Why do Atheist hate God?

[rjs330]

This is not a good excuse.

Excuse for what? My point was the abuser is not a believer. So If the abuser wants a divorce the Bible says let him. There is no issue here. Like I said, the abused is under no obligation to live with an abuser.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Cearbhall]

I would say that the abuser is not a believer and thus if he wishes to leave the Christian woman is under,no obligation to stay and under no restrictions on remarriage. InCorinthians Paul addresses this issue. If an unbeliever wishes to leave we are to let them go.

I'm not a fan of the No True Scotsman fallacy. All it does it help people avoid addressing a problem. The solution here is not to say that he isn't Christian. The solution is to ask how he can identify as Christian while being abusive and to figure out what's going wrong either in his life choices or in the community.

 

[The Cadet]

Excuse for what? My point was the abuser is not a believer.

And if we're going by that metric, I wonder who actually is a believer. Look, one of the central doctrines of the Christian religion is that we are all fundamentally sinful and wrong. That our most basic urges alone are enough to damn us. So why, exactly, is "beating your spouse" cause for excommunication? I mean, it isn't - I can't find a single example of someone being excommunicated from their church for beating their wife, but more on that later - but even if it were, why draw the line here? Why not start a lot closer to Jesus? Yes, the bible prohibits it. But it also prohibits countless other things, including looking at a woman lustfully, not settling immediately in lawsuits, women speaking in churches, and more; why should we consider people who do this one thing immediately "not Christians", but not, say, Jeffrey Dahmer?

It's a blatant no true Scotsman fallacy. If you beat your wife, you may be a bad Christian - a descriptor that fits probably 99.99% of the entirety of the Christian population of the world. But that doesn't magically make you stop believing in Christ and his sacrifice. It doesn't remove you from the faith.

Oh, by the way, while I didn't find anyone getting excommunicated for being abusive, you know what I did find a lot of? Women being excommunicated for divorcing abusive husbands. Yeah. See, that's the thing. You're talking pure theory, based on bad theology that virtually nobody ascribes to. I'm talking practice, the actual real nuts and bolts of people practicing the religion. As far as I can tell, there have been more attempts to excommunicate the mothers of 9-year-olds who aborted their rapist's fetus than there have been attempts to excommunicate abusive spouses. It just doesn't happen! What does happen? Battered women finally manage to leave a dangerous and abusive relationship (often overcoming threats of violence, homelessness, or worse), and are castigated and thrown out of their faith because of it. That's the reality of the situation. That's how it actually happens. And if you don't like it, take it up with the book that leaves no escape for the woman whose husband thinks overcooking the pot roast is grounds to pull out the whiffle ball bat again.

 

[rjs330]

Well I know nothing about the excomunication issue you speak of. I've been in the church for my whole life and have never seen a woman get excommunicated for leaving an abusive spouse. In fact I have heard ministers tell women to report the husband to law enforcement and to separate from him.

I think you're anti Christian bias is showing. 99.9% of Christians are bad Christians? Really? I think you just proved the no true Scottsman theory. Just because some says they are a Christian doesn't mean they are. An abusive husband is not a Christian period. You know why? Because the Word of God says so. You cannot live a sinful existence and be a believer. That is one of the biggest misunderstandings you have. Do Christians sin? YES! But true believers Do not live in sin. Can a Christian steal? Yes they can. Can they continue to steal over and over again. No they can't because they are living a lifestyle of stealing. And depending on which side of the fence you fall on the person was either never saved or he becomes unsaved because of his leaving the faith in favor of living in sin.

A Christian is not someone who says "I'm a Christian." A Christian is one who follows Christ and the teachings of the Scriptures including the commands contained therein. Not perfectly because that's impossible, but striving to do so, repenting of his sin when he falls and not living in it.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

Well I know nothing about the excomunication issue you speak of. I've been in the church for my whole life and have never seen a woman get excommunicated for leaving an abusive spouse. In fact I have heard ministers tell women to report the husband to law enforcement and to separate from him.

I think you're anti Christian bias is showing. 99.9% of Christians are bad Christians? Really? I think you just proved the no true Scottsman theory. Just because some says they are a Christian doesn't mean they are. An abusive husband is not a Christian period.

Please explain why beating your wife and believing in Jesus are mutually exclusive.

You cannot live a sinful existence and be a believer.

Really? This is the first I have heard of this. I have yet to hear of a Christian who converted and then never sinned again.

Last I checked, a Christian is defined by what they believe, not how they act.

 

[The Cadet]

Well I know nothing about the excomunication issue you speak of. I've been in the church for my whole life and have never seen a woman get excommunicated for leaving an abusive spouse. In fact I have heard ministers tell women to report the husband to law enforcement and to separate from him.

Maybe your particular church is more modern and well-meaning than, say, the catholic church. I wouldn't know, I don't really care. The fact is that excommunication for abuse is non-existent, while a great many people have been excommunicated for leaving abusive spouses.

99.9% of Christians are bad Christians? Really?

If the criteria we're going by is "doesn't follow the commands of the bible", then yes, I'd say just about every single Christian is a bad Christian, because the standards of the bible are impossible. As far as I'm aware, this is, for many doctrines, a big part of the point of Jesus's sacrifice. That this:

You cannot live a sinful existence and be a believer.

Is nonsense, because it's impossible not to live in sin. You can't avoid breaking the rules. You can't live up to Jesus's standard. It's fundamentally impossible. That's why they sent Jesus down in the first place! To my understanding, this is a fairly important point in doctrine, is it not? Look, I'm sorry, apologize to Jesus all you want, but if you walk down the street and a 10 that checks all your boxes walks up to you and flirts with you, chances are, you're committing adultery in your heart. There's not really any avoiding it.

Maybe this isn't a part of your doctrine, I dunno. It's incredibly hard to keep the 33 thousand denominations of Christianity apart, with all the splintering beliefs and sects, so you'll have to excuse me if it turns out Pentecostals think Jesus's standard is actually attainable, and the sacrifice was just for people who couldn't be bothered.

An abusive husband is not a Christian period. You know why? Because the Word of God says so.

Cite passage and verse, please. Also, what in the definition of Christianity demands that all commandments in the bible are followed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Cite passage and verse, please. Also, what in the definition of Christianity demands that all commandments in the bible are followed?

I second that. The Nicene Creed I have read says nothing about beating one's wife.

 

[Locutus]

A Christian is not someone who says "I'm a Christian." A Christian is one who follows Christ and the teachings of the Scriptures including the commands contained therein.

And so how do you ascertain that, about someone else? Do you grill every Christian you meet in order to measure them against YOUR PERSONAL criteria (and I say yours, because every Christian has a different criteria)? And how do you respond to Christians who do the same to you, and find you wanting?

Or, do you do the only thing you can do and accept that it's a self-identity? In other words, if someone says they're a Christian, then they're a Christian. Not a one of you has the ability or the authority to deem it of another. Unless of course you're happy to accept that you yourself ain't the real deal - because others say you aren't.

 

[mikenet2006]

To everyone here, I like to debate, it's become something I'm aiming towards as a career option. I'm generally easy going and love to trade thoughts, but I do push back when I see games being played. I think there is probably a lot of common ground between Atheism and Christianity, those things are often hard to recognize when there's a clash of ideologies but they're there. I did mean what I said in the opening post, I do see hate directed towards those who believe and Religion (I clarified). That's what this is about, but I think there's a way through it. I'll be respectful and easy going with those who are to others, and some of you have been which I, and I'm sure others appreciate.
________________________

Nicholas Deka

↑
"I had mentioned before that what I wanted to get is the Christian perspective on why Atheist do this. It's interesting that I got feedback from Atheist but from what I can tell, it's similar to things I've heard before."

Then you posted in the wrong section. If you wanted an echo-chamber that reinforced your misconceptions about what an atheist believes, there are Christian-only sections for that. If you cared what atheists believed (or rather don't believe to be accurate) then you should be asking atheists, not Christians. But since you started a thread that tells atheists what they believe and how they feel in a place where they are free to voice their opinions, you're darn right we're going to speak up and tell you that you don't get to speak for us.

↑
"They hate the religious"

Do you see the distinction between that and hating God?

↑
"but the problem is that many of them are laser focused on things they find to be rotten and that develops their opinions."

Sure. And they hate those things. Many others and myself have found quite a few reasonable Christians on these boards, but more unreasonable (in my experience at least). I'm sure many of them would acknowledge that if you were sincerely asking what people thought of other Christians, but that isn't the topic of your OP.

↑
"I've heard some Atheist come off as if (or saying) they know there's no God, others are very confident there isn't one."

Bolding added by me for emphasis. This is your subjective and biased interpretation of what people are saying. You seem to interpret "I see no evidence whatsoever" as "I am certain there is no". That is incorrect. Those are very different statements. And being very confident there isn't one still doesn't mean they "know" there is no God or that they hate Him. This is where you are telling others what they believe.

↑
"As for me telling others how they feel?"

Yes. Look at the title of your OP. You may phrase it as a question, but you are stating that atheists hate God, and then asking why. You are telling a vast and varied group of people how they feel, even though the statement itself makes no sense. You can't direct emotions at something that you don't even think is there.

↑
"Giving an example of a ruthless atheist dictator who killed millions and targeted churches didn't change how much the role of the Atheist is being downplayed."

Yea, but...
↑
"but I think it's important to be fair."

How many people have been killed in the name of religion and how many people have been killed by atheists? How many atheists have killed a bunch of people, and how many theists have killed a bunch of people? Let's be fair. One of these things is a big problem even today, and one of them has a few outliers. So if you want to bring up Stalin for killing millions, I'll bring up Hitler who killed millions and claimed to be a Christian. How about the Crusades? They were in retaliation for a different group of theists who were even worse. I could go on and on. Is your idea of "fair" saying, "well religious people have done a ton of terrible things, but atheists did a little bit too, so everyone has equal blame"?
↑
"I see a lot of good in those who are religious as well, I've usually felt welcomed, and they often put a lot of effort into helping others, and in my eyes those things deserve to be considered."

Me too. But I can also recognize the good in non-believers as well. Go hang out in any thread about the age of the planet or the universe, or evolution. You will see plenty of people attack religious people for putting up false and inaccurate information denouncing science. But look closer. Look for the times when anyone asks an honest question. You'll see no end to the helpfulness of atheists (and Christians too) trying to assist someone in getting a better understanding of the concepts that many people don't bother to learn before they argue against it.

"If you're looking for the bad in people, you'll find it."

And then you'll feel justified in making threads such as this that make a generalized statement about an entire group of people that you don't really understand. Take a look at your apple analogy and apply that to yourself.

If you want to make an argument about what someone believes and what someone feels, then you ought to ask them about their subjective experiences and emotions, and not rely on the opinions of others who have not one inkling if the inner machinations of the atheist mind.

You do a so so job of pulling things out of context, but it needs work if that's what you do.

Like where you snipped something that sounded bad, then followed it by me saying I think it's important to be fair. In post after post, I've mentioned there's variety in any group and I believe it wholeheartedly. In the same reply you rearranged I made that clear.

Going further back to post #44

"Do I think that violence is what defines Atheism? No, I just don't feel violence or abuse is exclusive to those who believe in God."

That explains my reasoning for the link on Joseph Stalin, I don't feel Atheism or Religion are things that are defined by violence, some people take it upon themselves to hurt others and those are the ones I take issue with. However, I think it's the perception of some that the religious are prone to violence, I posted the link to demonstrate there's some of that on each side, but was clear that violence has more to do with people and less to do with whether or not someone believes. If you're not buying it, that's fine, but I tend to dissect misquotes so insult me head on if that's how you feel. I wish it didn't have to be like that though.

As for you suggesting I should have posted in the Christian section of the Christian website, I will say that I was surprised to get the Atheist feedback, and while I do want to hear some more Christian feedback as well, the rules and description for this board don't state that Christians don't post here, I'll post it in another section if I want to though.

I've heard some Atheist come off as if (or saying) they know there's no God, others are very confident there isn't one.

Bolding added by me for emphasis.

This is your subjective and biased interpretation of what people are saying. You seem to interpret "I see no evidence whatsoever" as "I am certain there is no". That is incorrect. Those are very different statements. And being very confident there isn't one still doesn't mean they "know" there is no God or that they hate Him. This is where you are telling others what they believe.

Here you also do a little selective reading. You bold the part that allows you to make the argument that this is something I'm assuming, and leave out.. "(or saying)" which would mean you have to address the argument. You should know there are Athiest who are over zealous and certain (in their own head) that there is no God, It took two minutes to find this...

"I do not believe in God, and yes I am certain about this"

This is an interesting forum I ran across.....
http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,30309.0.html?PHPSESSID=b0e7dcecfdeda467625c58e09346d162

The opening poster had this to ask....

"My question for everyone here is, how convinced is you guys that there is no God? I would say that being 100% convinced of anything is a mistake."

Reply: I am 100% convinced there is no God as much as I am 100% convinced there is no Buddha, Allah, Juok, Inti or Baal.

Reply: As sure as I am that there's no green alien on Saturn studying Hegelian philosophy. I.e., very.

Reply: Im 100% convinced that there is no God as defined in the various bibles, since they are (at least generally) internally contradictory. (before you say that's not the same.. yada yada, I actually agree with this particular reply somewhat, I don't ever say 100% but I do see contradictions between religions, this does however still demonstrate that Atheist have no problem with ruling things out)

You had a few others who explained things like being 99% sure there is no God, and those who suggested they're unconvinced and would need evidence, then those who do that thing where they compare God to something like unicorns. Some of the repliers were self proclaimed Atheist. If you choose to define Atheism as simply "needing proof" there is no God, I can see that sentiment is shared by some, and I think it's the more logical approach, but there's a wealth of sources on the internet of people not only needing proof, but trying to give proof there is no God, so I didn't have to assume anything, all I have to do is read and listen. Furthermore, I know and have known Atheist in my personal life, some very opinionated ones, so this isn't something I'm observing from far away.

One other thing, you asked if I know the distinction between hating God and hating believers, with this you're welcome to look back at post #72 or the opening post where I clarify.

The atheist who consider the thoughts and feelings of others are the ones I don't take issue with, and that's in general, you don't know much about my debating history. I'm going to make a push with you for a civil trade off here....

You said something about there being Christians and Atheist who are helpful right? If you want, name one good thing (genuinely good and important thing) you've seen a Christain do, and name one you have respect for.

If you can do this without trying to snip this post apart, or telling me what my motivations are, then I'll give an example of Atheist who I feel the same way about because I feel there are good examples.

BTW, those who follow matters of science, such as astronomy, evolution, ect ect are types of groups I hang out in. I just did a forum on the upcoming James Web Space Telescope at the debate site I frequent the most. It turned out to be an awesome discussion.


Gene2memE

You can be a theistic agnostic, plenty of people are. I spent the majority of my life as one. My basic belief system was 'Yes, I believe there is a God, but I can't be completely certain'.

As for atheists being condescending, I think in part that's an in-group identification thing (us/them mentality of small groups), part a reflection of the general demographics of Western atheists (which in the US at least tend to be younger, more Caucasian, better educated, more engaged in STEM fields and higher paid than the average population) and partially a response (again, thinking of the US here) to the strong socio-political link between conservative/right of centre politics and protestant/baptist denominations, particularly through the 'Bible Belt'.

Condescension or even hostility from one group towards another doesn't actually have any bearing on whether their arguments are valid. There are plenty of theists that crack jokes about atheists (look at Conservapedia, its a clown car of bad joke based on faulty assumptions and poor logic), but that doesn't make their arguments any more or less correct.

Just because there are sneering, condescending, cocky atheists out there, doesn't mean they 'hate God'.

A lot of atheists are angry (so are a lot of theists). What they are angry about though is not 'God', it is the actions and attitudes of the believers in God. When groups with dissimilar beliefs to your own pushing their ideologies into the public square and forcing sets of behaviour on groups that don't share their beliefs, that's something to be angry about.

Hence the debate over abortion, same sex marriage, wedding cakes, school textbooks, and the whole rigamarole about gender identity. Using 'strongly held beliefs' as the underpinning for discrimination is a terrible way to provide an equitable base for society. Similarly, using 'because the bible says so' is an exceptionally poor foundation for teaching history and science.

Well said, and I understand. If by public square you're refering to a public religious demonstrations, we've had religious demonstrations here in Asheville at the annual Bel Chere festival, it's a very large festival so you had multiple demonstrations in different sections. You had one particularly obnoxious demonstration where a preacher (or perhaps church member) called out the entire city on being sinful, and said something about we should be ashamed, if I remember right. Asheville has a strong progressive movement, so they responded poorly, to say the least. I didn't see the start of how that escelated but it wasn't pretty.

However, another section had Religious demonstrations where they didn't do this, very respectful and sincere. I also came across a tent set up where Christians had some cards on a table for anyone to take. The front said God loves everyone and the back had information on a church. I saw cracks being made and some people laughing at the peaceful demonstration, I don't know for sure, but this may have triggered the hostility in the other demonstration. Perhaps vice versa, but it's something I think about now and then.

this part...
"Condescension or even hostility from one group towards another doesn't actually have any bearing on whether their arguments are valid."

You're right, but I do feel that when there is that hostility that the argument giver will generally have a hard time getting their point across to those who feel differently. It's also just a sad thing all around, It sets up for a situation where everyone is on the defense. Nobody likes their beliefs or thoughts being mocked, I assume that's true for most people, regardless of the belief.

I also think you're right that "sneering, condescending, cocky atheists" doesn't mean they hate God, I could have phrased that title as hating the concept of, or hating believers. If someone is consistently cocky or condescending towards one group that does demonstrate hate or prejudice though. I feel what bothers some who are Religious is that they feel they are being lumped together, and from what they're saying, many of them fear they're being pushed into obscurity, and id have to say the dropping number of believers supports that.

 

[Locutus]

I do see hate directed towards those who believe and Religion (I clarified). That's what this is about, but I think there's a way through it. I'll be respectful and easy going with those who are to others, and some of you have been which I, and I'm sure others appreciate.

I feel what bothers some who are Religious is that they feel they are being lumped together, and from what they're saying, many of them fear they're being pushed into obscurity, and id have to say the dropping number of believers supports that.

Once again, I think you should be thanking atheist for not treating believers the way believers have treated atheists for the past 1700 years.

Meantime ... not so much 'pushed into obscurity' but rather the reality that Christianity is just one perspective/belief of many, and that two thirds of the world disagree with it, has become public knowledge and is openly discussed. This is the first time in history that that has happened. If you've been led to believe by every measure that your point of view is the only one, and is necessarily superior and exempt from all criticism - to be reduced to 'just another easily criticised superstition' in the space of 50 short years is a significant blow. Many still can't accept it.

 

[Moral Orel]

You said something about there being Christians and Atheist who are helpful right? If you want, name one good thing (genuinely good and important thing) you've seen a Christain do, and name one you have respect for.

If you can do this without trying to snip this post apart, or telling me what my motivations are, then I'll give an example of Atheist who I feel the same way about because I feel there are good examples.

I'm going to start here in the middle. First, I am honestly unsure exactly how you want me to answer this, as in who exactly do you want me to reference to you? People I see in the news? People I personally know? People on these forums? We were talking about internet communities such as this one, so in context I would guess the latter. But, since I don't want to assume anything, I'll just answer all three.

You asked for something "important", but unless someone has a lot of influence or money, it takes a lot of little things to make one important thing. So as far as actually "important" I like the new Pope. His report on the climate will get a lot of people thinking about the planet that have been brainwashed by the conservative media.

As far as my personal life, I have a quasi-friend in a pastor through my parents, who are Christians. He's poor as dirt, but gives money away left and right to anyone that needs it. Not exactly the kind of guy I'd grab a beer with, mostly because neither of us drink, but still a good acquaintance I'd say.

My kid has a friend that is a Christian as well. They hold youth-group meetings on Wednesdays, but they don't just hang out all the time. A lot of the time they all go out volunteering.

As far as these boards go, hoghead1, catherineanne, viacrucis, armored, lesliedellow, pakicetus, michie, and philo2void are all great Christians. I don't just mean good at explaining things like science, the Bible, and ethics when I say "great" either. I mean they're honest, sincere, and caring about how they treat people when they help to inform them or have a discussion or disagreement. I'm not adding the "@" to their names to call them out though.

As for you suggesting I should have posted in the Christian section of the Christian website, I will say that I was surprised to get the Atheist feedback, and while I do want to hear some more Christian feedback as well, the rules and description for this board don't state that Christians don't post here, I'll post it in another section if I want to though.

I made the suggestion because you said that you wanted to hear from Christians. Why were you surprised to hear from atheists when you made a statement about them that isn't true?

Here you also do a little selective reading. You bold the part that allows you to make the argument that this is something I'm assuming, and leave out.. "(or saying)" which would mean you have to address the argument. You should know there are Athiest who are over zealous and certain (in their own head) that there is no God

I bolded the part that is a problem because you lump both types of people together to make an overarching statement about all atheists. You lumped together the vast majority of atheists who say "I don't see evidence" with the vast minority that say "I know for certain there is no" and treated them both as one group.

It took two minutes to find this...

And it took two minutes to watch all of it. Did you? He prattled on about different kinds of "certainty" and being "incorrigible" and stated that he is always open to real evidence. He explained that by using the phrase "psychologically certain" he means that it will not affect his actions in any way.

I am 100% convinced there is no God as much as I am 100% convinced there is no Buddha, Allah, Juok, Inti or Baal.

Now I have to speculate a little about this one just because the question asked was phrased in a specific way. But the fact that this person makes sure to mention all the other names for God, it is a fairly safe bet that they are talking about the Judeo/Christian God, and not some nondescript "god". I think answers would be different if people were asked something to the effect of "How certain are you that there was no intelligent creator to the universe or the Earth or that there is are no supernatural elements to our world". But I'll give it to you that I have to speculate for that one.

As sure as I am that there's no green alien on Saturn studying Hegelian philosophy. I.e., very.

So again, just "very" certain, just like "99%" certain, etc.

Im 100% convinced that there is no God as defined in the various bibles, since they are (at least generally) internally contradictory.

And I already pointed this one out somewhere. You can be certain that described Gods don't exist when they contradict themselves. Or at the very least, they don't exist as described.

(before you say that's not the same.. yada yada, I actually agree with this particular reply somewhat, I don't ever say 100% but I do see contradictions between religions, this does however still demonstrate that Atheist have no problem with ruling things out)

No one has a problem with ruling some things out. I don't know why it is exceptional that atheists do it and need a mention. Christians rule out Allah. Hindus rule out Yahweh. Atheists rule out all of them, described the way they are.

If you choose to define Atheism as simply "needing proof" there is no God, I can see that sentiment is shared by some, and I think it's the more logical approach

Shared by virtually all, not just some. Some people are stupid, and they think they know everything, and they'll make "100% certain" statements. But that isn't limited to atheists either.

I don't point out that your sources of "100% certain" atheists aren't actually 100% certain because I don't believe there are none. I point them out because even when they say it is always a possibility (however small) you still compare them the same way as those who claim actual 100% certainty.

I want you to recognize just how small this worldview is that you seem to accuse most atheists of having and to recognize just how often you misinterpret what people say about their lack of belief.

but there's a wealth of sources on the internet of people not only needing proof, but trying to give proof there is no God

A wealth of sources giving proof there is no "God"? You betcha. A wealth of sources giving proof there is no "god". Nope. The vast, vast majority of atheist arguments are based around showing a contradiction between omnipotence, omniscience, and/or omni-benevolence. All these arguments do is prove that no being exists which has all (or some) of these properties. Which again, is simply disproving specific concepts of God. Others show contradictions specifically in the Bible or (rarely) other texts, and others show scientific arguments that a god is not necessary for things to exist. None of these things I described argue against the possibility of some ultra-powerful creator. I've looked at a ton of atheist arguments myself (I give equal time to apologetic arguments though) and I don't recall any that attempt to prove a super-powerful being can't exist and be behind our visible universe.

Furthermore, I know and have known Atheist in my personal life, some very opinionated ones, so this isn't something I'm observing from far away.

Opinionated, aren't we all.

One other thing, you asked if I know the distinction between hating God and hating believers, with this you're welcome to look back at post #72 or the opening post where I clarify.

Okay, like when you originally wrote the OP you said:

Atheist say that they can't hate what they don't believe, but I know many of them do.

But you seemed to learn your lesson about telling people that you know what they feel when you edited your OP to say this:

I wanted to add a thought to the opening post, the idea behind hating something you don't believe in is something I believe can make sense if someone hates the ideas behind something, and the people associated with it. That's what this is about, hatred directed at believers and what they believe.

But then you went right back to defending your position that atheists do, in fact, hate God, just in a roundabout way, here:

More or less they can hate what they don't believe by hating the ideas behind it, and people associated with it.

And since you referenced these things to me at the same time, in the same context, I'm wondering where you stand now. Do atheists hate God, or do they hate all religious people, or do they hate overly zealous religious people and the concepts and doctrine and dogma that motivate them? Which one of these fits the most generalized population of atheists?

The atheist who consider the thoughts and feelings of others are the ones I don't take issue with, and that's in general, you don't know much about my debating history.

Then you should show some kind of distinction when you talk, if that's how you really feel, instead of blanket statements about an entire group of people.

I don't care about your debate history. Maybe you've made an excellent argument or two in the past... this ain't one of them.

I only take issue with this thread because I despise hypocrisy. You want to make an argument that atheists have these perceived feelings, and beliefs, and motivations that are negative and directed at every single Christian and every single Christian belief because you misinterpret them, while ignoring the fact that this thread is doing that exact thing to atheists. Some folks are more polite and call it "irony". But I'll gladly call it what it is, if you want me to be more "head on". Again, look at your very own apple analogy and see just how well it applies to the "facts" you've gathered for this argument and how recklessly you phrase your argument in regards to atheists as a whole.

Here's an alternative, less inflammatory question just for perspective: "What makes some atheists so militant and offensive?".

 

[mikenet2006]

I usually update when I can't debate, may seem a little odd, I think it's out of respect. I have a couple chronic health problems that have me drop out periodically when it gets bad, fibromyalgia, along with something else that's intensifying it, they're running test to see what the latter might be, so in short severe pain.

Nicholas Deka

I will do a quick reply to you and touch on the rest of it a later time. You said you despise Hypocrisy? Well that makes two of us, you don't care about my debate history but I might have to show it to you anyway because you misinterpret me. I haven't been hard on a Christian here because it's not relevant to the topic of the forum for starters, this is about the Athiest end of things, and maybe it was better that this forum started getting more Atheist feedback because it puts some of the wise cracks on display (not that everyone is doing it) but lets not kid ourselves there may be some Atheist on this site because they're sincerely interested in what Christians have to say, but many of them aren't. Christians get a great deal of criticism already believe me, I've thrown my share of it their way as well. Some of my older debates addressed them head on, I'd hit them hard on issues so they did have to hear my criticisms. Very much so.

Anyway I'm out for a bit.

Locutus I'll get to you as well.

 

[Moral Orel]

I haven't been hard on a Christian here because it's not relevant to the topic of the forum

I know you haven't given a complete response yet, but you already aren't seeing where the hypocrisy is and thinking I mean something else. We talked about how you compare the relatively small amount of evil done by atheists and ignored the relatively large amount of evil done by theists, and that's part of it, but what I keep bringing up is your very own apple analogy and you won't look at your argument in light of that.

the problem is that many of them are laser focused on things they find to be rotten and that develops their opinions.

You are laser focused on things about atheists that you find to be rotten and that develops your opinion of atheists on the whole, or at least in general.

It'd be like someone getting apples, some of which happen to be rotten, then picking out and eating the rotten ones only to complain about how nasty apples are.

There are some rotten atheists, sure, and you complain about how nasty atheists are on the whole, or at least in general, because of a few bad apples.

Atheism suggest that there's no doubt there isn't a God, I find that to be an arrogant approach given the limitations of our minds, and how incomplete our understanding of the Universe really is.

You say it's arrogant for atheists to claim 100% certainty on the existence of God.

Are there those who are religious who feel they are certain? Sure, but Atheism is more often associated with logicality, so there's a double standard as far as that goes.

And then excuse theists for holding the exact same stance.

maybe it was better that this forum started getting more Atheist feedback because it puts some of the wise cracks on display (not that everyone is doing it)

Even some of the folks you would call "bad apples" aren't bad either except through the lenses of a believer. I saw someone recently compare God to Santa Claus and it created an uproar of how offensive and condescending that was. The person who made the comparison sincerely tried to explain they didn't mean offense, but there is no better analogy that a Christian can relate to about something that we believe as children but should discard as adults. You can't give an honest analogy of something Christians don't believe in and compare it to God without it being seen as offensive. So of course you're going to chalk that up to atheists being a bunch of jerks when all they're really trying to do is relate to you.

 

[Dave-W]

Please explain why beating your wife and believing in Jesus are mutually exclusive.

1 Tim 5.8 (NCV) Whoever does not care for his own relatives, especially his own family members, has turned against the faith and is worse than someone who does not believe in God.

 

[Nithavela]

1 Tim 5.8 (NCV) Whoever does not care for his own relatives, especially his own family members, has turned against the faith and is worse than someone who does not believe in God.

Luke 14:26

 

[rjs330]

Maybe your particular church is more modern and well-meaning than, say, the catholic church. I wouldn't know, I don't really care. The fact is that excommunication for abuse is non-existent, while a great many people have been excommunicated for leaving abusive spouses.



If the criteria we're going by is "doesn't follow the commands of the bible", then yes, I'd say just about every single Christian is a bad Christian, because the standards of the bible are impossible. As far as I'm aware, this is, for many doctrines, a big part of the point of Jesus's sacrifice. That this:



Is nonsense, because it's impossible not to live in sin. You can't avoid breaking the rules. You can't live up to Jesus's standard. It's fundamentally impossible. That's why they sent Jesus down in the first place! To my understanding, this is a fairly important point in doctrine, is it not? Look, I'm sorry, apologize to Jesus all you want, but if you walk down the street and a 10 that checks all your boxes walks up to you and flirts with you, chances are, you're committing adultery in your heart. There's not really any avoiding it.

Maybe this isn't a part of your doctrine, I dunno. It's incredibly hard to keep the 33 thousand denominations of Christianity apart, with all the splintering beliefs and sects, so you'll have to excuse me if it turns out Pentecostals think Jesus's standard is actually attainable, and the sacrifice was just for people who couldn't be bothered.



Cite passage and verse, please. Also, what in the definition of Christianity demands that all commandments in the bible are followed?

First of all please re-read what I said. I didn't say Christians don't sin. In fact the bible says we will. BUT the Bible also says Christians cannot walk in sin. I used an example of this. If your definition is all Christians are bad Christians because they commit a sin now and then, well I guess we are all bad Christians. But the fact is God doesn't see it that way. He sees us as righteous in Christ Jesus because Jesus is in us. HOWEVER, that doesn't give us a license to walk in sin. Walking in sin is NOT committing a sin now and then. If I lied tomorrow to someone, I have just sinned. I repent and ask God to forgive me and try not to do it again. Someone who lies and continues to lie over and over again begins to be unrepentant. God turns them over to their sin and they stop seeing what they are doing is wrong and start to justify it. Like the abuser. She deserved it. She made me angry etc. I think the Bible is pretty clear on this. I John is really good on this explanation. He says If any of us say we do not sin then we are a liar. But then he goes on to say that he who is born of God does not continue to sin. Phil 3:12-13 talks about believers committing sins. However believers do not walk in sin. Paul says that in Romans, that shall we continue to sin now that we have grace? God forbid because don't we know that if we yield ourselves to sin we become unrighteous. It's the continuing to sin that's the issue. I don't know, can't you see the difference between a person who has pre-marital sex once and repents and one who has premarital sex with anyone who will have sex with him? That's the difference.

As far as husbands abusing their wives the bible is pretty clear on this.

Ephesians 5: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

Colosians 3:19
19Husbands, love your wives, and don't be harsh with them.

Galatians 5:Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

The man who abuses his wife is walking in sin and is not living the faith. He is not a true believer.

 

[Locutus]

1 Tim 5.8 (NCV) Whoever does not care for his own relatives, especially his own family members, has turned against the faith and is worse than someone who does not believe in God.

Well that's odd. Given the biblical injunction to turn away from family in favour of Christ.

 

[The Cadet]

HOWEVER, that doesn't give us a license to walk in sin. Walking in sin is NOT committing a sin now and then. If I lied tomorrow to someone, I have just sinned. I repent and ask God to forgive me and try not to do it again. Someone who lies and continues to lie over and over again begins to be unrepentant.

And on what basis do we claim that this applies to all cases of abuse?

Not that it matters. Like I said, your theology is nice, but absolutely not the rule. Serial abusers don't tend to get thrown out of their church communities. Beaten wives often do. Again, theory vs. practice.

 

[Dave-W]

1 Tim 5.8 (NCV) Whoever does not care for his own relatives, especially his own family members, has turned against the faith and is worse than someone who does not believe in God.

Luke 14:26

So you are saying that beating your wife is REQUIRED to be a christian?

 

[Dave-W]

Well that's odd. Given the biblical injunction to turn away from family in favour of Christ.

Not at all. There is no "biblical injunction to turn away from family." That is a misunderstanding of the original language. (Aramaic)