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

[Albion]

This is a philosophy section, not Christian apologetics. And yall (the ones always arguing) seem to forget that quite a bit.

And it's also not the Atheists' de facto congregational forum or "safe house," although they've been trying to make it such.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

I've heard Harris speak. I didn't come away with that impression at all.

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).

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.

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.

Agreed. But who here is pretending that Christianity is monolithic?

 

[kristina411]

That phrase, by the way, comes from an earlier conversation with a Christian who recognised my questioning as legitimate.

Change of topic... It is a common phrase btw. Whomever used it before has no part in what is being said now. Unless of course we shall compare you to any being who has uttered any phrase you have ever used.

Lol you crack me up sometimes with your responses! Very transparent.

 

[Inkachu]

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?

 

[kristina411]

.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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).

I'm sorry that you find it offensive, but it's true not just of Christians but of anyone. If you want your views to remain unchallenged, then the only way to do that is to avoid interacting with people who hold differing views.

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?

You aren't automatically being criticised just for being a Christian. It's when you claim that others should believe as you do that people naturally ask: on what basis?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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).

 

[kristina411]

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).

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?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

This is not what you stated in post #225, where you seem to put a broad label on atheists in general. Would the non-conformist be someone who disagrees with you?

Non-conformist are all alike. It's not mind reading, it's experience, you guys aren't that sophisticated. Atheist do the same thing wherever Christian sites give you a voice. It's like eating at the Chinese buffet, same from town to town.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You need to disperse of Christians to feel safe?

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.

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.

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.

Am I to believe you encourage segregation between Christians and Atheists?

No, you are mistaken.

 

[Albion]

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Who here is treating Christians as intruders? Who has denied that you have a right to post here? You're attacking phantoms.

 

[Colter]

"Convictions about God may be arrived at through wise reasoning, but the individual becomes God-knowing only by faith, through personal experience. In much that pertains to life, probability must be reckoned with, but when contacting with cosmic reality, certainty may be experienced when such meanings and values are approached by living faith. The God-knowing soul dares to say, “I know,” even when this knowledge of God is questioned by the unbeliever who denies such certitude because it is not wholly supported by intellectual logic. To every such doubter the believer only replies, “How do you know that I do not know?” UB 1955​

 

[kristina411]

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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?

People with considerably different views on important issues to them, will indeed engage at critiquing the other persons view point if they disagree with them.

The important thing to distinguish in legitimate disagreement, is whether the person with the other view point is personally criticized, or if their argument for believing what they do is criticized, which is a big difference. If you have ever visited the Christian only section of these boards, there are some fierce debates that go on amongst Christians of different denominations, that are debating theology and I have seen those get personal.

Problems occur, when one person decides to place a personally driven label on another person they disagree with and not address the argument. When these personal labels come flying, it tells you much more about the person attaching labels, than it does anyone else.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

It was meant in the context of what a "safe house" means in CF. If you go over to American Politics, you'll find a few safe houses in which only members of the safe house are allowed to post. So if you are a Democrat you cannot post in the Republican safe house and vice versa. That's what I meant in saying that turning this subforum into an atheist safe house would mean expelling the Christians from here. To be clear, I never suggested that this should be done.

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.

What attacks are you referring to? I haven't attacked anyone. To be clear, again, criticism of your ideas is not a personal attack.

 

[Albion]

Who here is treating Christians as intruders? Who has denied that you have a right to post here? You're attacking phantoms.

I think that my statement sufficiently answered your previous question about the use of this forum. No, I don't see that there's anything in it that needs to be modified or amended.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Harris routinely goes beyond the points being addressed to talk about how monstrous he finds Christian belief.

So what? You consider Christian belief delightful and he doesn't. Do you expect him just to keep quiet about it when Christians go on at length about how delightful it is to believe what they do, and how impoverished Harris' life must be because he doesn't believe likewise? His debate opponents usually have no problem going on about how monstrous atheism is. Yet you complain when Harris returns the favour?

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.

Once again, Harris can only respond to the points he is presented with. That's all any of us can do. Your complaint seems to be that he isn't responding specifically to the theological points you find agreeable. If he responded to your points, rather than the points of his debate opponent, you'd accuse him of evading his opponent's points.

 

[bhsmte]

Here is the bottom line:

Some people don't handle it well, when others disagree with them and they are asked direct questions about why they believe what they do. Some people when put in this position, start to feel uncomfortable and they sense a threat or attack, instead of understanding that some people disagree with them and there is a reason other people disagree with them and they want to have a discussion to better understand the disagreement.

My main interest on this board, is not so much what someone believes or doesn't believe, because people are wildly different in that regard. My interest is in the how and why people believe what they do, which I find more interesting to discuss with another person.