Why do Christians get evasive, defensive or angry when faced with difficult questions

kristina411 · Feb 26, 2015

Colter said:
Many reasons I suppose.

What kind of a person would dedicate so much effort trying to undermine the faith of others?

I was trying to understand this yesterday.

If some of these people were really only here for answers, if they truly were atheist and not anti theist, seems like they wouldn't be spending so much time arguing in a Christian forum with Christians on their views.
Now I know why I am here, because i am beginning an in depth bible study (will be a four year program) and am here for insight into some of the more complex sides.

But why would any atheist spend this much time in a Christian forum arguing and trying to disprove theism? If there was a genuine search for answers, they wouldn't spend so many hours devoted to arguing and banding together with their fellow atheists to "bring down the Christians".

I mean I'm here for bible study and I spend way too much time on this forum. Why do the "atheists" spend even more time simply arguing with Christians or agreeing with others against Christians on this Christian board?

Sure they may have started when they were Christians, so they say, but if you really abandoned the idea I wonder why so much time is spent trying to discredit those who believe, if not for anti theistic purposes?

My belief? These are the "brood of vipers" and "swine". Seems harsh and I dont mean it literally but these are the ones the Bible warns against, the ones whose sole purpose is to bring some form of unrest (not speaking of course of all atheists but the frequent argumentative ones you are always at odds with, same ones that try to find fault in everything I say as well. Undoubtedly the same ones who would respond to this)

Archaeopteryx · Feb 26, 2015

kristina411 said:
I was trying to understand this yesterday.

If some of these people were really only here for answers, if they truly were atheist and not anti theist, seems like they wouldn't be spending so much time arguing in a Christian forum with Christians on their views.
Now I know why I am here, because i am beginning an in depth bible study (will be a four year program) and am here for insight into some of the more complex sides.

But why would any atheist spend this much time in a Christian forum arguing and trying to disprove theism? If there was a genuine search for answers, they wouldn't spend so many hours devoted to arguing and banding together with their fellow atheists to "bring down the Christians".

No one is banding together to "bring down the Christians." People are engaging in a conversation on philosophical matters. People do that sometimes, you know?

I mean I'm here for bible study and I spend way too much time on this forum. Why do the "atheists" spend even more time simply arguing with Christians or agreeing with others against Christians on this Christian board?

Sure they may have started when they were Christians, so they say, but if you really abandoned the idea I wonder why so much time is spent trying to discredit those who believe, if not for anti theistic purposes?

My belief? These are the "brood of vipers" and "swine". Seems harsh and I dont mean it literally but these are the ones the Bible warns against, the ones whose sole purpose is to bring some form of unrest (not speaking of course of all atheists but the frequent argumentative ones you are always at odds with, same ones that try to find fault in everything I say as well. Undoubtedly the same ones who would respond to this)

If I had wanted to "bring unrest," I wouldn't be posting here. If you feel "unrested" by our presence here, then that isn't really our problem, is it? You could try posting in the Christian-Only section.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 26, 2015

Colter said:
The darkness is never satisfied with any answer from the light. More often than not, questions from the darkness aren't really questions, they are statements as to why the believers faith is wrong all dressed up as a desire to understand.

It's easier, and perhaps more comforting, for you to believe that people are insincere in their questioning than it is to admit that perhaps your answers to their questions are not as compelling as you initially thought.

kristina411 · Feb 26, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
No one is banding together to "bring down the Christians." People are engaging in a conversation on philosophical matters. People do that sometimes, you know?

If I had wanted to "bring unrest," I wouldn't be posting here. If you feel "unrested" by our presence here, then that isn't really our problem, is it? You could try posting in the Christian-Only section.

Lol I don't feel unrest. It is my choice to engage in this nonsense or to find a more productive conversation which I have been doing since I caught on to this nonsense. Doesn't take long to spot an instigator

Colter · Feb 26, 2015

kristina411 said:
I was trying to understand this yesterday.

If some of these people were really only here for answers, if they truly were atheist and not anti theist, seems like they wouldn't be spending so much time arguing in a Christian forum with Christians on their views.
Now I know why I am here, because i am beginning an in depth bible study (will be a four year program) and am here for insight into some of the more complex sides.

But why would any atheist spend this much time in a Christian forum arguing and trying to disprove theism? If there was a genuine search for answers, they wouldn't spend so many hours devoted to arguing and banding together with their fellow atheists to "bring down the Christians".

I mean I'm here for bible study and I spend way too much time on this forum. Why do the "atheists" spend even more time simply arguing with Christians or agreeing with others against Christians on this Christian board?

Sure they may have started when they were Christians, so they say, but if you really abandoned the idea I wonder why so much time is spent trying to discredit those who believe, if not for anti theistic purposes?

My belief? These are the "brood of vipers" and "swine". Seems harsh and I dont mean it literally but these are the ones the Bible warns against, the ones whose sole purpose is to bring some form of unrest (not speaking of course of all atheists but the frequent argumentative ones you are always at odds with, same ones that try to find fault in everything I say as well. Undoubtedly the same ones who would respond to this)

A person who was sincerely neutral/Godless wouldn't be here, they would be making the most of their eternally short life. No, this is part of the "New Atheism":

"New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics worldwide. In England and Wales, as of 2011 the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, followed by Islam and Evangelicalism. This trend in the growth of non-religion preceded the New Atheist movement.

New Atheism lends itself to and often overlaps with secular humanism and antitheism, particularly in its criticism of what many New Atheists regard as the indoctrination of children and the perpetuation of ideologies." source Wiki

New Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archaeopteryx · Feb 26, 2015

Colter said:
A person who was sincerely neutral/Godless wouldn't be here, they would be making the most of their eternally short life. No, this is part of the "New Atheism":

"New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics worldwide. In England and Wales, as of 2011 the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, followed by Islam and Evangelicalism. This trend in the growth of non-religion preceded the New Atheist movement.

New Atheism lends itself to and often overlaps with secular humanism and antitheism, particularly in its criticism of what many New Atheists regard as the indoctrination of children and the perpetuation of ideologies." source Wiki

New Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And what's wrong with "New Atheism"? I personally don't care for the label, but I see nothing wrong with criticising religion. After all, religion isn't exempt from scrutiny.

Colter · Feb 26, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
It's easier, and perhaps more comforting, for you to believe that people are insincere in their questioning than it is to admit that perhaps your answers to their questions are not as compelling as you initially thought.

Your belief contained in this theory would be just as comforting for one who decidedly sits in the darkness, unaware of the spirit of God.

Colter · Feb 26, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
And what's wrong with "New Atheism"? I personally don't care for the label, but I see nothing wrong with criticising religion. After all, religion isn't exempt from scrutiny.

This just validates what I and others here see in your fraudulent line of insincere questioning of Christians. If you were honest on this forum about your motives then this charade would be less offensive, but I do not think that you are an honest broker. This goes directly to the OP.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 26, 2015

Colter said:
This just validates what I and others here see in your fraudulent line of insincere questioning of Christians. If you were honest on this forum about your motives then this charade would be less offensive, but I do not think that you are an honest broker. This goes directly to the OP.

In what way does it validate your opinion? How does merely saying that religion is not beyond scrutiny - something that you ostensibly agree with - suggest that one is therefore insincere in one's questions toward believers?

Colter · Feb 26, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
In what way does it validate your opinion? How does merely saying that religion is not beyond scrutiny - something that you ostensibly agree with - suggest that one is therefore insincere in one's questions toward believers?

In the same way that the spies sent in to question Jesus were not really interested in understanding him rather it was to discredit. Their questions were not questions but baited traps.

* One could be motivated to scrutinize religion for reform

* One could be motivated to scrutinize religion to discredit faith all together.

You said you have a doctorate in Phycology, if you cannot distinguish between these two motivations then you should turn in your license and go sell cars.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 26, 2015

Colter said:
In the same way that the spies sent in to question Jesus were not really interested in understanding him rather it was to discredit. Their questions were not questions but baited traps.

* One could be motivated to scrutinize religion for reform

* One could be motivated to scrutinize religion to discredit faith all together.

You said you have a doctorate in Phycology, if you cannot distinguish between these two motivations then you should turn in your license and go sell cars.

You yourself noted that religion is not beyond scrutiny. Does it follow then that your motivations are also insincere? They must be, since you agree with me, and apparently I am insincere because I don't consider religion immune from criticism.

kristina411 · Feb 26, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
And what's wrong with "New Atheism"? I personally don't care for the label, but I see nothing wrong with criticising religion. After all, religion isn't exempt from scrutiny.

Nevermind I wont even go there

Archaeopteryx · Feb 26, 2015

kristina411 said:
Nevermind I wont even go there

Is there something wrong with criticising religion?

Colter · Feb 26, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
You yourself noted that religion is not beyond scrutiny. Does it follow then that your motivations are also insincere? They must be, since you agree with me, and apparently I am insincere because I don't consider religion immune from criticism.

This is why I find Atheist to be intellectually dishonest people. Anyone can see that I very clearly answered your question, it's a mater of motivation. But you just ignore and reframe more quibbling questions, this goes to the OP.

* One could be motivated to scrutinize religion for reform.

* One could be motivated to scrutinize religion to discredit faith all together.

Albion · Feb 26, 2015

Colter said:
No, this is part of the "New Atheism"

The "New Atheism" is actually just a new religion. The old Atheism was a rejection of theism, but the new movement is a religion in itself.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 26, 2015

Albion said:
The "New Atheism" is actually just a new religion. The old Atheism was a rejection of theism, but the new movement is a religion in itself.

How so?

Albion · Feb 26, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
How so?

It has all the attributes of a religion. Think about it.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 26, 2015

Colter said:
This is why I find Atheist to be intellectually dishonest people. Anyone can see that I very clearly answered your question, it's a mater of motivation. But you just ignore and reframe more quibbling questions, this goes to the OP.

* One could be motivated to scrutinize religion for reform.

* One could be motivated to scrutinize religion to discredit faith all together.

This is a false dichotomy. One could scrutinise religion because one wants to know what is true. This could lead to either reform or to discrediting the claims of a religion.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 26, 2015

Albion said:
It has all the attributes of a religion. Think about it.

I have, and I don't see it. What attributes specifically?

talquin · Feb 26, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
The standard reply to that seems to be that former Christians were never true Christians, with the implicit assumption that no true Christian would ever leave the faith. If they had met Barker or DeWitt when they were Christians, how would they know that they were not "true" Christians?

They wouldn't know for sure. I'm an atheist, but I'd bet I could convince a good 90% of Christians that I believe in their God and believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Why do Christians get evasive, defensive or angry when faced with difficult questions

kristina411

Guest

Wanderer

Wanderer

kristina411

Guest

Member

Wanderer

Member

Member

Wanderer

Member

Wanderer

kristina411

Guest

Wanderer

Member

Facilitator

Wanderer

Facilitator

Wanderer

Wanderer

talquin

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency