Why do you attack Christianity? [moved from FA]

JesusLovesYou
Theist
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Why do you attack Christianity? [moved from FA]

Why do you attack Christianitiy when it is a religion based on truth?  Have you actually READ the Bible? and I mean read by digging into it, not just looking at the words from front to back.  If you just look at the words from front to back you just skim the surface and come to the wrong conclusions about Christianity.  Why do you not attack religions such as Hip-Hop, or 5% nation of gods and earths (part of hip-hop) which are soley based around making the white man inferior and deifying the black man. THATS what you should be attacking!!! Why don't you attack Islam, the religion based upon hate, death, and destruction? 

 

 You people have NO IDEA what you are doing!!!! 

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
mobius_thought

mobius_thought wrote:
shikko wrote:
mobius_thought wrote:

It's really quite simple. There is no such thing as atheism.

Everyone claiming it (including myself, for a time) is, in fact, an antitheist

Just because you disagree does not mean you're right, and just because you don't like a concept does not mean it's wrong. Yes, some people here may in fact be antitheist, but to assert that atheism does not exist is useless.

 

Hey, we can only believe in what we see, right?

Okay, so I can say that I have seen no reason to believe that atheism exists. Six of one, half dozen of the other, take your pick..

I can't tell here if you're being facetious or not.

If you are, ha.

If you're not...wow. I'm not sure where to start. You have no reason to believe that a person who does not believe in the existence of something supernatural can and does exist?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

They are not neutral to it, apathetic to it, or anyone else which would allow them to approach it with the same level of compassion, openmindedness, and consideration that they might give other ideas in life.

Category error: one cannot be compassionate or considerate to an idea. Compassion and consideration are reserved for people; ideas do not have feelings which may need to be considered, and are incapable of being in situations which may benefit from compassion. Separating your ego from your arguments will serve you well.

Clearly, the bit about compassion WAS meant in reference to people, but thanks for proving my point FOR me. A respectful conversation includes people giving each other the benefit of the doubt.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you meant what you typed. Should I no longer do this?

The sentence in question is: "They are not neutral to it, apathetic to it, or anyone else which would allow them to approach it with the same level of compassion, openmindedness, and consideration that they might give other ideas in life." The "it" in the first part of that sentence is "belief in god". The people mentioned in that sentence are atheists (the subject of the sentence) and "anyone else". Compassion is closest to the "it" so it reads like you want people to be compassionate to your ideas, which makes as much sense as having compassion for the hole in your sock.

I considered it as written. If you made a clear reference error that lead to an interpretation in which you made a category error, say so and either rephrase or move on, but don't tell me I'm being disrespectful for pointing it out. Separate the thinker from the thought.

Quote:

Antagonisic people, on the other hand, are going to jump on any little perceived error they can find, including typos, or PERCEIVED typos.

Given that teh intarwebs strip out all other cues in communication but text, how are we to deal with what you typed other than with what you typed? I can't catch inflection or facial expression, so if you type something wrong, I can either be silent or say "that's wrong". I suppose I could get obsequious about my objections, but...why? Again, if you feel insulted or attacked because someone says you typed something incorrect or made a terrible argument, why would you feel that way? You are not your arguments.

Quote:

Quote:
Openminded does not imply persuadable. We ARE open-minded; it's just that the arguments for religion are invalid, so we do not believe. We will, however, listen to any argument you care to articulate. Don't expect an easy ride, however; taken together, I don't think there are any pro-religion arguments the members of this site have not heard.

Of course, there is a difference. But a person can never learn what they think they already know, and this is why I think the term "open-mindeness" (in context of a lack thereof) is still appropriate. I'm with the prophet Rufus from the movie "Dogma"-

It's better to have ideas than beliefs. Ideas can be changed.

I appreciate the offer, and will keep it in mind, should a situation arise where I don't think I'll be written off immediately just for being a theist. At this point, I don't you all well enough to get too deep into it.

Try it. C'mon, it'll be fun! Just remember: the vast majority of the people here do NOT have a belief; that's the point of them being here. Do you have a belief? What is it?

Quote:
Quote:

Can you explain how antagonism invalidates an argument?

It's not that it invalidates it. It simply undermines it. It turns the 'centrists', anyone trying to make UP their mind off to your way of thinking, just the same as the Christian preacher trying to shove HIS beliefs down your throats.

The only thing that undermines an argument is bad reasoning. If you mean "being antagonistic makes me uncomfortable and makes it hard for people to want to agree with you", say that. After all, arguing is done for the audience, not the participants, right?

Quote:

I suppose perhaps it would be to my favor to not speak of such things, but just as the sun has no need to fear a shadow, neither are my beliefs at any risk by people believing otherwise, so I do feel comfortable telling you how you could put a better face on your belief system.

Hmm. So what would put your beliefs at risk?

Quote:

Quote:

Ridicule is a great tool for shedding light on bad ideas.

*shrug* I suppose in the absence of the love, it could be seen as such. Why those so angered by the CHURCH'S lack of love, would then spead the same contempt for others, is beyond me, though.

I share that contempt for so many horrible things done in the name of religion (mostly in the name of the Catholic church). But what *I* do with that is internalize it, and try to show a greater sense of tolerance than what those people shown.

Do you show the same contempt for your fellow believers?

Much of the persecuting Christians have done has been based out of the part of their holy text held in common with Judaism. Deuteronomy and Leviticus have many calls to violence in them; the destruction of whole towns and outright genocide in favour of god's chosen people are all found before the (supposed) birth of Jesus.

Don't be so quick to cast aspersions on Christianity just because they're currently doing what Jews have already done.

Quote:

That tolerance may be here for some, but it certainly isn't universal. I have no doubt that if the most extremist intolerant of atheists were to somehow take power over the world, or the country, they would begin the same awful persecutions OF religious people that have formerly (and currently, for that matter) done BY religious people.

Maybe, if that extremist, intolerant atheist was also certifiably insane. Why do you try to equate atheism with persecution of theists? Actually, what is your definition of "the most extremist intolerant of atheists" and on what basis would they begin this feared persecution of theists? Revenge?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.