Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.This is not a good excuse.
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.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.
Excuse for what? My point was the abuser is not a believer.
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 cannot live a sinful existence and be a believer.
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.
99.9% of Christians are bad Christians? Really?
You cannot live a sinful existence and be a believer.
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?
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.
↑
"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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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?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 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.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
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.It took two minutes to find this...
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.I am 100% convinced there is no God as much as I am 100% convinced there is no Buddha, Allah, Juok, Inti or Baal.
So again, just "very" certain, just like "99%" certain, etc.As sure as I am that there's no green alien on Saturn studying Hegelian philosophy. I.e., very.
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.Im 100% convinced that there is no God as defined in the various bibles, since they are (at least generally) internally contradictory.
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.(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)
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.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
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.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
Opinionated, aren't we all.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.
Okay, like when you originally wrote the OP you said: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.
But you seemed to learn your lesson about telling people that you know what they feel when you edited your OP to say this:Atheist say that they can't hate what they don't believe, but I know many of them do.
But then you went right back to defending your position that atheists do, in fact, hate God, just in a roundabout way, here: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.
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?More or less they can hate what they don't believe by hating the ideas behind it, and people associated with it.
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.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 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.I haven't been hard on a Christian here because it's not relevant to the topic of the forum
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.the problem is that many of them are laser focused on things they find to be rotten and that develops their opinions.
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.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.
You say it's arrogant for atheists to claim 100% certainty on the existence of God.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.
And then excuse theists for holding the exact same stance.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.
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.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)
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.Please explain why beating your wife and believing in Jesus are mutually exclusive.
Luke 14:261 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.
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?
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.
And on what basis do we claim that this applies to all cases of abuse?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.
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.
So you are saying that beating your wife is REQUIRED to be a christian?Luke 14:26
Not at all. There is no "biblical injunction to turn away from family." That is a misunderstanding of the original language. (Aramaic)Well that's odd. Given the biblical injunction to turn away from family in favour of Christ.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?