Why Do Unbelievers Come Here?

[2PhiloVoid]

What's especially interesting is to look and see the doubts that Christians have, which they often feel uncomfortable airing in front of us, but which they sometimes feel safer discussing with each other.

Oh, do you mean something ... like this?:

The Devil made me buy this Dress ... you silly-nilly!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I don't mind a forthright discussion and the limited debate, but I do get very quickly tired of various forms of Dawkin's type sarcasm, rhetoric, polemics, and other assorted chutzpah which I don't really feel belongs at the Table of Discussion. However, if you're implying that you atheists don't see this Christian Apologetics forum as a Table but rather as a Gladiatorial Arena, then I'll oblige. I won't "happily" oblige, but I will oblige.

I'll mention Dawkins below. For now, I think we are...in agreement? This forum is definitely set up for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend it.

Actually no, I wouldn't. I would be as "Wise as a Serpent, but as Harmless as a Dove......!!!"

Is that how you believe you behave on this website, Philo? Because from some experience of what you post you seem to be quite happy disagreeing with atheists, and take an active role in doing so.

Ok. But just keep in mind that my definition of what it means to "tell people they're wrong" should include some kind of additional 'educational bit' to clearly and more extensively 'show' them why they're wrong, rather than to just keep tossing unilateral monologues of polemics and rhetorical questions their way in a constant pounding fashion as if one was wearing Voltaire's Iron Glove.

In my not inconsiderable experience of Christian Forums, that is exactly what the nonbelievers do.

I'm not saying that atheists are setting themselves up for failure by being combative. I'm saying that by constantly acting in a disrespectful manner, they reinforce negative stereotypes about atheism and leave people thinkig that they have no morals. I have a much more negative picture of atheism than I did before joining this forum, and I am liberal. If atheists are concerned about things like social acceptance in majority Christian countries, they need to present themselves in a more careful manner. Maybe you don't care, since you're in China, but there are atheists here who are really concerned about social acceptance, and I think they're right to be so.

Let's talk about The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, as mentioned by Philo above. I think you would probably agree with Philo that this is the kind of atheist you are thinking of when you say atheists should communicate more carefully, yes? So I think this will serve to illustrate why I disagree with you.
The God Delusion is an enormous success. It had a huge impact. Other books like it followed, and were also successful. People weren't turned off by Dawkins' message. They bought it. And, as the atheist groups will tell you themselves, it had a huge impact - and not for the worse.
Atheists Reflect on the Impact of <em>The God Delusion</em> Ten Years After Its Release | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos
And what these groups, representing the main organisations concerned with atheism, all agreed on, is that The God Delusion was a great thing for them.
So when you say that atheists should be more...how to put it? Careful? Conciliatory? Nonjudgemental? Cautious?
I have to say, I think you're wrong. Atheists should consider doing what they're doing: politely, but not respectfully, poking religions with the sharp stick of reasoned criticism.
Now if religions and the religious don't like it, I don't blame them at all. but I don't see why anyone should listen to them when they say it's in the atheists' own best interests to stop.

I'm not sure a forum like this is even particularly good for learning what atheists believe, since atheism is not really a monolithic thing. Even as a former atheist myself, my first contact with the virulent online version of atheism was a bit of a shock. Very little of what goes on here has anything to do with what I used to believe, and I don't think matches up particularly well to any of my non-theistic friends as well, all of whom are kind of different, ranging from hard materialism to something more New Age-y. So overexposure to a certain kind of atheism is like overexposure to Evangelicalism: it's just going to give you a lopsided impression of what is really going on.

What's going on, Silmarien, is the nonsense that religions preach is being exposed. I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to virulent, but I can think of two things. First, yes, atheists - in particular, ex-Christians - can get very angry when they think of the abuse and trauma they suffered - very real abuse and trauma. Can you blame them for being angry? But as for the atheist debates I've seen - and there have been plenty of them, including Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, users on this forum, and many others - I just have to wonder what you mean when you describe it as "virulent" or "demonic".

The problem is that apologetics isn't just about arguments. The way people behave and treat other people in a forum like this is actually important, because if someone looks like an unstable mess who is only out to pick fights with people, they make their whole position look morally problematic. There are people who have left Christianity specifically because of the way Christians act on this forum, and atheistic misbehavior can have somewhat similar consequences.

That's certainly true. And if I see anyone picking fights, I will be the first to ask them not to. So far, all I've seen in atheists pointing out the ridiculous aspects of Christianity.

It's not merely that people could be a little less insulting. Some of them are coming across as almost demonic, which is the sort of behavior that could easily dehumanize atheists as a group in the eyes of religious believers.

Wow! Please can I see some of these? They certainly sound horrifying.
Could you send me some links to posts made by these demonic atheists? If they are there, I would certainly like to give them a talking to.

You're not talking about me, as you?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Oh, do you mean something ... like this?:

The Devil made me buy this Dress ... you silly-nilly!

Not quite, I'm afraid.
I was thinking more of the threads where Christians come with genuine doubts about the faith.
Is it possible that a loving God would send people to hell?
What if my family goes to hell? How could I be happy in heaven?
Was it really right of God to kill the Egyptian children in the story of Moses?
Why does the bible endorse slavery?

The interesting thing is, these are of course many of the things that atheists point out in Christian Apologetics. In there, the Christians who answer tend to take a rather tribal approach.
But when speaking in a safer space, among themselves, they're sometimes more willing to relax and let down their defences. Quite a lot of the time they talk about how God works in mysterious ways, or how they put their trust in the Lord.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll mention Dawkins below. For now, I think we are...in agreement? This forum is definitely set up for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend it.

Is that how you believe you behave on this website, Philo? Because from some experience of what you post you seem to be quite happy disagreeing with atheists, and take an active role in doing so.

In my not inconsiderable experience of Christian Forums, that is exactly what the nonbelievers do.

Let's talk about The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, as mentioned by Philo above. I think you would probably agree with Philo that this is the kind of atheist you are thinking of when you say atheists should communicate more carefully, yes? So I think this will serve to illustrate why I disagree with you.
The God Delusion is an enormous success. It had a huge impact. Other books like it followed, and were also successful. People weren't turned off by Dawkins' message. They bought it. And, as the atheist groups will tell you themselves, it had a huge impact - and not for the worse.
Atheists Reflect on the Impact of <em>The God Delusion</em> Ten Years After Its Release | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos
And what these groups, representing the main organisations concerned with atheism, all agreed on, is that The God Delusion was a great thing for them.
So when you say that atheists should be more...how to put it? Careful? Conciliatory? Nonjudgemental? Cautious?
I have to say, I think you're wrong. Atheists should consider doing what they're doing: politely, but not respectfully, poking religions with the sharp stick of reasoned criticism.
Now if religions and the religious don't like it, I don't blame them at all. but I don't see why anyone should listen to them when they say it's in the atheists' own best interests to stop.


What's going on, Silmarien, is the nonsense that religions preach is being exposed. I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to virulent, but I can think of two things. First, yes, atheists - in particular, ex-Christians - can get very angry when they think of the abuse and trauma they suffered - very real abuse and trauma. Can you blame them for being angry? But as for the atheist debates I've seen - and there have been plenty of them, including Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, users on this forum, and many others - I just have to wonder what you mean when you describe it as "virulent" or "demonic".


That's certainly true. And if I see anyone picking fights, I will be the first to ask them not to. So far, all I've seen in atheists pointing out the ridiculous aspects of Christianity.


Wow! Please can I see some of these? They certainly sound horrifying.
Could you send me some links to posts made by these demonic atheists? If they are there, I would certainly like to give them a talking to.

You're not talking about me, as you?

No, your post will do just fine in this regard. In fact, with the epistemic matrix that I operate from and within, and which bounds by own view of the Christian faith, every time or someone LIKE YOU opens your mouth or types a syllable, you just confirm more for me my ever growing sense that what it took me so long to finally figure out is indeed what is taking place ...........................................

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, your post will do just fine in this regard. In fact, with the epistemic matrix that I operate from and within, and which bounds by own view of the Christian faith, every time or someone LIKE YOU opens your mouth or types a syllable, you just confirm more for me my ever growing sense that what it took me so long to finally figure out is indeed what is taking place ...........................................

I didn't quite understand what you said. It didn't sound friendly, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not quite, I'm afraid.
I was thinking more of the threads where Christians come with genuine doubts about the faith.
Is it possible that a loving God would send people to hell?
What if my family goes to hell? How could I be happy in heaven?
Was it really right of God to kill the Egyptian children in the story of Moses?
Why does the bible endorse slavery?

The interesting thing is, these are of course many of the things that atheists point out in Christian Apologetics. In there, the Christians who answer tend to take a rather tribal approach.
But when speaking in a safer space, among themselves, they're sometimes more willing to relax and let down their defences. Quite a lot of the time they talk about how God works in mysterious ways, or how they put their trust in the Lord.

I'm more about how I 'see' the Devil in the details and thereby have even more reason to believe and 'run' to Christ. So, just know that you are a big help, yourself, in not just providing evidence for my faith, but by your very being here, you are also BEING EVIDENCE. Thank you so much for that I.A. Because if your presence here was meant to be a kind of TOKYO ROSE imitation, your decision to do so is just prompting my faith in Christ each passing day rather than destroying it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't quite understand what you said. It didn't sound friendly, though.

Well, no one said I was actually supposed to be Friends with The World. Are you of the World, a world apart from the truth of Christ?

Now, if you mean by "unfriendly" that I think your speech is some kind of occasion for political warfare and should be shunned accordingly, well in Purple Political Terms, no, I don't intend on being unfriendly, just truthful. I don't believe in Revolution, Insurrection or in any kind of Civic Warfare. That's would be un-Christian of me to support. I'm not Republican; I'm not Democrat.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm more about how I 'see' the Devil in the details and thereby have even more reason to believe and 'run' to Christ. So, just know that you are a big help, yourself, in not just providing evidence for my faith, but by your very being here, you are also BEING EVIDENCE. Thank you so much for that I.A. Because if your presence here was meant to be a kind of TOKYO ROSE imitation, your decision to do so is just prompting my faith in Christ each passing day rather than destroying it.

Oh, got it. Denial.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, got it. Denial.

And here I thought it was affirmation, just not of the kind you'd recognize I guess.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I've got to be honest, philo, I sometimes have difficulty understanding what you are saying.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've got to be honest, philo, I sometimes have difficulty understanding what you are saying.

That's ok. Others in the past have said it clear enough.

 

[klutedavid]

Sure. The human preacher, Yeshua, is a fact of history. But the claim that this preacher was in fact the son of God is a whole other kettle of fish.

Well IinterestedAtheist, you seem to be some what confused concerning my last post.

When I say that the Christian God is visible, I mean that through the Bible there are many instances of people, who did claim to have seen this God.

I do not claim that the Christian God is visible in the sense of say observing the moon, which was visible back then and is still visible today.

Jesus was visible, now invisible, soon to be visible again.

No, actually "can't be seen" is the definition of invisible.

If Jesus was God, then logically, God has been observed.

Can you see Jesus, right now? Can you see God, right now? If so, perhaps you could give me a photo?

If you believe the historical Jesus was God, then you have your photo, and that is a high definition image.

Because if you can't see Jesus or God, they're invisible. That's what "invisible" means.

You misunderstand what I am saying.

"I must recognise this to be the case", must I?
I'm sorry, klutedavid, but I'm afraid I can't recognise that God is visible if He can't be seen. It's kind of a contradiction, y'know?

It is not a contradiction.

Many Gods in history were never recorded as being observable by humanity. The Christian God in the Bible was not always an invisible God to humanity.

Yes. Four of them. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Tell me, when were these books written again? Just after Jesus's death, wasn't it?

No one really knows the date of the authorship of these texts as the texts themselves do not record that date. The fact that there are more than just one account of the life of Jesus, is more evidence of His significance in history.

You might like to see this article which addresses your objection.
500 Eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ? 9 Reasons Why It's Not Likely.
It's quite brief, so it should be no trouble for you to read, but to summarise the nine objections:
1. First, what does "appear" mean?

It means what it says, God Himself has been observed by more than five hundred people.

2. Who are these five hundred people? Names and addresses, please?

A very strange request?

3. How many, after twenty years, would still be there and able to be questioned?

Another irrelevant question.

4. Who would make this trip? Even for a port, this was a major thing to undertake.

Not necessarily true, if one considers that a Corinthian in the church could also be a sailor on a trading ship. Information could be verified, Paul's claim could in fact be checked.

5. How many people would be willing to go and find out?

Not sure anyone could answer that kind of question. We know that Paul traveled a lot and that there were other Christians also, that traveled between countries in the Roman Empire. Eventually a inquisitive Corinthian would be able to establish the truth of Paul's claim.

6. Who's going to question Paul on this?

The whole Corinthian church because Paul was struggling to establish himself and his authority in the Corinthian church.

7. What's these five hundred people's testimony's worth anyway?

To an economist or a politician say, the claim by Paul of over five hundred witnesses to the risen Christ. Would be outside their field of interest and would likely be dismissed.

8. Even if anyone did check on this and disprove Paul, what would it matter at the time?

Probably not because the Corinthian church was a church of factional groups.

9. Why did none of the other gospels mention this?

Because the gospel accounts directly concern the life of Jesus. Rather than the wider narration of the impact of that resurrection on others.

In short: what's to stop Paul from just having made this up? He probably did. What does it mean to us? Nothing at all.

Paul was not alone in being an observer of the risen Christ. Paul could have composed a false narrative but it is highly unlikely.

I hope you now understand why this is nonsense. The existence of Jesus is a matter of record, of sorts. The existence of God is a matter of religion, and nothing more.

That is merely your subjective opinion.

To one person Jesus was is both an historical fact and the risen Christ. To another person Jesus is also a historical fact but never rose from the tomb.

Ultimately, Jesus was a real person but His divinity is open to debate.

Because it is only Christians who are impressed by apologetic arguments. Nobody else is in the slightest.

Agree.

Now what you're doing here, klutedavid - and please read this carefully - is you're trying to smuggle an argument in. Because Christians believe Jesus to be the son of God, and because historians say that Jesus is a historical figure, you argue, that shows that God exists! But of course, it shows nothing of the sort.
God is not a figure in history.

In Jewish history God interacted with Israel, the Old Testament is the history of the nation of Israel.

The human Jesus is a figure in history.
The divine Jesus is not.

In the recorded history of the last two thousand years there has probably not been a person. With such a powerful influence on that history than Jesus Christ.

Once again, I state that the divinity of the Christ is open to debate.

So:
Show me a history book by a reputable historian that features God in it. Not Jesus, not Christians, not the role of religion. The being, God.
And then show me a book about cosmology that explains the role of God in the formation of the universe.

Your confusing various different disciplines.

Cosmology is the study of the origin and development of the universe.

History is the study of past events and people and their impact in that history.

The Bible is an overview of the nation of Israel and it's interaction with God.

I hope the point is now clear.

Your argument is confused and at times incorrect.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've got to be honest, philo, I sometimes have difficulty understanding what you are saying.

And I sometimes have difficulty understanding your overall intentions.

 

[cvanwey]

To one person Jesus was is both an historical fact and the risen Christ. To another person Jesus is also a historical fact but never rose from the tomb.

Ultimately, Jesus was a real person but His divinity is open to debate.

Though my entire purpose was merely to present case(s) for why unbelievers come here, I find this statement relevant.... Let's see if your current beliefs hold any 'water'?

Here lies a crucial crux between believers and unbelievers. Because, at the end of the day, it seems to always end up boiling down to 1 Corinthians 15:14:

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Start by giving us your BEST reason, in which you feel the claimed Christ lives beyond His natural death?

Thank you in advance

 

[klutedavid]

Though my entire purpose was merely to present case(s) for why unbelievers come here, I find this statement relevant.... Let's see if your current beliefs hold any 'water'?

Here lies a crucial crux between believers and unbelievers. Because, at the end of the day, it seems to always end up boiling down to 1 Corinthians 15:14:

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Start by giving us your BEST reason, in which you feel the claimed Christ lives beyond His natural death?

Thank you in advance

The fact that the Christ rose was the reason that the New Testament exists. Without the resurrection; Christianity itself would not exist.

You can bet on the resurrection and win.

 

[Silmarien]

Let's talk about The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, as mentioned by Philo above. I think you would probably agree with Philo that this is the kind of atheist you are thinking of when you say atheists should communicate more carefully, yes? So I think this will serve to illustrate why I disagree with you.
The God Delusion is an enormous success. It had a huge impact. Other books like it followed, and were also successful. People weren't turned off by Dawkins' message. They bought it. And, as the atheist groups will tell you themselves, it had a huge impact - and not for the worse.
Atheists Reflect on the Impact of <em>The God Delusion</em> Ten Years After Its Release | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos
And what these groups, representing the main organisations concerned with atheism, all agreed on, is that The God Delusion was a great thing for them.
So when you say that atheists should be more...how to put it? Careful? Conciliatory? Nonjudgemental? Cautious?
I have to say, I think you're wrong. Atheists should consider doing what they're doing: politely, but not respectfully, poking religions with the sharp stick of reasoned criticism.
Now if religions and the religious don't like it, I don't blame them at all. but I don't see why anyone should listen to them when they say it's in the atheists' own best interests to stop.

I don't even think Richard Dawkins agrees with you, given that he's dialed back the rhetoric and likes to wax poetic about his appreciation for Anglican cathedrals these days.

I don't take hateful mockery from atheists personally. I consider it ignorant and think poorly of those who behave in this fashion, but it's not something that really bothers me. It has affected the way I view atheists in general, however, since I have actually stopped automatically assuming that they are moral. I think that is a very bad outcome.

Wow! Please can I see some of these? They certainly sound horrifying.
Could you send me some links to posts made by these demonic atheists? If they are there, I would certainly like to give them a talking to.

You're not talking about me, as you?

Amongst others.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And I sometimes have difficulty understanding your overall intentions.

All you have to do is ask.
My intentions are to discuss theology. To point out mistakes. To help people understand the truth. To sharpen my debating skills. To have fun.
It's no big secret. This whole thread has answered your question pretty well.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I don't even think Richard Dawkins agrees with you, given that he's dialed back the rhetoric and likes to wax poetic about his appreciation for Anglican cathedrals these days.

First of all, so what? Richard Dawkins has always been quite open about his admiration for and enjoment of Christian religion. Christmas carols, beautiful buildings, sermons of love and peace. Sounds quite sensible to me.
Second, what if Richard Dawkins did experience a conversion and became an evangelical Christian? Again, so what? Enjoyable as he is to read and listen to, it's his arguments that are important to atheists. Saying "You shouldn't be an atheist because Richard Dawkins isn't" would simple be an argument from authority, and as such a logical fallacy.

(edited to add):
Is this what you're talking about?
Richard Dawkins admits he is a 'cultural Anglican'
It's not, I think, what you think it is.

Amongst others.

I'm sorry to hear that you consider the discussions we have had to be "demonic".

I don't take hateful mockery from atheists personally. I consider it ignorant and think poorly of those who behave in this fashion, but it's not something that really bothers me. It has affected the way I view atheists in general, however, since I have actually stopped automatically assuming that they are moral. I think that is a very bad outcome.

Silmarien, it seems to me that this is something that bothers you very much. If you think that being told you are wrong, having your arguments contested and failing to impress people with what you say constitutes "hateful mockery" then I wonder if you should seek psychological help.
And yes, I think it is a bad outcome for you to start hating atheists. I don't think it's their fault, if I am a typical specimen of the kind of atheist you are thinking of. I think it's to do with how you take comments. You should rethink the way in which you act and react towards people.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Well IinterestedAtheist, you seem to be some what confused concerning my last post.

When I say that the Christian God is visible, I mean that through the Bible there are many instances of people, who did claim to have seen this God.

I do not claim that the Christian God is visible in the sense of say observing the moon, which was visible back then and is still visible today.

Jesus was visible, now invisible, soon to be visible again.

If Jesus was God, then logically, God has been observed.

If you believe the historical Jesus was God, then you have your photo, and that is a high definition image.
You misunderstand what I am saying.

It is not a contradiction.

Many Gods in history were never recorded as being observable by humanity. The Christian God in the Bible was not always an invisible God to humanity.

No one really knows the date of the authorship of these texts as the texts themselves do not record that date. The fact that there are more than just one account of the life of Jesus, is more evidence of His significance in history.

It means what it says, God Himself has been observed by more than five hundred people.

A very strange request?
Another irrelevant question.
Not necessarily true, if one considers that a Corinthian in the church could also be a sailor on a trading ship. Information could be verified, Paul's claim could in fact be checked.
Not sure anyone could answer that kind of question. We know that Paul traveled a lot and that there were other Christians also, that traveled between countries in the Roman Empire. Eventually a inquisitive Corinthian would be able to establish the truth of Paul's claim.
The whole Corinthian church because Paul was struggling to establish himself and his authority in the Corinthian church.

To an economist or a politician say, the claim by Paul of over five hundred witnesses to the risen Christ. Would be outside their field of interest and would likely be dismissed.
Probably not because the Corinthian church was a church of factional groups.
Because the gospel accounts directly concern the life of Jesus. Rather than the wider narration of the impact of that resurrection on others.

Paul was not alone in being an observer of the risen Christ. Paul could have composed a false narrative but it is highly unlikely.

That is merely your subjective opinion.

To one person Jesus was is both an historical fact and the risen Christ. To another person Jesus is also a historical fact but never rose from the tomb.

Ultimately, Jesus was a real person but His divinity is open to debate.
Agree.

In Jewish history God interacted with Israel, the Old Testament is the history of the nation of Israel.

In the recorded history of the last two thousand years there has probably not been a person. With such a powerful influence on that history than Jesus Christ.

Once again, I state that the divinity of the Christ is open to debate.

Your confusing various different disciplines.

Cosmology is the study of the origin and development of the universe.

History is the study of past events and people and their impact in that history.

The Bible is an overview of the nation of Israel and it's interaction with God.

Your argument is confused and at times incorrect.

It's quite clear, klutedavid, that you did not read the article I mentioned at all. Because most of the things you said were answered in it, if your points had not already refuted themselves by their nonsensical nature.

Here is the article again. Please take the time to read it. Until you do, I'm afraid we won't be able to have a productive conversation.
500 Eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ? 9 Reasons Why It's Not Likely.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All you have to do is ask.
My intentions are to discuss theology. To point out mistakes. To help people understand the truth. To sharpen my debating skills. To have fun.
It's no big secret. This whole thread has answered your question pretty well.

Well, if THAT'S all you're wanting to do, then ... welcome to CF, I.A.! Now, about that thing called "truth"....what is that exactly? Because as I've studied Metaphysics and Epistemology, I'm not sure that we either understand the Truth about truth, nor at all times really Know what we think we know about Knowledge. So, I feel left in a quandry whenever someone says the word, "truth" like it's some kind of magical incantation, like saying, "S.H.A.Z.A.M.!" and somehow, everything then becomes so clear and beautiful.