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

[Inkachu]

I notice that when I ask some of the difficult questions, Christians tend to get evasive, defensive or angry. Why is this?

FWIW I've had countless atheists come at me with excessive amounts of hatred and meanness right off the bat, for no other reason than because I'm a Christian. It goes both ways.

And FTR I don't get evasive, defensive, or angry if someone has a genuine question for me. What's irritating is when someone poses a question with obvious disdain, mockery, or the intent to stir up controversy; I have no respect for such tactics.

So, anyone here who ever wants to ask me a genuine question about my beliefs or faith, you're more than welcome.

 

[talquin]

Decided atheist are committed to a godless faith, the final accomplishment of a life devoted to any values is eternal death.

What is your definition of "faith"?

There is no recollection in death. Atheist can't disprove the God of religious people so in that discontented state they make a hobby out of joining Christian forums to undermine faith. When these big bad wolves can't stand the exposure of their deviant motives they run whine to the mods.

If the God which is posited has conflicting or logically contradictory attributes, it can easily be proven to not exist. An example would be a god which has infallible knowledge of everything which is yet to occur. Another would be a god which loves everyone and can do anything.

Atheist ask questions and for proofs that they know believers can definitively answer. They use the failure of the believers ability to provide these answers as a false positive. Some believers may not be aware of what is being done to them.

I don't think many believers have critically thought through their beliefs. My guess is the church encourages them to not do so, as the church knows that most de-converts opt out of belief in a god due to critically thinking through their beliefs.

 

[Albion]

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

It has a moral code and religious beliefs, including a position concerning a supreme being.

It evangelizes and proselytizes.

It has its own religious symbols and sacred history.

It is organized with local chapters or congregations, functions, clergy-like leaders and "theologians," etc.

It rejects the correctness of other religions.


It's not a typical religion in all respects, but it is undeniably as much a religion as other so-called "liberal" religions. And much more could be added, but that would require a new and separate thread.

 

[talquin]

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.

Atheism is by definition not a religion. It is merely the lack of a belief that a god exists. It can be better illustrated this way:

All humans can be divided into two groups.
1) Humans which hold the belief that a god exists
2) All humans who don't fall into category #1

'Atheist' is a term used to describe those who fall into category #2. Of course, this group can be divided into sub-groups such as explicit atheists and implicit atheists.

 

[Albion]

Atheism is by definition not a religion.

I expected that. But it is a religion and has the attributes OF a religion. Any definition of a religion would incorporate the "New Atheism" even if it is not normally a word applied to this movement. Of course, adherents can go on saying that it doesn't profess to believe in a conventional God, but neither do a number of other movements that are customarily called religions, and that isn't the sole indicator of what is a "religion."

 

[talquin]

FWIW I've had countless atheists come at me with excessive amounts of hatred and meanness right off the bat, for no other reason than because I'm a Christian. It goes both ways.

And FTR I don't get evasive, defensive, or angry if someone has a genuine question for me. What's irritating is when someone poses a question with obvious disdain, mockery, or the intent to stir up controversy; I have no respect for such tactics.

So, anyone here who ever wants to ask me a genuine question about my beliefs or faith, you're more than welcome.

OK, I have two:
How do you reconcile the problem of evil?

How do you reconcile the problem of free will?

 

[talquin]

I expected that. But it is a religion and has the attributes OF a religion. Any definition of a religion would incorporate the "New Atheism" even if it is not normally a word applied to this movement. Of course, adherents can go on saying that it doesn't profess to believe in a conventional God, but neither do a number of other movements that are customarily called religions, and that isn't the sole indicator of what is a "religion."

Let's back pedal a little bit. What is your definition of "religion"?

 

[Hammster]

I notice that when I ask some of the difficult questions, Christians tend to get evasive, defensive or angry. Why is this?

I don't.

Blows that theory.

 

[Inkachu]

OK, I have two:
How do you reconcile the problem of evil?

How do you reconcile the problem of free will?

Can you tell me what you mean by "problem"?

 

[Albion]

Let's back pedal a little bit. What is your definition of "religion"?

Google can help you with that, although I gave important information a few posts back when quizzed by another person. I am merely going by a standard, normal definition. It's not some contrived revision of the meaning of the word that appeals to me.

 

[talquin]

Can you tell me what you mean by "problem"?

The Christian God is often posited as having knowledge of everything - past, present and future. If God knows what you're going to do tomorrow and you freely choose to do something different from what god knows you will do, then what happens to God's infallible foreknowledge?

The Christian God is often described as loving everyone and being able to do anything. It would then follow that he would want to stop rapists from raping children and would be capable of doing so. But rapists do rape children. Same thing with typhoons which destroy millions of homes and kill thousands of people. How do you reconcile this?

 

[talquin]

Google can help you with that, although I gave important information a few posts back when quizzed by another person. I am merely going by a standard, normal definition. It's not some contrived revision of the meaning of the word that appeals to me.

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.


Other than #4 - which obviously doesn't pertain to atheism - all of them reference beliefs. Since atheism isn't about what we believe in, but about what we don't hold a belief in, then none of the other six apply. Therefore, atheism is not a religion. However, I appreciate your effort.

 

[kristina411]

Belief in disbelief. curious

 

[ToddNotTodd]

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.


Other than #4 - which obviously doesn't pertain to atheism - all of them reference beliefs. Since atheism isn't about what we believe in, but about what we don't hold a belief in, then none of the other six apply. Therefore, atheism is not a religion. However, I appreciate your effort.

I've unfortunately seen too many Christians resort to calling atheism a religion, in a not-so-veiled attempt to disturb them. It's just mean spirited. i wouldn't let it bother you. It's best just to move on and discuss things with Christians who don't resort to bad behavior.

 

[bhsmte]

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. ​

In regards to displaying intellectual honesty, my observations on this board would not match up with yours.

Now, some people come here for actual "intellectual discussion" and that usually includes; understanding the other persons position and asking pointed questions to better understand it. It also involves, pointing out when someone responds and it simply makes no logical sense or their response is contradictory to what they have already said (which I see a lot from certain Christians).

Intellectual discussion with just people who agree with you is boring and is why some seek discussion with those who do not agree with them, because it is more stimulating to discuss where they differ and why.

I come here not to undermine anyone's faith belief, I come here to engage in discussion with those who may disagree with me and to learn why they feel differently then me.

At the end of the day, it isn't one's belief that interests me so much, it is how each person justifies to themselves, why they believe what they do. That is where the psychology part of this whole discussion, can get highly entertaining.

 

[Albion]

Maybe the question that would be better to ask and discuss is this:

"Why do Atheists take such offense at the suggestion that an organized Atheist movement is referred to as a religion?"

What's the cause of such fear? You'd think we'd held up a crucifix and sack of garlic in front of some of these folks' noses merely because we called a fact a fact!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Maybe the question that would be better to ask and discuss is this:

"Why do Atheists take such offense at the suggestion that an organized Atheist movement is referred to as a religion?"

What's the cause of such fear? You'd think we'd held up a crucifix and sack of garlic in front of some of these folks' noses merely because we called a fact a fact!

I don't know about anybody else, but I stopped being annoyed at childish pronouncements in grade school. So I don't take offense. I do get a little confused as to why you think that trying to anger atheists is helpful. Perhaps you're trying to goad them into saying something equally ridiculous in retaliation, like Christianity is a cult, in order to feign persecution. I've seen that happen before...

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe the question that would be better to ask and discuss is this:

"Why do Atheists take such offense at the suggestion that an organized Atheist movement is referred to as a religion?"

What's the cause of such fear? You'd think we'd held up a crucifix and sack of garlic in front of some of these folks' noses merely because we called a fact a fact!

Speaking for myself, accuracy is one of my pet peeves, and if a certain label tossed around at will can be shown to be wrong, I will likely point out why I think it is wrong.

In my observations on this board, there are some christians (not all Christians), who seem to be very liberal at throwing around labels and they do so in a blanket fashion, with atheists. It is understandable why some engage in this, based on how they go about trying to protect their own faith beliefs.

At the end of the day, the folks who need to toss out labels at will in regards to groups of people, are telling you much more about themselves, then they are in their attempts to label others.

 

[talquin]

Maybe the question that would be better to ask and discuss is this:

"Why do Atheists take such offense at the suggestion that an organized Atheist movement is referred to as a religion?"

That's both a fair and good question.
I can't speak for other atheists, but I take offense at this suggestion because it is a misuse of words. It would be like me taking offense because you are calling Barack Obama a computer. So the type of offense I take is more of a response of laughter due to the improper use of language.

What's the cause of such fear? You'd think we'd held up a crucifix and sack of garlic in front of some of these folks' noses merely because we called a fact a fact!

I don't have any fear of you or anyone else calling atheism a religion. Rather than dealing with words which are often misunderstood, why not call the planet Neptune a human being.

 

[Albion]

That's both a fair and good question.
I can't speak for other atheists, but I take offense at this suggestion because it is a misuse of words.

No, I think it has to be more than that. If I used "association" or "philosophical movement" or "ethical society" I doubt that the reaction would be the same. It seems to be something that grows out of a deep-seated animosity towards conventional religions and "religious people."

And bear in mind that this wasn't said of atheists or atheism, per se, but was in reference to the so-called "New Atheism" movement.