Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (3 Viewers)

[Cazic]

I already see them doing these things. They get agitated over someone even just suggesting a possibility of there being a deity, regardless of Christianity talk or any religion talk and insult them because apparently these deists/agnostics can't read science textbooks.

Honestly, it sounds more like you're agitated by the fact that someone questions your claim of the existence of some deity. There is nothing wrong with questioning the claims that some person makes. It's healthy, and has resulted in humans learning and gaining plenty. Testament to this is the fact that questioning claims is built into the scientific method, and I'm sure that we both agree that science has been a boon to humanity. I know that questioning claims is not exactly conducive to religion (in fact, it's pretty much its antithesis), but that doesn't make it wrong.

Well Christians take it further than a TV show or book because we are mandated too... granted some people are completely inappropriate.

But for instance, the reason that they ran the "Jesus, All about Life" TV campaign was due to the fact that studies show that some large percentage over 50 (I'm not going to quote it exactly because I can't remember) of people in Sydney don't even know a Christian, let alone what Christianity is about short of some dude called Jesus and the stories of Noahs Ark, Moses, The Creation and some Whacky Revelations dialogue... and what the Da Vinci Code taught them.

The whole point was to get people thinking about it and get to know Christians.

The door knocking is an amazing Ministry because it provides people a platform to ask questions (granted the person doing it should know what they're talking about), but also to meet people in their community and such...

The American TV tele-evangelists you see in the morning... every Bible believing Christian deeply cringes at the mention of it... usually... specifically because there have been some amazing evangelists like Billy Graham.

Also, you have to remember that a large number of of American Christians are cultural Christians, not Bible believing, theologically correct Christians. The Republican Voting, Gun toting, throw their Children out if they get Pregnant or have an Abortion, Gay bashing bigots who ruin the name of Christianity far worse than any Gay in a Church ever could. Those are the kind of people who hand out edited copies of The Origin of Species... people that I personally tell to dress down, and go and read Luke, because Jesus gives strict words to "religious" people like them.

Wow... that's some incoherent babbling... but I can't be stuffed editing it

No True Scotsman?.

 

[Iron]

This CLEARLY does not extend to god, LOL

It clearly extends to Christ Jesus. This is why we call ourselves Christians, k

 

[SylviaB]

It clearly extends to Christ Jesus. This is why we call ourselves Christians, k

lol yeh but not to god tho

 

[maplestory]

well i dont :|

 

[Iron]

lol yeh but not to god tho

Christ is God made man. They are the same thing
Catch up Sylvester!

 

[SylviaB]

Christ is God made man. They are the same thing
Catch up Sylvester!

lol yeah but you have to admit there is a pretty huge difference between the way god acts and the way christ acts


god: holy shit you guys im so mad imma kill your whole race and punish you FOREVER

jesus: Lol guys we should all love each other kk

 

[Iron]

It shocked the Jews too at first, but there's no difference. Christ turned out the merchants from the temple with a whip! His wrath was no longer or more excessive than needed

 

[SylviaB]

whipping some dudes =/= MASS GENOCIDE lol

 

[Iron]

The Lord giveth
and the Lord taketh away

Only God knows the status of the dead

 

[SylviaB]

mmkay lol

 

[NewiJapper]

I think we all know the status of the dead. They are DEAD. There's nothing else much to it lol

And in response to Jesus being God made man. Isnt that slightly incest? As far as my knowledge brings me to recall, Jesus is the son of God. So how is it impossible that God can father a child himself WITH himself?



God is a incest hill-billy...? Ok, settled, no need for more trolling guys.

 

[moll.]

The Lord giveth
and the Lord taketh away

Only God knows the status of the dead

Nah bro.
Their status is "Appear Offline".
They actually are there.
You just don't know it.

 

[CecilyMare]

Honestly, it sounds more like you're agitated by the fact that someone questions your claim of the existence of some deity. There is nothing wrong with questioning the claims that some person makes. It's healthy, and has resulted in humans learning and gaining plenty. Testament to this is the fact that questioning claims is built into the scientific method, and I'm sure that we both agree that science has been a boon to humanity. I know that questioning claims is not exactly conducive to religion (in fact, it's pretty much its antithesis), but that doesn't make it wrong.

I didn't say anything about making anything wrong. You just created a little something there for yourself. Don't quote me when you're doing that, because it misleads people.

 

[Cazic]

I didn't say anything about making anything wrong. You just created a little something there for yourself. Don't quote me when you're doing that, because it misleads people.

You said that atheists get agitated when people mention the existence of a deity, and I disputed that (albeit in a round-a-bout way). In doing that I did say that questioning the existence of a deity is perfectly fine, but I didn't say you said anything was wrong.

 

[0bs3n3]

Christians like to force their beliefs down our throats.

Teh epic generalisation. Has that ever happened to you personally? No. Get off your high horse plzkthx.

 

[Teclis]

Honestly, it sounds more like you're agitated by the fact that someone questions your claim of the existence of some deity. There is nothing wrong with questioning the claims that some person makes. It's healthy, and has resulted in humans learning and gaining plenty. Testament to this is the fact that questioning claims is built into the scientific method, and I'm sure that we both agree that science has been a boon to humanity. I know that questioning claims is not exactly conducive to religion (in fact, it's pretty much its antithesis), but that doesn't make it wrong.


No True Scotsman?.

Just as I thought....

Another Moron.


Firstly, if a Christian doesn't test his own claims, then he is a fool. If for example there was no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and collaborative eye witness accounts backed up by outside sources... Christians would look like right idiots now wouldn't they.

What CecilyMare was talking about (I think) is militant Atheism. The person who at the mention of God comes out swinging with hypotheses, scientific evidence, philosophical proofs and refutes and all the bells and whistles they've stolen from Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Meanwhile, the person who mentioned God is slightly baffled because all they wanted to do was say grace....


Oh and you're a freakin moron if I hadn't made that clear. No True Scotsman doesn't apply when there are two actual distinct groups. There is a difference between a cultural Christian and a practicing, Bible believing Christian.

Cultural Christian - the ones who go to Church for Christmas, Easter, Weddings, for Christenings, maybe confirmation and funerals. Don't really practice what they preach. They are Christian in name only. Usually because their parents were, or they're a part of a Christian culture (like America). They are Christian in name only.

Christian - someone who follows Christ. Believes in the existence of God, believes that he sent his son Yeshua ben Josef to earth. That Yeshua ben Josef was fully man and fully God. That he died, was dead and buried, conquered sin and rose again and is now in heaven. Someone who has repented on their sins and said "Lord I should not be first in my life, you should. I want to follow you and want to be saved by you. Thankyou for taking my sins away..."

Two very different groups of people.

The equivalent would be the difference between a Scotsman, and someone who was born in Scotland, left Scotland as a young child, married an Irish girl and had a child. That child then calls himself a Scotsman... when he is clearly on so by association

 

[Cazic]

Just as I thought....

Another Moron.


Firstly, if a Christian doesn't test his own claims, then he is a fool. If for example there was no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and collaborative eye witness accounts backed up by outside sources... Christians would look like right idiots now wouldn't they.

Forgive my ignorance, but can you please point me to these eye witness accounts backed up by outside sources? I'm very interested.

What CecilyMare was talking about (I think) is militant Atheism. The person who at the mention of God comes out swinging with hypotheses, scientific evidence, philosophical proofs and refutes and all the bells and whistles they've stolen from Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Meanwhile, the person who mentioned God is slightly baffled because all they wanted to do was say grace....

I'm sorry I keep asking you to back up your claims, but I find it hard to believe such people exist. Can you give me an example of a single prominent atheist who is like this? Please do not just name someone who offers critiques of the existence of God. As I explained, this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do if you're invited to do so (for instance, an invited talk or televised debate).

Oh and you're a freakin moron if I hadn't made that clear.

Then please start making things clear - I don't like being a moron.

No True Scotsman doesn't apply when there are two actual distinct groups. There is a difference between a cultural Christian and a practicing, Bible believing Christian.

Cultural Christian - the ones who go to Church for Christmas, Easter, Weddings, for Christenings, maybe confirmation and funerals. Don't really practice what they preach. They are Christian in name only. Usually because their parents were, or they're a part of a Christian culture (like America). They are Christian in name only.

Christian - someone who follows Christ. Believes in the existence of God, believes that he sent his son Yeshua ben Josef to earth. That Yeshua ben Josef was fully man and fully God. That he died, was dead and buried, conquered sin and rose again and is now in heaven. Someone who has repented on their sins and said "Lord I should not be first in my life, you should. I want to follow you and want to be saved by you. Thankyou for taking my sins away..."

Two very different groups of people.

The equivalent would be the difference between a Scotsman, and someone who was born in Scotland, left Scotland as a young child, married an Irish girl and had a child. That child then calls himself a Scotsman... when he is clearly on so by association

Do you even remember the conversation we've had? You accused Hitchens' and Dawkins' choice of a book title as a "ram it down your throat" tactic. I disagreed and stated that it is in fact Christians that tended to use "ram it down your throat" tactics, citing a few examples in the process. You then proceeded to defend the examples I gave and/or divided the group of Christians into subgroups. The later was presumably to establish some sort of precedent in order not to try and defend actions you didn't actually agree with by attributing said action to exclusively one group or the other (No True Scotsman). Feel free to correct me - clearly remember!

 

[Iron]

Forgive my ignorance, but can you please point me to these eye witness accounts backed up by outside sources? I'm very interested.

!

The fact that the Gospels were held in veneration and were in practical use all over the Church within 100 years of the death of the Apostles, and while their memory was still vivid, is a conclusive proof of their genuineness.

Many Apostles and their successors gave their lives for the Truth of the Gospels, many Jewish converts accepted them as at least as equal as their revered Old Testament, many clever gentiles were willing to change their whole lives based on it. This all points to the Gospels as being largely accepted as genuine at the time/period of publication. Many of the first readers were eye-witnesses

etc

 

[Cazic]

The fact that the Gospels were held in veneration and were in practical use all over the Church within 100 years of the death of the Apostles, and while their memory was still vivid, is a conclusive proof of their genuineness.

Many Apostles and their successors gave their lives for the Truth of the Gospels, many Jewish converts accepted them as at least as equal as their revered Old Testament, many clever gentiles were willing to change their whole lives based on it. This all points to the Gospels as being largely accepted as genuine at the time/period of publication. Many of the first readers were eye-witnesses

etc

That seems like a long way to say "x text is an eye-witness account". Of course, none of the writers of the gospels were eye-witnesses. At least, so far as I know, but please feel free to correct me as I'm still learning. Far from there existing any conclusive proof of anything, as you assert, there is a serious dodgy factor to consider here - why are some of the gospels clearly based off one another, often going so far as to copy word-for-word?

 

[Iron]

That seems like a long way to say "x text is an eye-witness account". Of course, none of the writers of the gospels were eye-witnesses. At least, so far as I know, but please feel free to correct me as I'm still learning. Far from there existing any conclusive proof of anything, as you assert, there is a serious dodgy factor to consider here - why are some of the gospels clearly based off one another, often going so far as to copy word-for-word?

Matthew was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus (Matthew 9:1; 10:1-4) and therefore an eye-witness.

Mark was Peter's son (I Peter 5:13, possibly spiritual son), who wrote down what Peter said about who Jesus was, what He did, where He went and what happened; Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, an eye-witness account, written down by Mark.

Luke was a doctor and a co-worker with Paul (Colossians 4:14; Philemon v24). Because some spurious stories about Jesus were circulating, Luke decided to interview local eye-witnesses and people who had followed Jesus closely. Luke collated all the interviews into a single account, recording details not mentioned elsewhere, for example regarding the conception and birth of Jesus and Mary's extended family, as you might expect of a doctor.

John was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus and therefore an eye-witness (John 19:35)

These are the Gospels of the Lord!