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.
This is a philosophy section, not Christian apologetics. And yall (the ones always arguing) seem to forget that quite a bit.
I value honest dialogue. But sometimes these conversations are dishonest. It ceases to be dialogue and becomes anti-Christian or anti-theistic polemics. The "Angry Atheist" movement is to blame - watch any Sam Harris debate and his whole approach is an unending stream of vitriol against Christianity and religion in general.
It ceases to be an honest quest for truth at that point, and is just about ranting against the perceived deficiencies of organized religion (with which many Christians would agree).
Too often the angry atheists speak as if Christianity is a monolithic movement (it is not), that in itself is part of the misinformation. There is not one single Christian answer to questions about the afterlife, about the origin of the universe, about theodicy, about the interaction of divine sovereignty and free will, or about the exact meaning of Jesus' crucifixion. These things are secondary matters. The heart of the faith, the things that define the orthodoxy of a Christian, on the other hand, are contained in our central creeds, the baptismal, apostolic Creed and the Nicene Creed. Beyond that, a person may question a great many things and still be an orthodox Christian.
That phrase, by the way, comes from an earlier conversation with a Christian who recognised my questioning as legitimate.
Who is being attacked? No one. Criticism of your ideas is not a personal attack.
Phrases like "being coddled" and "views challenged" don't really smack of peaceful, friendly interactions. Your post makes it seems as though we should not expect to be able to venture outside of Christian social circles without being interrogated about our beliefs, and if we don't like that, we're being "coddled" (which is an extremely insulting term to use).
If you'd like to exchange "attacked" for "criticized", then I'll rephrase my question. Why can't we wade in amongst atheists without being automatically criticized?
And it's also not the Atheists' de facto congregational forum or "safe house," although they've been trying to make it such.
To make the Philosophy subforum our safe house would mean expelling all the Christians, which is not something anyone here has suggested (to my knowledge).
It's not a preconception about Atheist, I know several Atheist who are content with their Atheism. They live their lives, mind their own business and just want to be left alone by religious people. Activist Atheist have a will to join Christian forums and engage in argumentativeness for the express purpose of debunking faith. You can rationalize your motives all you want, I'm entitled to my opinion and you yours.
I'm giving you my perception of you having read your post and observed your interaction with other believers.
You need to disperse of Christians to feel safe?
Christians have yet to say (to my recollection on here) that they would feel safe if someone were to "expel" Atheists. In fact, you were the one encouraging segregation saying if we do not wish to be criticized we aught stay away from atheists.
Am I to believe you encourage segregation between Christians and Atheists?
To make the Philosophy subforum our safe house would mean expelling all the Christians, which is not something anyone here has suggested (to my knowledge).
I was referring to the attempt to make it a de facto safe house. That is to say, to use it improperly as a free-fire zone for the promotion of atheism and also the treating of Christians (who have a perfect right to post here) as intruders.
A safe house is a house of refuge, a house of safety. So you say the only way is to expel of Christians. So yes, that is what you were saying. Perhaps it was meant in another context?No. Where did I say that? I was responding to someone's suggestion that atheists are attempting to turn this forum into a "safe house." A "safe house" for atheists would entail expelling Christians from this subforum, which is not something anyone is in favour of, at least not to my knowledge.
Considering we were in a discussion about your "criticism" being more of attacks than genuine questioning, and you use the term coddling and express your desire at Christians who do not want your attacks to stay away from atheists. That is encouraging segregation my friend, not encouraging the groups to meet and converse.I'm not suggesting that you should stay away from people who disagree with you. In fact, I think just the opposite: we shouldn't just talk to those who agree with us. I simply pointed out that, if you want to avoid encountering someone who might not agree with you, then you shouldn't seek out forums where you are likely to encounter people who might think differently. That would be self-seggregation, which is not something I would encourage.
No, you are mistaken.
Phrases like "being coddled" and "views challenged" don't really smack of peaceful, friendly interactions. Your post makes it seems as though we should not expect to be able to venture outside of Christian social circles without being interrogated about our beliefs, and if we don't like that, we're being "coddled" (which is an extremely insulting term to use).
If you'd like to exchange "attacked" for "criticized", then I'll rephrase my question. Why can't we wade in amongst atheists without being automatically criticized?
Like any atheist, Harris can only address the points he is dealt with. Based on your past responses, it seems that you expect atheists to address theological points other than the ones they are presented with.
A safe house is a house of refuge, a house of safety. So you say the only way is to expel of Christians. So yes, that is what you were saying. Perhaps it was meant in another context?
Considering we were in a discussion about your "criticism" being more of attacks than genuine questioning, and you use the term coddling and express your desire at Christians who do not want your attacks to stay away from atheists, that is segregation my friend, not encouraging the groups to meet and converse.
Who here is treating Christians as intruders? Who has denied that you have a right to post here? You're attacking phantoms.
Harris routinely goes beyond the points being addressed to talk about how monstrous he finds Christian belief.
At that point, he starts to engage in propaganda, because he starts mis-characterizing the beliefs of billions of Christians, often devoid of theological contexts that would make those beliefs far more understandable. Honest people don't do that sort of thing, they try to present people they disagree with in the best possible light.
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?