What should happen to all the atheists?

[Non sequitur]

I have a novel idea.

Atheist and Theist alike study to understand the claims of theism broadly and atheism and when they can pass a basic test demonstrating justification of their position they earn the right to way in.

Likewise a simple logical fallacy test would have to be passed.

The quality of rhetoric would improve immensely.

As it stands, with the overwhelming plethora of influence from intellects like Bill Maher, and The New Atheists, not to mention the creators of Zeitgeist, we should ban Atheists from even defining the word "Atheism," let alone haranguing Christians who are intellectually unable to crap-detect the pseudo-intellectual manipulation of the infidel community at large out on CF.

There are great arguments on both sides. And sites online that provide serious philosophical debates with staggering intellects like Plantinga or guys like Graham Oppy. But they are so rare here at CF as to err to the side of not allowing propaganda to scuttle the faith of intellectually immature Christians. It seems that the moderators have wisely limited that propaganda to a few areas.

Who is the arbiter for determining this justification is sound?

 

[keith99]

Perhaps a more interesting question might be WHY do atheists come on here and post?

Personally I joined because I am in a relationship with a committed Christian, and I just wanted to see what views other Christians had, and how they show their faith. I think a measured discussion between people with different views is interesting and i hope that Christians and those of other faiths or none get something out of it.

I think it is reasonable that there are areas not open tp atheists or non Christians, and the current set up is fine.

I'm fine with some Christians only areas but not others. Why do Christians need their own American Politics section? For that matter why some of the other restrictions like the Married forum? And on that why are divorced or widowed excluded? At times I think the answer is so there is a safe place to post foolishness or lies.

I'd be satisfied if us non-christians just had a pseudo reply button that just let us post a stock message that was something like "Non-Christians can still see the posts here, does your post reflect well upon Christianity?

For some other areas I would like a gatekeeper system, some way an excluded person could gain entrance. There has been more than one occasion where someone whose icon says Christian has posed a theological issue that has a fairly simple solution that I am familiar with but unable to post. Oh well that is the price of excluding others, sometimes others are your allies.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have no desire to see non-Christians and their voices quieted or silenced. But I think that given the general nature of this website as a place for Christians to come and discuss, having "Christian-only" areas is common sense.

If, for example, there were a Muslim discussion website that had areas for Muslims only, I'd consider that quite fair and would respect it. Likewise for, say an Atheist discussion site, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Conservative, or whateverhaveyou; religious or not religious.

Though when I think "Christian-only" I'm largely thinking the theology boards, or the denomination-specific boards.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Motherofkittens]

I didn't vote because I am an atheist. But I will say things are set up pretty well here. I think there should be open spaces and more closed spaces, definitely.

 

[Motherofkittens]

I have no desire to see non-Christians and their voices quieted or silenced. But I think that given the general nature of this website as a place for Christians to come and discuss, having "Christian-only" areas is common sense.

If, for example, there were a Muslim discussion website that had areas for Muslims only, I'd consider that quite fair and would respect it. Likewise for, say an Atheist discussion site, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Conservative, or whateverhaveyou; religious or not religious.

Though when I think "Christian-only" I'm largely thinking the theology boards, or the denomination-specific boards.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree with all of that except an "atheist only" area and/or forum. It would be like having a "wavy hair only" space in a site that is about everything except hair. There just is not enough there for commonality to need or want a closed space.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree with all of that except an "atheist only" area and/or forum. It would be like having a "wavy hair only" space in a site that is about everything except hair. There just is not enough there for commonality to need or want a closed space.

Well, as a red head for example; if there was a discussion group for gingers to discuss "ginger things" (I can't think what that would be off the top of my head what that might be) I don't think that'd be problematic as that would be the intent. I can imagine that there might be some atheists who might enjoy discussion with other like-minded people on a very narrow subject matter; or at least an area of discussion free from people who might otherwise try and impose themselves--say in order to try and proselytize.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Motherofkittens]

Well, as a red head for example; if there was a discussion group for gingers to discuss "ginger things" (I can't think what that would be off the top of my head what that might be) I don't think that'd be problematic as that would be the intent. I can imagine that there might be some atheists who might enjoy discussion with other like-minded people on a very narrow subject matter; or at least an area of discussion free from people who might otherwise try and impose themselves--say in order to try and proselytize.

-CryptoLutheran

That would probably be about the teasing and/or abuse gingers get just for being ginger. That's why I said about everything except hair. It would be like a site with science, history and politics, etc., but only for gingers.

Of course there should be places you can't proselytize. There are even sub forums here where you can't. That isn't the same as not expressing yourself in a conversation/debate though.

There could be atheists that want that, but I don't know of any. There just isn't enough there for commonality in anything else, necessarily. If you add things to it, sure, but by itself, no.

I do fully believe in open, closed and safe spaces. They are all needed and good for different things.

 

[cloudyday2]

I was kind of hoping to read about what sorts of tortures should await us in hell.

 

[keith99]

I was kind of hoping to read about what sorts of tortures should await us in hell.

I was really disappointed when I found out the dogs in ring 2 of the 7th circle of hell are female. I was hoping I could land there safely and meet my old pack.

 

[Hieronymus]

I was kind of hoping to read about what sorts of tortures should await us in hell.

I guess you can read that in other topics...
Opinions and views vary of course..

So, about the question at hand then..
I have quite a list of ignored members, most of them are atheists.
Because it's pointless to engage in discussion with them (or with me from their viewpoint).
So i avoid pointless discussions by using the ignore option.

I often wonder what they're doing here though, them 'unbelievers'.
It's a good thing i.m.o. they're not posting in the restricted sub forums.
Christians have enough stuff to disagree about with eachother already.

I guess it's okay like it is now.

 

[Motherofkittens]

I guess you can read that in other topics...
Opinions and views vary of course..

So, about the question at hand then..
I have quite a list of ignored members, most of them are atheists.
Because it's pointless to engage in discussion with them (or with me from their viewpoint).
So i avoid pointless discussions by using the ignore option.

I often wonder what they're doing here though, them 'unbelievers'.
It's a good thing i.m.o. they're not posting in the restricted sub forums.
Christians have enough stuff to disagree about with eachother already.

I guess it's okay like it is now.

Oh yes, Christians come in a lot of variety. Compared to the beginnings of Christianity the branches now are much more similar to each other though.

I'm here because I am interested in sociology, history, psychology, etc., and of course that means you have to understand religion (I particularly am fascinated about why "good people do bad because of their beliefs" and the evolution of beliefs.)I really like knowing what people believe and why people believe what they do. I am also on a bunch of other religious (current and extinct or practically extinct) forums and read all about them, books, classes, articles,etc.

I was raised a fundamentalist creationist protestant by my missionary parents and I currently live in a area where most people are Christians. I have many christian friends and family, as well as of other religions and I used to live in mostly Hindu, Catholic and Muslim countries. Not only do I want to know, I probably should know. I want to get along with people and understanding them and myself is a good place to start.

I know some atheists who go to religious forums and other places they think are pushing "woo" (I've heard some people on here say atheists only "attack" Christianity. That is absolutely false )because they think those beliefs are harmful. For example, creationism or anti-vacciers, etc. I engage in that too. Unfortunately, some people want their personal beliefs to be pushed on everyone.

There are are others who come for a debate or discussion on things they think are silly. Probably the same reasoning you use for discussing against flat earth or fairies or whatever you think is silly

Then some come to learn and to educate.There are all kinds of reasons. Do you not want us here, at all?

I like forums, they are a great place to learn and have a sense of community and to make friends. So long as one has good morals and a want for social justice ,we will get along just lovely.

 

[Hieronymus]

Oh yes, Christians come in a lot of variety. Compared to the beginnings of Christianity the branches now are much more similar to each other though.

It began in the first century.
I highly doubt the average of Christianity as we have it now is similar to the first Christians, i highly doubt there were as many denominations and different creeds and sects in the early days as in there are now.
I'm quite certain there weren't actually.

I'm here because I am interested in sociology, history, psychology, etc., and of course that means you have to understand religion (I particularly am fascinated about why "good people do bad because of their beliefs" and the evolution of beliefs.)I really like knowing what people believe and why people believe what they do. I am also on a bunch of other religious (current and extinct or practically extinct) forums and read all about them, books, classes, articles,etc.

But how do you assess what is true?
There are many many opinions and viewpoints out there, some are based on evidence, some are not, some are half based on evidence.

I was raised a fundamentalist creationist protestant by my missionary parents and I currently live in a area where most people are Christians. I have many christian friends and family, as well as other religions and I used to live in mostly Hindu, Catholic and Muslim countries. Not only do I want to know, I probably should know. I want to get along with people and understanding them and myself is a good place to start.

I know some atheists who go to religions forums and other places they think are pushing "woo" (I've heard some people on here say atheists only "attack" Christianity. That is absolutely false )

(That's definitely not absolutely false)

because they think those beliefs are harmful. For example, creationism or anti-vacciers, etc. I engage in that too. Unfortunately, some people want their personal beliefs to be pushed on everyone.

You seem to have received your share of pushed beliefs too.
For example, you matter of factly just throw out here that creationism is harmful.
Who convinced you of that?
And to what would this be harmful?
Is it because Bill "please choke me with my bow tie" Nye said so?

There are are others who come for a debate or discussion on things they think are silly. Probably the same reasoning you use for discussing against flat earth or fairies or whatever you think is silly

My experience is that they usually don't know and / or don't want to know or understand why (in this case (some) Christians) have a different view.

Then some come to learn and to educate.There are all kinds of reasons. Do you not want us here,at all?

Well, not all atheists end up on my ignore list.
And not only atheists are on that list.
But i think a non-Christian should join CF if they want to know what Christians believe and why they believe what they believe.
And they should be able to challenge Christian beliefs too.
But more often than not they're just repeating their peers thinking they're smarter and more knowledgeable.
And on some topics they sometimes are, but they assume an attitude as if they are the voice of reason, while they're just believers themselves, but they believe other things than Christians.
Again, not all of them are like that, and not only atheists are like that.

But can you blame them?
Opinion makers everywhere, and they're usually not Christian..

 

[Motherofkittens]

It began in the first century.
I highly doubt the average of Christianity as we have it now is similar to the first Christians, i highly doubt there were as many denominations and different creeds and sects in the early days as in there are now.
I'm quite certain there weren't actually.
But how do you assess what is true?
There are many many opinions and viewpoints out there, some are based on evidence, some are not, some are half based on evidence.
(That's definitely not absolutely false)You seem to have received your share of pushed beliefs too.
For example, you matter of factly just throw out here that creationism is harmful.
Who convinced you of that?
And to what would this be harmful?
Is it because Bill "please choke me with my bow tie" Nye said so?
My experience is that they usually don't know and / or don't want to know or understand why (in this case (some) Christians) have a different view.
Well, not all atheists end up on my ignore list.
And not only atheists are on that list.
But i think a non-Christian should join CF if they want to know what Christians believe and why they believe what they believe.
And they should be able to challenge Christian beliefs too.
But more often than not they're just repeating their peers thinking they're smarter and more knowledgeable.
And on some topics they sometimes are, but they assume an attitude as if they are the voice of reason, while they're just believers themselves, but they believe other things than Christians.
Again, not all of them are like that, and not only atheists are like that.

But can you blame them?
Opinion makers everywhere, and they're usually not Christian..

Sorry, my fault. There are about 40,000 branches of Christianity, last I looked.(There is probably more now.) It is hard to say how many branches there were in the "beginnings". I also probably should have used the words "early on and before the 18,000's."

What I was trying to say was the differences between them were a lot vaster than they are now. For example just look up "Adamites" and "Arianism" for starters. It is hard to believe, but Christianity, as a whole now is a lot more uniform. It took millennium upon millennium to do , so I guess it should be.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, my fault. There are about 40,000 branches of Christianity, last I looked.(There is probably more now.) It is hard to say how many branches there were in the "beginnings". I also probably should have used the words "early on and before the 18,000's."

I believe you mean denominations and that does not necessarily mean differing beliefs.

What I was trying to say was the differences between them were a lot vaster than they are now. For example just look up "Adamites" and "Arianism" for starters. It is hard to believe, but Christianity, as a whole now is a lot more uniform. It took millennium upon millennium to do , so I guess it should be.

I'm not sure that is true. Yes, there were heretics then as there are now but the message of the Old and New testaments were the foundation of the Christian faith.

 

[Motherofkittens]

I believe you mean denominations and that does not necessarily mean differing beliefs.

I'm not sure that is true. Yes, there were heretics then as there are now but the message of the Old and New testaments were the foundation of the Christian faith.

Yes, thanks for the correction. That would be about 5 branches and 40,000 denominations, give or take.
That was my whole point, Christianity as a whole is now more uniform than ever. The things that are generally accepted as basic doctrine to most Christians took a millennia of time to be considred that. There was a lot of debate and going back and forth. They are considered heretics now, but that wasn't always so.

 

[Motherofkittens]

It began in the first century.
I highly doubt the average of Christianity as we have it now is similar to the first Christians, i highly doubt there were as many denominations and different creeds and sects in the early days as in there are now.
I'm quite certain there weren't actually.
But how do you assess what is true?
There are many many opinions and viewpoints out there, some are based on evidence, some are not, some are half based on evidence.
(That's definitely not absolutely false)You seem to have received your share of pushed beliefs too.
For example, you matter of factly just throw out here that creationism is harmful.
Who convinced you of that?
And to what would this be harmful?
Is it because Bill "please choke me with my bow tie" Nye said so?
My experience is that they usually don't know and / or don't want to know or understand why (in this case (some) Christians) have a different view.
Well, not all atheists end up on my ignore list.
And not only atheists are on that list.
But i think a non-Christian should join CF if they want to know what Christians believe and why they believe what they believe.
And they should be able to challenge Christian beliefs too.
But more often than not they're just repeating their peers thinking they're smarter and more knowledgeable.
And on some topics they sometimes are, but they assume an attitude as if they are the voice of reason, while they're just believers themselves, but they believe other things than Christians.
Again, not all of them are like that, and not only atheists are like that.

But can you blame them?
Opinion makers everywhere, and they're usually not Christian..

I just saw this. Sorry I didn't reply to all of it before. There are definitely disagreeable atheists, boy do I know. Although the "I know more than you and/or you're stupid" additude I see pretty equally in all groups. (And I am guilty of it too, sometimes. Particularly, as I suspect with most people, when I was younger.) As I said, so long as one has good morals and a strong sense of social justice, we will get along just awesomely.

I say creationistism is harmful, because it is. To everyone, although a select few will deny it. It hurts the advancement of society. We need science, and evolution included. There would be millions of dead people without the knowledge of evolution and even more without other areas of science. Creationism also tends to breed anti-intellectualism and anti-science in general. Don't you think wanting to go back to the stone age is harmful?
It also has personally affected me and many others I know.

You are going to say "but I approve of 'real' science" (which is of course that which you agree with.) But evolution is real science, as well as climate chance, spherical earth, old time, etc. And all this knowledge is all needed for the advancement we have now, and what we hope to have.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just saw this. Sorry I didn't reply to all of it before. There are definitely disagreeable atheists, boy do I know. Although the "I know more than you and/or you're stupid" additude I see pretty equally in all groups. (And I am guilty of it too, sometimes. Particularly, as I suspect with most people, when I was younger.) As I said, so long as one has good morals and a strong sense of social justice, we will get along just awesomely.

I say creationistism is harmful, because it is. To everyone, although a select few will deny it. It hurts the advancement of society. We need science, and evolution included. There would be millions of dead people without the knowledge of evolution and even more without other areas of science. Creationism also tends to breed anti-intellectualism and anti-science in general. Don't you think wanting to go back to the stone age is harmful?
It also has personally affected me and many others I know.

You are going to say "but I approve of 'real' science" (which is of course that which you agree with.) But evolution is real science, as well as climate chance, spherical earth, old time, etc. And all this knowledge is all needed for the advancement we have now, and what we hope to have.

I don't think the BioLogos view of Christianity suffers from any of the concerns you've voiced above.

Just something to think about.

 

[jacks]

opps.

 

[Hieronymus]

I say creationistism is harmful, because it is. To everyone, although a select few will deny it. It hurts the advancement of society. We need science, and evolution included. There would be millions of dead people without the knowledge of evolution and even more without other areas of science. Creationism also tends to breed anti-intellectualism and anti-science in general. Don't you think wanting to go back to the stone age is harmful?
It also has personally affected me and many others I know.

That's just total and utter nonsense.
It is however proclaimed by some atheists, popular ones, like Nye and Dawkins, Krauss, you name them...
They say this to make others (and themselves probably) believe that all creationists simply read Scripture and believe what it says without thinking or investigating and ignoring science which (in their minds) has these "mountains of evidence" that "prove" the contrary.
And you apparently believe them for some reason. Probably because they're the loudest.
But you're simply wrong.
In fact, you're brainwashed and ignorant of the knowledge behind what you are taught to despise.
You have no excuse either, since you're a member here and should have read posts explaining why creationists are creationists and dismiss naturalistic beliefs.

But, none the less, we find blind faith on both sides of the argument, that's true.

You are going to say "but I approve of 'real' science" (which is of course that which you agree with.) But evolution is real science, as well as climate chance, spherical earth, old time, etc. And all this knowledge is all needed for the advancement we have now, and what we hope to have.

You have been brainwashed and you're ignorant of the fact that popular science has decided long ago that everything occurs naturally.
And it has nothing to do with the progress of science in general either.
But you're clearly not aware that their models and beliefs regarding the origins of things have huge holes in them.
You do apparently not know of the science behind creationism either.

So, you're showing here exactly why it's pointless to engage in conversation about things with atheists.
They're arrogant and ignorant at the same time.
"Claiming to be wise they became fools" indeed...

It's very hypocritical too, because you yourself just blindly believe the atheist riddles.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but you leave me little choice other than to point out where / that you're so intensely wrong and biassed.
Why do you think people become creationists after having been evolutionists before?

But again, you've made up your mind already, or rather your peers have made up your mind already, so i guess i'll add you to my ignore list after your confirmation reply.

 

[keith99]

That's just total and utter nonsense.
It is however proclaimed by some atheists, popular ones, like Nye and Dawkins, Krauss, you name them...
They say this to make others (and themselves probably) believe that all creationists simply read Scripture and believe what it says without thinking or investigating and ignoring science which (in their minds) has these "mountains of evidence" that "prove" the contrary.
And you apparently believe them for some reason. Probably because they're the loudest.
But you're simply wrong.
In fact, you're brainwashed and ignorant of the knowledge behind what you are taught to despise.
You have no excuse either, since you're a member here and should have read posts explaining why creationists are creationists and dismiss naturalistic beliefs.

But, none the less, we find blind faith on both sides of the argument, that's true.You have been brainwashed and you're ignorant of the fact that popular science has decided long ago that everything occurs naturally.
And it has nothing to do with the progress of science in general either.
But you're clearly not aware that their models and beliefs regarding the origins of things have huge holes in them.
You do apparently not know of the science behind creationism either.

So, you're showing here exactly why it's pointless to engage in conversation about things with atheists.
They're arrogant and ignorant at the same time.
"Claiming to be wise they became fools" indeed...

It's very hypocritical too, because you yourself just blindly believe the atheist riddles.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but you leave me little choice other than to point out where / that you're so intensely wrong and biassed.
Why do you think people become creationists after having been evolutionists before?

But again, you've made up your mind already, or rather your peers have made up your mind already, so i guess i'll add you to my ignore list after your confirmation reply.

So where are these posts you claim show that creationism is rational? I do not recall any. Unless you are talking about those claiming that God made Universe looking as if it were billions of years old, in which case the argument that God is a deceiver and evil becomes quite viable.