheists was condescending and blanketed, yes.

Isn't it natural for a Christian to feel sad that some people will never know Christ? Isn't that preferable to indifference?

[Harry Nevis]

By nihilism, you mean the view that life is meaningless? I guess I am a bit of a nihilist... evolution has no goal... we're here because we can be, nothing more. But that doesn't change the fact that we are here and everyone, theist and atheist alike, have their own crosses to bear, challenges to overcome, moral decisions to make... everyone has a conscience... everyone has empathy for others. Are you saying it's all rendered moot... being human regardless of how we came to be human... if our 'worth'/'purpose' cannot be rationally justified in dry philosophy... ie if we come to a nihilistic conclusion?

By corroding human dignity do you mean in this nihilistic sense (as in the view that I have... that we're ultimately just biochemical machines, our reactions governed by the clockwork universe) or do you mean in a more Biblical sense where humans are placed at the centre of the universe, better than, and with dominion over, all other forms of life?

As for civil rights, what do you mean by civil rights? Everyone fights for civil rights, where they see injustice... that's not the preserve of religion. And where atheism is concerned, that fight is based on principles of fairness to all, equality, and empathy for others, unfettered by the prejudices and conformity of religion.

Finally, as for 'aesthetic hierarchies', I have no idea what that means

Thanks for your considered response, Emjay. I was only offering my most basic opinions. I'm encouraged that nearly all the members of AF profess concern about the Western values necessary for liberal democratic societies. At the same time, believing in those values is not the same as have having reasons to hold them. A theist saying that we have those values because people are "Created in the image of God. Full stop" is reflexive and unenlightening. I honestly do not know how an atheist intellectual rationally grounds the notion of human rights etc. beyond cultural preference. Personally, I think it would be wonderful if that were indeed possible. It would bridge one more divide in our society. If I can find the time, I would like to give you a more complete answer, maybe on its own thread. But it's kind of hard to find the motivation to do so since my posts seem to generate an inordinate amount of hostility.

[Catholic_Lady]

What he posted about atheists was condescending and blanketed, yes.

Isn't it natural for a Christian to feel sad that some people will never know Christ? Isn't that preferable to indifference?

Well, I was mostly referring to when you said this: "At the cultural level I believe that atheism is a corrosive and undermines the core values of Western civilization such as human dignity, civil rights, aesthetic hierarchies."

I see it as a blanket statement because there are a lot of atheists who are humanists and who value human life, believe in human rights, and do good things for their communities through charity and volunteering. Even on this forum, we have Tiberius who is an atheist but is prolife, more so than many Christians out there. I wouldn't say that these people's ideals are corrosive simply because they don't believe in God.

To answer your question though, yes, I do feel sad for atheists on a personal level because I feel they are missing out on something that I 100% believe is true and beautiful. Just as I'm sure they feel sad for us because they feel we are wasting our time on things that don't exist.

(edit to add: for fairness to you though, I was shaken by the thread where some folks were saying there are times when killing infant babies is morally good. So I see why you may have felt compelled to say this. But I don't think this is a view that most atheists hold, and I'm sure there are theists out there who do hold it as well. So I wouldn't chalk it up to atheism in general.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Isn't it natural for a Christian to feel sad that some people will never know Christ? Isn't that preferable to indifference?

Well, I was mostly referring to when you said this: "At the cultural level I believe that atheism is a corrosive and undermines the core values of Western civilization such as human dignity,  civil rights, aesthetic hierarchies."

I see it as a blanket statement because there are a lot of atheists who are humanists and who value human life, believe in human rights, and do good things for their communities through charity and volunteering.

My statement was about atheism as an intellectual position and cultural phenomenon. It is critique of ideas and says nothing about the character of any individual atheist. I applaud the convictions of atheists who preserve and promote Western values. I simply do not feel their convictions rest on a very firm intellectual foundation. In other words, they believe the right things for the wrong reasons.