Why Are You A Christian?

"3) if someone like Lynn tells you her beliefs are deeply personal and she doesn't want to put them out there only to be attacked why do you have such a hard time respecting that?"

quote from you Meliai....

but you see, Meliai, why say something like that at all in public.....isn't that an attack?...and then one has to wonder, on who.....

 

Online, it comes across a little bit wimpy to me. This is the safest place to say what you really think. Here, we're all just pixels on a screen. In the real world, you could end up being stuck dealing with people on a daily basis who will mistreat you for not agreeing with them, so being open and honest there can be dangerous.

 

IRL...i don't discuss religion or politics with people, and if someone starts discussing it with me, i usually just say yeah...nod my head...whatever...anything to avoid an argument or butting of heads.....No one is ever really going to change their minds on anything anyway about religion or politics....are they?
I can find lots of other common ground to talk to with people, so i usually wind up steering any conversations away to other things , irl....and I respect that.....There is always common ground somewhere....

 

Same here, unless I already know that they agree with me.

 

Mr. Writer, this is a terrible stereotype of atheists: that they try to shove their neurotic obsession with logic and evidence down believers' throats.

Some people don't care about evidence. Atheists don't seem to realize that life would be less fun without Christmas, religious art, Biblical allusions in literature, etc. That wouldn't exist without religion. Science and logic aren't the end-all be all of life. Atheism is way too cerebral.

Atheists can't justify their belief in natural rights or love. Also, they hide their convictions, like the conviction that you shouldn't be tortured for not going along with some unwanted authority figure. Why not admit it?? Why hide behind this neurosis?

If it's a Muslim, the person is left alone. If it's a Buddhist, they're left alone. If they're Hindu or Wiccan, they're left alone. Vodun/voodoo, left alone. Jews, left alone. But God forbid someone still wants to be Christian, and atheists like you reaffirm their belief that they're persecuted.

Christianity is not that bad. I was raised Anglican/Episcopalian and still go to church and celebrate Christmas, Easter, Palm Sunday, Passover, and Lent. Anglicans aren't homophobic and in fact a recent sermon spoke in favor of "marriage equality" (the *female* reverend's exact words). Anglicans are pro-choice believe it or not. The only unforgivable sin is dying in unbelief. Some people find that deeply comforting.

 

Do you expect everybody to respect that? Seriously? That's just weak.

I wouldn't miss any of that. Winter festivals don't need to be connected to Jesus. I love art museums, but I skip the Christian sections. No interest.

I have a cool looking Buddha at home, but none of my friends think that I consider him a supernatural being.

 

Actually Writer is often quite interesting, even enjoyable to read in regards to topics surrounding religion, metaphysics and the like. I find he frequently promotes critical thinking and really, more often than not, just by asking questions he gets these retorts and outlashes against him. Most of the time, what I see from him, really is just attempting to get people to analyze their ideas and beliefs on a topic, take them a bit out of their comfort zone of ideas they may blindly accept or take for granted. I think perhaps the manner in how he piles on his questions and objections, might be where it's difficult for some to see that.

Regarding other religions, if that is suggested in regards to atheists overall, I'd have to wager you are completely clueless to any of the material from prominent atheists that have garnered significant popularity within this millennium, if you don't think they have brought up issues they see in other religions as well, particularly Islam.

I'm sure there are plenty of people on this planet who have grown up without Christmas, religious art, Biblical allusions in literature, etc. Maybe Science and/or the neurotic atheists can formulate a study so we can logically see how much less fun these people have compared to those who have grown up with these things.. :bulb: Then we can decide how necessary they actually are.

In all seriousness though, what world are you living in where you think people don't care about evidence?

I'm pretty sure everything you have typed here is logged in some way (obviously is because I'm quoting you with one button), most everything you purchase has a receipt, most accomplishments/jobs you have had some sort of certificate, pay statements, identity profile, or some evidential way to prove that the reality of the situation is as best as you and all parties involved can agree upon it is.

We, particularly in the West, pretty much frame our whole lives based on evidence.

 

She's talking about herself I think. Where it comes to your personal beliefs (when they are really your own and they fit you, which is very possible even when you're part of a religion) it's in the end not about what other people think of it or if they can even respect it. It would be nice, sure. But you don't believe primarily to get respect from others. I'm sure the same counts for many atheists. They simply have their convictions, and religious people have theirs.
There's a line of course between believing in things that cannot be proven and really holding damaging convictions that are based on nothing. A lot of atheists are acting like it's all the same: you believe in something of which there is no evidence. You're nuts and this kind of faith should be banished from human thinking (quite hopeless, even if it may come from good intent).

I agree, Mr. Writer has interesting thoughts and posts and can add a lot to a philosophic or metaphysical convo. No arguing about that. But when you are defending him and saying he gets shit for trying to get others to critically think I have to correct you (again ). He gets shit for his approach and for his often respectless and derogatery reactions and conclusions after people say no thanks (well he already shows his lack of respect before too). This has been pointed out a lot before, so it's a little strange to still put it like he's getting shit just to try to make people critically think.
As has been advised many times: if he would leave out the derogatery stuff he would probably have more religious people debate with him. Now, we can't blame them for thanking for the honor

About TheSamantha's post: she should be aware that she doesn't generalize and stereotype atheists as a whole, as she would be guilty of the same thing she so dislikes in (certain!) atheists You know, the mote in the other person's eye and the beam in your own.

 

Actually, there's been much criticism of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism on the forums over time. It's just that there are not that many Muslims or Hindus on here, although there are a few Buddhists and Pagans. It's not what you believe, it's the very fact that you hold beliefs which atheists say can't be proven - but as we know neither can atheism be proven. Christians tend to come in for more criticism because it's the most common religion among members, and because it's so prevalent in rather low level forms in the USA.

Generally, to judge from a lot of what gets posted by atheists, it's the fact that some people believe in things beyond the rational intellect with which they have a problem. IMO this is just as narrow a dogmatism as that displayed by the most literal of Christians. Rationalism and logic are the gods of the atheist.

Some though accept things like certain yoga practices - but they are on a sticky wicket there, as those things were created by people who definitely did believe in something superior to the human reason - a class of people whom they like to characterize as deluded and stupid.

 

And there will always be individuals who find his approach personally offensive, unfortunately.

I know a lot of people who have been indoctrinated almost from birth that a faith-based approach to life is best. Evidence is considered a potentially misleading distraction to those whose faith is deficient.

 

But to be fair: this is not why Mr. Writer gets nagged on. It also seems kind of lame and dishonest to keep putting as if this is the situation on here:

It's not just asking critical questions that gets him the reactions he gets now. It's almost always the stereotypical and negative assumptions and projections, the derogatory and respectless sneers that always accompany his (often very valid) questions that makes his posts offensive and makes his christian convo partners stop participating.

So about above line. Hey if it is true it is true But when it gets projected on a christian convo partner on here JUST because they happen to be christian as well and the people in above statement are also christian.... well than the tone for the convo has already been set. If then in every follow up post another thing that may count for christians you have met irl or that people took notice of in the news gets projected on the particular christian you're talking to, and they get asked to defend or explain this thing they have nothing to do with... yeah that gets kind of tiring and annoying of course in a thread that was about their beliefs, and not about every other dubious christian or christian ritual.

If it would be asked out of plain interest how a christian can reconcile his/her belief with the dubious aspects that are part of their religion then there's no need for all these atheists who are doing so to be derogatory, respectless or even plain agressive in this approach. And because they so often are that's why a lot of christian don't even bother when they notice these questions are accompanied with such needless negativity and all these generalisations they have no part in themselves.

Man.. I wanted to make it real clear and short. Hope you guys acknowledge that some atheists on here (like mr. Writer) have brought it upon themselves with their consistent derogatory approach that certain christians say thanks but no thanks. To be sure, this is not just or only mr. Writer's fault or caused by him: he should be aware too that most christians he's bothering with this approach has been bothered in the same way by others, often also in irl. So they probably recognize the kind of atheist they're dealing with.
After all there are also perfectly respectful atheists that can still ask critical questions without letting their derogatory conviction on religion and religous followers seep through in those questions

 

I think he's more than a little bit jaded and defensive, which often happens to somebody who presents a minority point of view for a long time. They get beaten down so much in real life.

He's so jaded that he won't even speak to me, even though we agree much more often than we disagree.

No, I'm picking up a specific vibe from Samantha, which worries me. She says she went to Duke University, and I know what the Durham culture is like. She often seems more Durham than Duke, and that isn't good. If Duke didn't teach her to think for herself and be skeptical of old traditional ways, then they aren't what they used to be. It's always been a liberal Methodist school. Faith over reason isn't their thing.

 

I stand by what I said, and I say most of the time he attempts to promote critical thought. I do think that's why he primarily is getting shit and I don't find it strange in the least. For the reasons I already and stated and furthermore, I think when you have a fair amount of the Hipforums population in some of these threads regarding Philosophy & Religion, that know how to respond primarily in terms of visceral opinionated social media/forums style first and use structured logic and rhetoric in a very distant second, as where Writer is usually the opposite, it seems set up to inherently clash.

Very many of the questions that he prompted in his first post, I think could potentially for better and worse really have one analyze why they hold the beliefs they do. Like why would a Christian need to feel shielded into responding to an internet post about their beliefs? Why might that even need to be brought up if that is how they feel?

 

Fair enough. I have no idea about Duke university and Durham culture etc. myself. But I noticed most of Samantha's threads involve self exploration and she's definitely seem to think for herself (wether I agree with her thought pattern/conlusions or not ).

From my experience, most christians live just as much by reason as non theists. Which is why I generally take such remarks in the context they are said (and not assume or respond like she NEVER cares about evidence, or always would choose faith over reason. Not saying you are implying that btw But that's often how it goes in other threads. And yes, Guerilla I agree this has happened so much that certainly among the regulars there's not much patience anymore to endure each others opposite stances or respond without pointless insults and derogatory comments... Which is a pity and on both 'sides').
I can see if you're in a conservative area and have different experiences, or are in a country where being christian still gives you more benefits than being anything else is kind of frustrating.

 

Is that perhaps judging with rose-colored glasses of your own dogma?

I seem to find myself in the trenches of discussion with atheists and rationalists, discussing far ranging topics of beliefs, from common, to obscure, to seemingly downright bizzarre far too often for that to be the case on this forum. If you can point to any example of an atheist being offended to the point beyond dialogue based on criticism of their ideas (not character) then I may be willing to accept your claim with more than the lightest grain of salt.

By The way you post here, and some other oblique criticism of atheism I've seen I'd think you maintain the notion that all ideas deserve equal footing, that there is no such thing as a bad idea, and all ideas are above criticism or questioning. Do you maintain this to be the case?

If not, what do you take to be a bad idea? And how does this relate to you seeing an atheist tied to rationalism and logic and a Christian accepting the bible literally to be on par with one another?

 

With the examples I provided in mind and how prevalent we rely on evidence to shape reality, it's rather mind-boggling in a sense, that someone could maintain that view into adulthood.

 

When I read that quote of Karen I must say I can only think of kids and gullible uneducated people indoctrinated in fundamentalistic muslim schools.

I know in our societies in the past doubt was often seen as the devil trying to seduce you... (disturbing enough of course, as it was an excuse not to listen to your feelings of doubt) but a lot of christian people in current society blatantly considering clear evidence to be a misleading distraction? I believe it when I see it!

 

Trouble with that is I only speak from my own position which has very little in common with that of the Bible literalist, whose views I deplore and have often posted against on here.

I'm not sure if the medieval scholastic philosophers (Aquinas, Occam & Co) would be counted among the Bible literalists, but they were certainly not deficient in logic. The problem I suppose for an atheist is that they start from what would be considered a false premiss. The structure they built based on that though is wholly logical, and formed an important part in the subsequent development of western philosophy. Even Russell in his 'History of Western Philosophy' concluded that "nothing nearly so pat has arisen since".
The premiss that 'god exists', says the atheist, can't be proven. But neither can it's opposite. So it remains a matter outside the scope of purely logical argument to say who starts from truth and who from falsehood.

I do think that all ideas should be on the table. Nothing is above criticism. But when one has heard the very same criticism over and again it gets too tedious to respond to every repetition. There are also some idea which are too complicated to discuss in a meaningful way with those who are not acquainted with them.
So in that sense all ideas are on the table for those who take the time to inform themselves of those ideas. Otherwise a lot of things always remain outside our scope to judge or criticize.

I do think there are ideas which are intrinsically bad. Fascism might be an example, fundamentalist Islam another. Other than to dismiss them, I can't think of much else I'd have to say.

In terms of personal experiences and so on that might lead a person to a spiritual belief of some kind, I maintain that it's useless to quote them as they also don't represent any kind of proof. As Freud said 'one owes oneself discretion'. I've tried the approach before, and just got personal attacks, or criticism which would simply require too much complex explanation to respond to, so I no longer speak of anything like that. If that's a problem, it will just have to remain a problem.

So far as I'm concerned, atheists, theists, and all other variations are entitled to their own view. That doesn't mean I have any appetite for continued discussions and arguments which really are going nowhere and too often end in personal acrimony. Posting on here is something I do for recreation and because I like communicating with people and have problems with my health which make it difficult at times for me to go out and socialize.
The last thing I want is something which can at times remind me of being interrogated by the police.

 

I think it's worth mentioning distinction in depictions of 'God' here. For all intents and purposes, the problem of evil successfully debunked the traditional notion of the Christian God as I and I think most understand it as told when we're young. So now there are numerous retreats and variations on the idea of what 'God' is. (Including theodicy which reimagines God as well) Regardless, I still don't think these premises are anywhere near on equal footing, I suppose if some people rely on faith as much as Karen J suggests, then there really will be no way of persuading them, but as i suggested it's difficult for me to understand because there is absolutely no other aspects of life where we don't use evidence as a primary standard.

As was my point to the notion of a Christian making assertions then not wanting to discuss their views... Why even post in the first place saying atheists are this and that, if you don't think such claims need to be substantiated?

That seems quite pretentious and a borderline concession of trolling.

 

Karen J: No, I'm picking up a specific vibe from Samantha, which worries me. She says she went to Duke University, and I know what the Durham culture is like. She often seems more Durham than Duke, and that isn't good. If Duke didn't teach her to think for herself and be skeptical of old traditional ways, then they aren't what they used to be. It's always been a liberal Methodist school. Faith over reason isn't their thing.

I'm not even Christian. I don't know why I would come across as traditional, much less "more Durham than Duke" when not only have I express a strong aversion to the south, but also you and I have similar sexual histories!