What do you think of atheists

[GrayAngel]

This took me way too long to write. Don't expect too many posts from me of this length from now on.

I need to get to bed.

I think it would have been truly remarkable if the Old Testament did in fact have some foresight in its ethical wisdom. Because as it stands, it looks no different to me than the other brutal pagan beliefs of the day.

Exodus 15:3
In your unfailing love you will lead
the people you have redeemed.
In your strength you will guide them
to your holy dwelling.

Exodus 34:5-7
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

Leviticus 19:18
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

Leviticus 19:34
The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Psalm 11:5
The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.

Psalm 86:15
But you, Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness. (<<<This one is repeated several times. I think they believed it.)

Psalm 19:22
What a person desires is unfailing love; better to be poor than a liar.

Proverbs 27:5
Better is open rebuke than hidden love.

Leviticus 20:2
“Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him.'"

And so on.

God's loving side has always existed. The Christians did not change God to make Him look better. The God of the Old Testament is the same as the New Testament God who loves His people and hates sin. God's love is layed out throughout the OT, and His wrath still prevalent in the NT. The difference is the New Covenant, made possible by Christ, which brings us into a more personal loving relationship with God.

Hilarious justification for the death of children. Even if not a single child died because of those laws, it is still profoundly unethcial that those laws even existed.

You really think that you should raise children with fear? I'm rather glad my parents raised me with love instead of a threat to stone me to death if I did anything wrong.

The passage where this commandment is given is in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. The child who would be stoned would not be just some normal kid, who happened to get his hand caught in the cookie jar. The commandment describes the son who would be killed as "stubborn" (i.e. highly resistant to change) and "rebellious." All kids, especially in America, are stubborn and rebellious to an extent, but not nearly to the extent that this verse is getting at.

It can be inferred from the crimes listed that this "child" would be of mature age, not an ill-behaved two-year-old.

The parents are not permitted just to kill their children whenever they want, but they were to bring their son (seems to be gender specific) to the elders who would make the decision.

The motivation behind this is that Israel should keep itself to high standards, to be pleasing in God's sight. However, considering how often the Israelites kept God's laws (which was not very well at all), it's doubtful that this law was really ever followed. They were much more concerned with stoning accused prostitutes.

The Israelites loved their children as much as any parents. A healthy amount of fear for one's parents is good for a child's development. It keeps them out of trouble, and prevents them from developing undesirable character traits. Love must be balanced in there (as God instructed their parents to love their children) to keep them emotionally healthy, and to teach them proper sociable behavior.

Nowadays we call that kind of behavior war crimes. No child deserves to die because of their parents or nationality. I'm truly sad that you believe this is justified.

There's a difference between today and thousands of years in the past, before we developed laws for how we fight our own wars. Just because we do things one way, does not make the Israelites immoral for how they did things back then.

If the Israelites did things your way, the children would have become adults, and those adults would have continued to fight with them.

In the Numbers verse you provided, a few verses back, apparently Moses was angry that the women of this nation had "followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people."

These women were not killed at first, but Moses later told them that they should.

I'm sure a lot of women would rather die than live out their years as sex slaves. You call enslaving and demeaning someone as "mercy"? Why not set them free instead?

They were not sex slaves, they were taken as wives. Sex slaves are abused, often forced into relations with many partners. These women were taken due to a dispute they had with that tribe when there was sort of a wife shortage going on, and they had been given to be married. As I'm sure you're aware, women were never given equal rights in that society.

Verse 14 also describes them as the women "who had been spared," giving us some insight on how theyfelt about it. I'm not too sure these women would rather have died, or else they would have committed suicide.

And here's what the law says about rape:

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Ah, how nice - the rape victim has to marry the rapist. God's law sure is merciful to the oppressed. If I was God, I would have said "if a man rapes a woman, he should be put in prison for the rest of his life." Yet God (all-knowing, all-powerful, supremely wise, and infinitely good) takes a rather immoral approach.

This society was very different from our own. A woman who was not a virgin was considered unclean, and undesirable for marriage. She would never be allowed to marry, or to have children. They would have to live their lives as maidservants; the only real alternative to the married life.

This way, the man is forced to make himself faithful to her as a husband. The inevitable feelings of guilt that women experience after a rape would be gone, now that she could see herself as not an unclean woman, but an honest wife.

The NIV puts it a slightly different way, saying, "He can never divorce her as long as he lives." It's not that the woman is forced into something she doesn't want, but that the man is forced to take responsibility for her.

More laws:

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.


So if you rape someone who is married, you get killed - but only because you violated another man's property. Oh and the victim gets killed too. Once again, God's law looks pretty horrific.

Your interpretation is dead wrong. This is not an incidence of rape, where the wife is forced into sex, but of unfaithfulness. She did not scream, meaning she was willing to go along with it.

Verse 25 deals with how to handle the situation if the married woman was raped:

Deuteronomy 22:25-27
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Since you all have such mutually exclusive beliefs, isn't it far more likely that you're all wrong, rather than one of you being right? I mean, if there was one correct interpretation of the Bible, wouldn't it be obvious to the reader?

But what we have in the NT are 4 varying accounts of Jesus' life, some stories about the early followers, and a bunch of platitudes from Paul. It's not coherent at all.

Accurate interpretation of the Bible is not something any layman can do. It takes hard work to really understand it. This is why we have pastors to teach us (note: not all of them are equal).

There are some things that are easy to understand, such as the Ten Commandments. But much of the Bible requires knowledge of context, familiarity with the original languages (there's often some meaning lost in translation), and familiarity with the Bible as a whole.

BTW, the four accounts of Jesus life are coherent. The minor differences, such as whether Jesus told them to take their staffs or leave them, are due to their varying perspectives. Three out of four of them wrote of eye witness testimonies. They lived with Jesus and saw and heard those things. The other came along later and attempted to write the story for the Romans to understand it.

Totally possible. But religion gave them a means and a scapegoat. It was consistent with their doctrine.

I can think of a few times when extreme atheists killed Christians for their beliefs. Would you say it was atheism that was the root of their problem, or would you blame it on their own personal hatred?

 

[Eudaimonist]

...

 

[sandwiches]

I've never met a proclaimed atheist who didn't have quite the bone to pick with religion, and Christianity in particular.

Not to say generally, but I think many atheists have closed and open-mindedness mixed up.

I've met a few atheists who couldn't care less about religion or who truly feel that it's a good thing. I used to be one of those atheists, actually. Not anymore however. I do feel it's a moral duty to educate people and help them critically analyze heir own beliefs in the hopes that they'll follow a creed that is consistent with logic and the observable and demonstrable.

To be honest, most Christians (and theists in general) don't really know what open-mindedness means. When they use the phrase "closed-minded," what they really mean is "not in agreement with me."

 

[Eudaimonist]

YouTube - Open-mindedness

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

That was a really informative vid Euda.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Exodus 15:3
In your unfailing love you will lead
the people you have redeemed.
In your strength you will guide them
to your holy dwelling.

Exodus 34:5-7
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

Leviticus 19:18
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

Leviticus 19:34
The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Psalm 11:5
The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.

Psalm 86:15
But you, Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness. (<<<This one is repeated several times. I think they believed it.)

Psalm 19:22
What a person desires is unfailing love; better to be poor than a liar.

Proverbs 27:5
Better is open rebuke than hidden love.

Leviticus 20:2
“Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him.'"

And so on.

Do you want me to post a laundry list of awful things from the Bible? If the Bible really was a perfect moral document, we'd so no atrocities and just these lovey-dovey verses you've cherry-picked.

The passage where this commandment is given is in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. The child who would be stoned would not be just some normal kid, who happened to get his hand caught in the cookie jar. The commandment describes the son who would be killed as "stubborn" (i.e. highly resistant to change) and "rebellious." All kids, especially in America, are stubborn and rebellious to an extent, but not nearly to the extent that this verse is getting at.

I find it really, really hilarious the moral depths you are willing to go to justify this book. "Stubborn" kids sure had it coming, right?

If you lived in those times and your kid become an apostate, would you kill him/her?

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

It can be inferred from the crimes listed that this "child" would be of mature age, not an ill-behaved two-year-old.

The parents are not permitted just to kill their children whenever they want, but they were to bring their son (seems to be gender specific) to the elders who would make the decision.

I'd love to have the life of my child in the hands of religious fanatics, wouldn't you? Can't you see that this is tyranny?

The motivation behind this is that Israel should keep itself to high standards, to be pleasing in God's sight. However, considering how often the Israelites kept God's laws (which was not very well at all), it's doubtful that this law was really ever followed. They were much more concerned with stoning accused prostitutes.

More evidence that these people were barbaric. Here's a hint: ever think that these terrible laws were the Israelites' ideas, not an all-loving God's?

The Israelites loved their children as much as any parents.

Not as much as my parents. I left the faith and they didn't kill me.

A healthy amount of fear for one's parents is good for a child's development.

Says 1 out of every million child psychologists.

There's a difference between today and thousands of years in the past, before we developed laws for how we fight our own wars. Just because we do things one way, does not make the Israelites immoral for how they did things back then.

You prove right here that the Bible has created a moral vacuum in your head. You honestly think that the Israelites were moral? And that our moral system (of not killing innocent children) is not better, just different?

Dude....

If the Israelites did things your way, the children would have become adults, and those adults would have continued to fight with them.

So we should have killed all the German children in World War I, by your logic, because then we wouldn't have had World War II?

Take a second to re-read what you just said there. You think it's morally justified to kill innocent children in war simply because you think if they grow up to be adults, they'll be after you. Please don't enlist.

In the Numbers verse you provided, a few verses back, apparently Moses was angry that the women of this nation had "followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people."

These women were not killed at first, but Moses later told them that they should.

They were not sex slaves, they were taken as wives. Sex slaves are abused, often forced into relations with many partners. These women were taken due to a dispute they had with that tribe when there was sort of a wife shortage going on, and they had been given to be married. As I'm sure you're aware, women were never given equal rights in that society.

They were taken as wives, against their will, and forced into sexual relations with a man that just slaughtered their city. In your book, that's not rape or sex slavery? Thank goodness you're not writing the laws for America.

And yes, women were never given equal rights in that society. Sure didn't help that the BIBLE TREATS THEM LIKE OBJECTS. Women are subservient in the law, and below men in every way. And God doesn't correct them. Apparently most of his love goes to the men, not so much for the women. He could have saved us all the trouble and said "women are equal to men, stop treating them like property" and the case would have been settled. Instead, we get a picture that looks exactly like it would if there was no all-loving God to fix the mess that primitive men were making.

Verse 14 also describes them as the women "who had been spared," giving us some insight on how theyfelt about it. I'm not too sure these women would rather have died, or else they would have committed suicide.

"Who had been spared" means "who had not been killed". Once again, remember that these ladies just saw their entire city burned down and all their loved ones killed. Yeah, I'm sure they're thrilled they're still alive and now shackled as a sexual inferior to a man who took part in the destruction. Yeah, I'm sure they feel great about. How do you know they didn't kill themselves at some point? Did the Bible catalog every nameless person's birth and cause of death?

This society was very different from our own. A woman who was not a virgin was considered unclean, and undesirable for marriage. She would never be allowed to marry, or to have children. They would have to live their lives as maidservants; the only real alternative to the married life.

Once again, God allows the Israelites to be pigs and mistreat women. They also considered menstruating women unclean, as if there is any logic in that.

This way, the man is forced to make himself faithful to her as a husband. The inevitable feelings of guilt that women experience after a rape would be gone, now that she could see herself as not an unclean woman, but an honest wife.

The NIV puts it a slightly different way, saying, "He can never divorce her as long as he lives." It's not that the woman is forced into something she doesn't want, but that the man is forced to take responsibility for her.

Wow, man. WOW! Have you ever talked to or seen a rape victim? Do you really think that forcing her to marry her abuser is a good idea? Wow.

Rape is not about sex, it's about power. It's about abuse and control of the victim. So yeah, it's a great idea to let a person who has a fetish for power, control, and abuse, who has already scarred a poor woman for life, be able to continue to exert that power, control, and abuse on daily basis. What a loving god Yahweh is.

This is just more proof that your god doesn't care about women.

Your interpretation is dead wrong. This is not an incidence of rape, where the wife is forced into sex, but of unfaithfulness. She did not scream, meaning she was willing to go along with it.

Verse 25 deals with how to handle the situation if the married woman was raped:

Deuteronomy 22:25-27
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Ah, I stand corrected. She only dies if she's into it. Got it.

Accurate interpretation of the Bible is not something any layman can do.

But apparently not Martin Luther though.

BTW, the four accounts of Jesus life are coherent. The minor differences, such as whether Jesus told them to take their staffs or leave them, are due to their varying perspectives. Three out of four of them wrote of eye witness testimonies. They lived with Jesus and saw and heard those things. The other came along later and attempted to write the story for the Romans to understand it.

Those weren't eyewitness testimonies. Matthew, Luke, and John are secondary accounts, and there isn't a debate about it. They were not written by eyewitnesses and were based on earlier works. The earliest evidence of Mark is 70 AD, and it is considered a primary by conservative Christian tradition, but the authorship is unknown.

I can think of a few times when extreme atheists killed Christians for their beliefs. Would you say it was atheism that was the root of their problem, or would you blame it on their own personal hatred?

Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. Someone's moral system is completely independent of the atheism question. Have you ever heard of anyone killing "in the name of a disbelief in Allah!" No, it makes no sense. Atheists don't have a creed or ideology like religious folk do.

And I'm kind of confused as to where you're going with this. You can think of a "few times" when atheists have killed Christians for "their beliefs"? Whose beliefs? The atheists or the Christians? No atheist would kill a Christian because they're a Christian, and no atheist would find their underlying atheism a motivation for murder.

Before you leave us all with a taste in our mouths of atheists killing Christians, dare we forget the very short life spans of skeptics throughout the years of Christian Theocracy?

 

[AlexBP]

Just as example you mean like this?

P1. Nothing is perfect.
P2. God is held to be a perfect being.
C1. Perfection does not exist.
C2. God does not exist.

(Disclaimer: Not an actual arguement, just an example of format)

I'm being a little bit facetious here to make the point that boasting about logic in a free-floating context accomplishes nothing. True logic, to me, is best exemplified by St. Thomas Aquinas, who in his philosophical treatises would first list the question to be discussed (always a yes-no question), then present arguments against his position, then state his position, then present arguments for his position, and lastly address the arguments against his position. Excessive logic is best demonstrated by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, who spent years laboring on a massively complicated system that they believed would allow them to classify all statements as true or false with mathematical precision. It eventually fell apart, of course. Aquinas, on the other hand, was smart enough to know that logic isn't everything. He also wrote poetry and appreciated art and music.

Logic is a set of rules by which one moves from premises to conclusions. Most people today don't study logic or philosophy generally, and don't know what premises they're starting with. Some people do, of course. But I find that most boasts about logical thinking ability are empty.

 

[brinny]

i hug atheists...i gives big ol' squisssssshy huuuugz

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I'm being a little bit facetious here to make the point that boasting about logic in a free-floating context accomplishes nothing. True logic, to me, is best exemplified by St. Thomas Aquinas, who in his philosophical treatises would first list the question to be discussed (always a yes-no question), then present arguments against his position, then state his position, then present arguments for his position, and lastly address the arguments against his position. Excessive logic is best demonstrated by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, who spent years laboring on a massively complicated system that they believed would allow them to classify all statements as true or false with mathematical precision. It eventually fell apart, of course. Aquinas, on the other hand, was smart enough to know that logic isn't everything. He also wrote poetry and appreciated art and music.

Logic is a set of rules by which one moves from premises to conclusions. Most people today don't study logic or philosophy generally, and don't know what premises they're starting with. Some people do, of course. But I find that most boasts about logical thinking ability are empty.

I won't for a second pretend I studied philosophy or logic beyond watching a few episodes of the atheist experience on youtube so you will have to excuse me if i am a bit slow on the uptake but what exactly were you asking if your answer was going to be "Logic isnt everything"?

On another note though I am not sure why poetry, art and music should be considered illogical?

 

[sandwiches]

i hug atheists...i gives big ol' squisssssshy huuuugz

I support this message.

 

[Eudaimonist]

i hug atheists...i gives big ol' squisssssshy huuuugz

Life is better with hugs.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ar Cosc]

i hug atheists...i gives big ol' squisssssshy huuuugz

Eeeeew!!

 

[GrayAngel]

I've met a few atheists who couldn't care less about religion or who truly feel that it's a good thing. I used to be one of those atheists, actually. Not anymore however. I do feel it's a moral duty to educate people and help them critically analyze heir own beliefs in the hopes that they'll follow a creed that is consistent with logic and the observable and demonstrable.

To be honest, most Christians (and theists in general) don't really know what open-mindedness means. When they use the phrase "closed-minded," what they really mean is "not in agreement with me."

I don't know how other Christians use the term, but when I call someone closed-minded, it's not just because they don't agree with me. I use the term when they refuse to see that a logical human being could have a different point of view from their own.

There's a very different attitude I've noticed from person to person. Some people get some kind of pleasure by attacking other's ideas, and their only goal is to prove you wrong. Then there are few who enjoy hearing other's arguments. I prefer the latter because they don't talk down to me like I'm inferior to them in any way, and I know they're really listening to me.

Debating (or arguing, rather) is a waste of time and energy with the former.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't know how other Christians use the term, but when I call someone closed-minded, it's not just because they don't agree with me. I use the term when they refuse to see that a logical human being could have a different point of view from their own.

You essentially just said "I only call someone close-minded when they refuse to agree with me (my view of what a logical person is,)" thus proving my point.

You keep forgetting that close-mindedness or open-mindedness has NOTHING to do with agreement or refusal to agree. It has ONLY to do with allowing oneself to consider opposing claims.

There's a very different attitude I've noticed from person to person. Some people get some kind of pleasure by attacking other's ideas, and their only goal is to prove you wrong. Then there are few who enjoy hearing other's arguments. I prefer the latter because they don't talk down to me like I'm inferior to them in any way, and I know they're really listening to me.

Being condescending is rude but that attitude tells your nothing about whether that person understands you or is listening to you. And many times, that attitude is incorrectly attributed to someone who is, in fact, more prepared for the discussion than the person who feels patronized. That's why we see comments like "scientists just think they know it all" or "you got it all figured out, don't you?"

Debating (or arguing, rather) is a waste of time and energy with the former.

I have also noticed that many people feel or act as thought they're offended or as though they're being patronized in order to avoid having to defend their claims. One good example in these very forums is the user AV1611VET. He'll usually stay only as long as he thinks he's got a good point and when he's pushed into a corner or he realizes he's wrong, he'll quickly act offended and leave the thread.

 

[Ar Cosc]

I have also noticed that many people feel or act as thought they're offended or as though they're being patronized in order to avoid having to defend their claims. One good example in these very forums is the user AV1611VET. He'll usually stay only as long as he thinks he's got a good point and when he's pushed into a corner or he realizes he's wrong, he'll quickly act offended and leave the thread.

Or start going on about chuffing Pluto!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Or start going on about chuffing Pluto!

Thalidomide.

 

[Deserae2011]

When I first started going to church to see what the big deal was all about, I went with a opened mind because a friend of mine told me, I would rather believe in it then die and not believe and go to hell. Its not like its going to make you any worse of a person. Most people dont go to church and then go and rob someone. Its going to make you a better person. I think atheists people are selfish. Because most of them just dont want to hear about it period. They already have there minds made up, and think they know the answers.

 

[Gishin]

When I first started going to church to see what the big deal was all about, I went with a opened mind because a friend of mine told me, I would rather believe in it then die and not believe and go to hell.

Pascall's Wager is a horrible reason to convert. Why didn't you convert to Islam to avoid Islamic hell? Better safe than sorry, right?

Its not like its going to make you any worse of a person.

You'd be surprised.

Most people dont go to church and then go and rob someone.

Ok?

Its going to make you a better person.

Depends on the definition of "better person". Pending that definition, I'd be inclined to disagree.

I think atheists people are selfish.

I suppose that's better than being shellfish.

Because most of them just dont want to hear about it period.

Do you actually know any atheists?

They already have there minds made up, and think they know the answers.

Don't we all?

 

[GrayAngel]

You essentially just said "I only call someone close-minded when they refuse to agree with me (my view of what a logical person is,)" thus proving my point.

You keep forgetting that close-mindedness or open-mindedness has NOTHING to do with agreement or refusal to agree. It has ONLY to do with allowing oneself to consider opposing claims.

Why do you consistently misunderstand everything I say? It's like you're determined to see me as the embodiment of all that is evil.

What you're saying is exactly what I was saying. I don't care if you agree with me or not. If all you ever said was, "Oh, yeah. I agree with you," I'd get bored pretty quick.

What I enjoy is an intelligent conversation with someone whose focus is "let's hear what you have to say about this" and not "you're wrong, what's wrong with you? I'm better than you."

Being condescending is rude but that attitude tells your nothing about whether that person understands you or is listening to you. And many times, that attitude is incorrectly attributed to someone who is, in fact, more prepared for the discussion than the person who feels patronized. That's why we see comments like "scientists just think they know it all" or "you got it all figured out, don't you?"

A person's attitude is a huge clue into their hidden goals. A person who wants to hear your opinions will avoid riling them up and ticking them off. People who just want to prove you wrong (possibly a sign of their own insecurity) will insult you, talk down to you, talk in circles (trying to drag a certain response from you), and cherry pick from your posts only those things they can use to further this goal of theirs.

This may not be 100% true in all situations, but this is what I operate by. Treat me with respect, like an equal individual, and I'll enjoy debating with you. Tick me off, and I'll lose interest and stop wasting my time.

My only worry is that they'll think they won, but I've learned to ignore the urge to fight back.

I have also noticed that many people feel or act as thought they're offended or as though they're being patronized in order to avoid having to defend their claims. One good example in these very forums is the user AV1611VET. He'll usually stay only as long as he thinks he's got a good point and when he's pushed into a corner or he realizes he's wrong, he'll quickly act offended and leave the thread.

With a screen name like that, I wouldn't expect much from him. Sounds like the screen name of a troll. (Unless there's some kind of meaning in the name that I'm missing?)

Yeah, people don't like to say they don't know, or worse, that they might be wrong.

I've observed something in myself, that I'm usually surrounded by people (in real life, not only in the forums) who constantly look for ways to criticize me, so I've developed an oversensitive self-protective tendency.

If you make me feel like I'm backed up in a corner, I will get mad. But if you can make me feel comfortable, and give off a non-antagonizing vibe, then I may not feel the need to defend myself. I don't know, this might apply to a lot of people.

I remember in a different forum, once, I began to wonder if my opinions on gay-marriage or homosexuals in general were correct. In an honest pursuit to find my answers, I posted a topic, asking if gay people were happy being gay. I was careful to communicate that I was not trying to offend them by asking the question, but they responded with ruthless attacks and baseless accusations. I believe one person said something like, "I would be happy if it wasn't for people like you."

I concluded that they were emotionally unstable, and oversensitive due to their condition. If they had approached the question in a different way, I might have come to a different conclusion. They may have missed their one and only chance to change my opinion. Instead they strengthened it.

So you want to have a change in changing someone's mind. Take my advice, and don't tick them off.

When I first started going to church to see what the big deal was all about, I went with a opened mind because a friend of mine told me, I would rather believe in it then die and not believe and go to hell. Its not like its going to make you any worse of a person. Most people dont go to church and then go and rob someone. Its going to make you a better person. I think atheists people are selfish. Because most of them just dont want to hear about it period. They already have there minds made up, and think they know the answers.

I hope you know, becoming a "better person" is not what Christianity is about, though self-improvement is something we're called to.

And not all unbelievers are willing to go out and rob someone. They're not completely void of any moral sense. Like everyone else, social order is something they value.

Depends on the definition of "better person". Pending that definition, I'd be inclined to disagree.

If your definition in housing refugees after a hurricane, helping people with financial issues, volunteering to help build houses for Haiti (for free), going to Africa to build wells so the people there can have clean water, then yeah, they're just horrible people.

I suppose that's better than being shellfish.

Boo!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Why do you consistently misunderstand everything I say? It's like you're determined to see me as the embodiment of all that is evil.

Well, you do think it's ok for soldiers to kill innocent civilians, and you're down with Yahweh's commands for rape victims to marry their rapists. I wouldn't call you the embodiment of evil but I'm rather surprised that you support these positions.

(And you didn't respond to my super long post! It's ok that you didn't, we weren't really getting anywhere)