The Outright Ignorance of Anti-Christian-based Atheism

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » The Outright Ignorance of Anti-Christian-based Atheism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 06:58 pm
Greetings to all...

Let me start out by insulting a huge number of people:

If you are an atheist based on your experience with Christianity, then you are a idiot. :bigsmile:

Speaking to such people:

Are you such an undeducated, ignorant mind-slave you only see ONE version of theism?

Are you so stupid and ignorant at you blindly accept that there is only ONE version of the truth?

If so, I laugh in your face at your mind-numbing ignornance. Very Happy

The VAST majority of arguments I've heard put forth by web atheists are against Christianity: on this forum and elsewhere.

Here's a slap in your face: I believe in God and I do NOT believe in Christianity.

What do you say to that?

Did it ever occur to you that you don't have to be a mind-slave to the faith that you've been taught?

-- I guess not based on the majority of anti-religious arguments that I've seen posted here on this forum. LOL

You people are so stupid that it's hilarious. Smile

There are hundred of religions and theistic faiths in the world.

Are you upset or angry, reading this? -- Good! I hope you are! Maybe it will wake you from your long, idiotic slumber!

As you so stupid / ignorant that you think there is only ONE conception of God, that being the Christian conception?

Apprarently so if the the arguments here are any example!

As I said, the vast majority of pro-atheism arguments I've seen on this forum are general gripes with the Christian conception of God.

To this I say: wake up and smell the Internet.

There are TONS of other religions besides Christianity. There are TONS of other conceptions of God besides those within religion.

Why are you making yourself a mindslave to any one relgion or to religion at all? -- Inquriing minds want to know.

Seriously.

Think about it: You are an individual. You have your own mind, your own life experiences, your own moral/ethical beliefs, your own meaning of life.
Why is it that the only way you can conceptualize God is through the eyes of a religion? -- Who made this rule? -- YOU did.

There is no reason whatsoever that you can't come up with your own conception of God.

Is there?

To all the atheists who believe such because of their voluntary mental enslavement to the paradigm of Christianity, I pity you and your weak world.

[Note To all (including mods/admins): look at the BIG PICTURE here. My words may be phrased in an generally offensive way, but they cut through a lot of BS.]

Thanks for your time. :bigsmile:
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 07:12 pm
@OctoberMist,
Atheism is a relative term. I am a theist, but faced with some notions of God I am an atheist with respect to that notion of God.

What is wrong with criticizing Christian notions of God and, in the process, deciding that you are an atheist?

It should be no surprise that most arguments against the existence of God are arguments against Western, Judeo-Christian notions of God - most of us here live in a world dominated by Judeo-Christian faith traditions.

You know, it's no good generalizing about Christian belief, nor is it any good generalizing about atheistic belief.

I get the gist of what you are saying - many atheist make ridiculous arguments and have spent little time studying what they criticize. No doubt about that. So what? There are also atheists who make mature arguments and who have studied religion far more than either of us.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 07:41 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
... who exactly are you trying to offend here? ... Christians in particular? (in which case you've done an excellent job!); theists in general? (again - good job); or atheists? (in which case I'd have to say you're wide of the mark) ...
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 07:53 pm
@OctoberMist,
Yes, the original post's words are inflammatory.
I do not see how calling people idiots or ignorant mind-slaves, especially when based on reductionist caricatures of both atheists and Christians either furthers any civil discourse or promotes open discussion.
And, forgive me for saying so, the tone of the original post seems to a general "gripe" the very kind of which the poster despises.

Quite frankly, as something akin to the evil atheist, I take offense at being intellectually denigrated by an arbitrary classification. Just as there are many organised and personal religions, and rightly so, there are also many different atheist positions and at least some of these are so not because of a distaste for some versions of Christianity.

It seems to me, that philosophy and its critical but tolerant position towards religion (s) can advance a clearer understanding about it by thinking in a quiet, dispassionate, open way and by avoiding the strident pulpiteering from all sides. And isn't this what our community here is really all about?
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:14 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed said:

Quote:

Yes, the original post's words are inflammatory.


Certainly.

Quote:

I do not see how calling people idiots or ignorant mind-slaves, especially when based on reductionist caricatures of both atheists and Christians either furthers any civil discourse or promotes open discussion.


Perhaps not. Smile

However, you cannot deny that there are a multitude of atheists on this very site who are attacking theism on the sole basis of their experiences with Christianity.

Thus, I am making a strongly-worded attack on such concepts as irrational and ignorant. I am not naming specific names.

Quote:

And, forgive me for saying so, the tone of the original post seems to a general "gripe" the very kind of which the poster despises.


Not the case, but I can see how you might think so. No offense is taken.

Quote:

Quite frankly, as something akin to the evil atheist, I take offense at being intellectually denigrated by an arbitrary classification.


No offense to you, but I did not make a general statement about all athesists. I only mentioned Anti-Christian-Based-Atheists.

Quote:

Just as there are many organised and personal religions, and rightly so, there are also many different atheist positions and at least some of these are so not because of a distaste for some versions of Christianity.


Very true. -- That is why I was particularly specific in my language. To clarify further:

I think that those who claim Atheism as a DIRECT result of their interaction with Christianity (and that alone) are stupid and ignorant. That is my position.

Quote:

It seems to me, that philosophy and its critical but tolerant position towards religion (s) can advance a clearer understanding about it by thinking in a quiet, dispassionate, open way and by avoiding the strident pulpiteering from all sides. And isn't this what our community here is really all about?


Hehehehehe... Well, that's what it's about in principle, but to be completely honest, there is a very strong atheist faction here who regularly attacks / mocks / satirizes Christianity as the respresenation of theism -- which it is not.

What you are saying makes sense, but in application, it is more of a guideline than a operating principle of this website.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:28 pm
@OctoberMist,
"Earth conquered gives the stars"

One does not always achieve the most correct way to live an ethical life according to one's decision, but that does not mean that one should not attempt to follow one's own table of right and wrong, does it?

If the discussions here fall short of genuinely philosophical dialogue, that should not mean that people should not try to hold themselves to that standard as best they can, especially in their own contributions to the community.
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:30 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas said:

Quote:

Atheism is a relative term.
I disagree. An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not believe in a god / higher power / supernatural intelligence / etc.

Quote:

I am a theist, but faced with some notions of God I am an atheist with respect to that notion of God.
Then that would make you a Agnostic; not an atheist.

Quote:

What is wrong with criticizing Christian notions of God and, in the process, deciding that you are an atheist?
If anti-Christianity is the sole basis of "atheism", then it is not atheism at all - it is a rejection of Christianity.

Let me give you an analogy:

Let's say you were born in the USA and everyone in your town drove a Ford Taurus. In your experience, the Ford Taurus was a completely unreliable car: it always broke down, it guzzled gas, it needed to be fixed nearly every day, it fell apart at the slightest bump.

Based on this experience, would it be accurate to say that ALL cars are poorly constructed?

-- Obviously not.

Yet, this is the exact argument being made by ignorant Anti-Christian-Based-Atheists.

They have had a bad experience with Christianity and probably disagree with many of the principles of the faith, so they declare: "Religion is stupid and repulsive. I choose atheism as opposed to religion."

Yet, they have only examined one aspect of religion and theism (which are can be seperate entities).

To make a Hasty Generalizations about ALL religions based on their experiences with one is not only a logical fallacy, but it's also fairly ignorant.

Quote:

It should be no surprise that most arguments against the existence of God are arguments against Western, Judeo-Christian notions of God - most of us here live in a world dominated by Judeo-Christian faith traditions.
Hence my use of the term "mind-slave". This is the Information Age. Are people so lazy that they can only relate to one faith that they are familar with? -- If so, they are deliberately ignorant and arguably stupid.

Is there any reason why people in Western Society cannot research other faiths besides Judeo-Christianity? -- Certainly they can because there are many other faiths in Europe and North America besides just Judeo-Christianity.

Quote:

You know, it's no good generalizing about Christian belief, nor is it any good generalizing about atheistic belief.
Ah, but I did not generalize about atheistsic belief.

Let's be clear on that.

The topic of this thread is: "The Outright Ignorance of Anti-Christian-Based Atheisitic Belief."

This thread has zero relevence to atheists which do not based their beliefs on anti-Christian tennants.

Quote:

I get the gist of what you are saying - many atheist make ridiculous arguments and have spent little time studying what they criticize. No doubt about that. So what?
"So what?" Smile -- So this is a philosophy forum and I'm calling them out on it.

Quote:

There are also atheists who make mature arguments and who have studied religion far more than either of us.
And, as I said (and as the title of the thread stipulates), this does not apply to such people. What's the problem?
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:36 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed said:

--SNIP--

Quote:

If the discussions here fall short of genuinely philosophical dialogue, that should not mean that people should not try to hold themselves to that standard as best they can, especially in their own contributions to the community.


Well.. That's a very nice principle but it simply doesn't apply across the board to every user on this forum. There are moderators here, not unlike yourself, who regularly break this prinicple as a matter of course. I see no action being taken against them.

In other words, if moderators are ignored when they break the principles, then how is it that regular users should be encouraged to follow said principles?

Catch-22.
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:41 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke said:

Quote:

who exactly are you trying to offend here?
Exclusively anti-Christian-based-Atheists.

Quote:

.. Christians in particular? (in which case you've done an excellent job!);
Oh, I doubt that....unless you claim to speak for all Christians sects in the world. Smile

Quote:

theists in general? (again - good job);
As a theist myself, that would be sort of counter-productive.
Do you also claim to speak for all theists?

Quote:

or atheists? (in which case I'd have to say you're wide of the mark) ...
Care to explain yourself or are you just here to throw out random comments?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:51 pm
@OctoberMist,
OctoberMist wrote:
Didymos Thomas said:
I disagree. An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not believe in a god / higher power / supernatural intelligence / etc.


In a God, ect. The question remains: which God? Again, I am a theist because I believe in a particular notion of God. However, I am also an atheist because I do not believe in certain other notions of God.

OctoberMist wrote:
Then that would make you a Agnostic; not an atheist.


Actually, no, an agnostic does not believe nor disbelieve in a God. As I said, I am not an atheist, I am a theist; however, with respect to certain notions of God, I am an atheist because I do not believe in those certain notions of God.

OctoberMist wrote:
If anti-Christianity is the sole basis of "atheism", then it is not atheism at all - it is a rejection of Christianity.


And a rejection of Christianity implies that the individual rejects some Christian notion of God and is, therefore, an atheist with respect to said notion of God.

OctoberMist wrote:
Let me give you an analogy:

Let's say you were born in the USA and everyone in your town drove a Ford Taurus. In your experience, the Ford Taurus was a completely unreliable car: it always broke down, it guzzled gas, it needed to be fixed nearly every day, it fell apart at the slightest bump.

Based on this experience, would it be accurate to say that ALL cars are poorly constructed?

-- Obviously not.

Yet, this is the exact argument being made my ignorant Anti-Christian-Based-Atheists.


That's all fine and well, no one is denying the fact that there are ignorant atheists. But this is still no reason to criticize an atheist because said atheists rejects Christian notions of God.

OctoberMist wrote:
They have had a bad experience with Christianity and probably disagree with many of the principles of the faith, so they declare: "Religion is stupid and repulsive. I choose atheism as opposed to religion."

Yet, they have only examined one aspect of religion and theism (which are can be seperate entities).

To make a Hasty Generalizations about ALL religions based on their experiences with one is not only a logical fallacy, but it's also fairly ignorant.


To be sure. But just because someone rejects Christianity and also happens to be an atheist does not necessarily mean that the person has committed this logical fallacy.

OctoberMist wrote:
Ah, but I did not generalize about atheistsic belief.

Let's be clear on that.

The topic of this thread is: "The Outright Ignorance of Anti-Christian-Based Atheisitic Belief."

This thread has zero relevence to atheists which do not based their beliefs on anti-Christian tennants.


You did not generalize about atheists at large, you generalized about atheists who are preeminently familiar with Christianity. You still have not given a single convincing reason why someone is an idiot for being an atheists as the result of criticizing Christian faith. Someone can be an atheist with respect to a particular deity and still be a theist.

OctoberMist wrote:
"So what?" Smile -- So this is a philosophy forum and I'm calling them out on it.


Pardon the sarcasm; well good for you, great work going after people who do not study.

Yep, this is a philosophy forum, a place where people tend to address more difficult concerns rather than pointing fingers and mocking the poorly educated.

OctoberMist wrote:
And, as I said (and as the title of the thread stipulates), this does not apply to such people. What's the problem?


The problem is that you indict some of these people. There are atheists who make mature arguments and who have given a great deal of time to studying religion and who have also found themselves to be atheists through the study of the Christian faith.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:01 pm
@OctoberMist,
OctoberMist wrote:
Care to explain yourself or are you just here to throw out random comments?


... it seems to me that your assertion "If you are an atheist based on your experience with Christianity, then you are a idiot" strongly implies the complementary assertion "If you are a theist based on your experience with Christianity, then you are a idiot." ... and the following assertions seem blatantly offensive to the vast majority of theists (most of whom entered into theism through indoctrination into the theism of their parents):

"Are you such an undeducated, ignorant mind-slave you only see ONE version of theism?"

"Are you so stupid and ignorant at you blindly accept that there is only ONE version of the truth?"

... on the other hand, learning that there isn't a single version of theism is often one of the eye-openers encountered along a path to atheism.
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:16 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
OM: "I disagree. An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not believe in a god / higher power / supernatural intelligence / etc.
In a God, ect."

Quote:

The question remains: which God? Again, I am a theist because I believe in a particular notion of God. However, I am also an atheist because I do not believe in certain other notions of God.


What a game. :bigsmile:

So you are not an agnostic; you are both an atheist and a theist at the same time, eh?

That is a completely contradictory statement. Hey, if that's how you define yourself, be my guest.

OM: "Then that would make you a Agnostic; not an atheist."




Quote:

Actually, no, an agnostic does not believe nor disbelieve in a God. As I said, I am not an atheist, I am a theist; however, with respect to certain notions of God, I am an atheist because I do not believe in those certain notions of God.


-rolling my eyes-

Whatever you say.

Really, the rest of your and my discussion is moot at this point.
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:24 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke said:

Quote:

.. it seems to me that your assertion "If you are an atheist based on your experience with Christianity, then you are a idiot" strongly implies the complementary assertion "If you are a theist based on your experience with Christianity, then you are a idiot."


Interesting point; it's not the one that I'm making (nor do I believe that every assertion has an inherent mirror asseretion), but it's interesting neverhteless.

I am not making any claims whatsoever about theism.

I am making the claim that atheism - based solely on an Anti-Christian-persepctive -- is ignorant and, I daresay, stupid.

If you want to take my specific claim and turn it into something that it is not, that is up to you.

Quote:

.. and the following assertions seem blatantly offensive to the vast majority theists (most of whom entered into theism through indoctrination into the theism of their parents):


Since I'm not making any such claim, your argument is a Straw Man.

How about addressing the argument at hand rather than jumping at phantoms?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:25 pm
@OctoberMist,
OctoberMist wrote:

What a game. :bigsmile:

So you are not an agnostic; you are both an atheist and a theist at the same time, eh?

That is a completely contradictory statement. Hey, if that's how you define yourself, be my guest.


Maybe you could think about what I said before you reply? My statement was in no way contradictory. Again, I am a theist because I believe in a particular notion of God. With respect to notions of God that I do not believe in I am an atheist because I do not believe in certain notions of God.

OctoberMist wrote:
-rolling my eyes-

Whatever you say.

Really, the rest of your and my discussion is moot at this point.


The discussion was moot from the beginning. Inflammatory, disparaging remarks are counterproductive in the discussion of philosophy. Pointless, a waste of time. Thought I would try to whittle away some of your confused and spiteful notions. Oh well, at least I tried.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:30 pm
@OctoberMist,
OctoberMist wrote:
How about addressing the argument at hand rather than jumping at phantoms?


... sorry - I tend to stay away from religious debates ... I was merely making the observation that your words were indeed inflammatory, but not to target audience you were taking aim at ... you need to rethink your attack ...
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:50 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas said:

Quote:

Maybe you could think about what I said before you reply?


Actually, I did think about what you said. And I concluded that you were either: very silly, drugged, mentally unstable, uneducated, or possibly a combination of those.

I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting; that is the actual conclusion that I came to.

Quote:

My statement was in no way contradictory. Again, I am a theist because I believe in a particular notion of God. With respect to notions of God that I do not believe in I am an atheist because I do not believe in certain notions of God.


Perhaps you should look up what these terms mean.

You cannot be inside and outside of a room at the same time.

Quote:

The discussion was moot from the beginning. Inflammatory, disparaging remarks are counterproductive in the discussion of philosophy.


Oh really? -- How funny.

I see such comments by atheists all the time on this forum in multiple threads. But when someone (eg. me) uses the same rhetoric that they do, it is somehow 'inflamatory and disparaging'?

It happens all the time. I'm merely being direct about it.

The message that I am getting from you is: "It's ok to be inflammatory and disparraging as long as it's suble and direct toward theists. However, directing it toward specific atheists is not cool."

How sad for them. Pity the martyrs.

Quote:

Pointless, a waste of time. Thought I would try to whittle away some of your confused and spiteful notions. Oh well, at least I tried.


Uh............yeah. If you say so.
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:52 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke said:

Quote:

.. sorry - I tend to stay away from religious debates ...


Typical. Laughing
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 12:33 am
@OctoberMist,
OctoberMist wrote:
Didymos Thomas said:
Actually, I did think about what you said. And I concluded that you were either: very silly, drugged, mentally unstable, uneducated, or possibly a combination of those.
I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting; that is the actual conclusion that I came to.


Except that you are trying to be deliberately insulting. No one else logged on to your user name to post derogatory comments about other users here. That was you.

Oh, and I wouldn't write off the drug users. Chances are you use drugs, too. Drink coffee? Any caffeine? Ever filled a prescription? Had a beer? Silly people are alright, too. Tons of brilliant, silly people. Mentally unstable individuals can also be quite brilliant. Some people speculate that many of the legendary spiritual leaders of the past were mentally unstable by today's standards. Also, I see no reason for educated elitism. How many uneducated people can run mental circles around the two of us? Probably quite a few.

OctoberMist wrote:
Perhaps you should look up what these terms mean.

You cannot be inside and outside of a room at the same time.


I hate to tell you this, but the terms "atheist", "agnostic" and "theist" do not construct a room. It's a false analogy. Yes, let's look up the terms and then you might see 1) you can be both a theist and an atheist in different contexts and 2) your room analogy does not apply.

An atheist does not believe in God, the theist believes in God, and the agnostic believes that knowledge of God is impossible.

As you brought up in the very first post, there is no single conception of God. Thus, it is possible to honestly claim to be an atheist when God is defined as X, and honestly claim to be a theist when God is defined as Y. To be an atheist with respect to God X and a theist with respect to God Y.

Atheism with respect to disbelief in all deities is relatively modern. For the most part through history, the charge of atheism has been lodged against people who believe in a conception of God that differs from the popular conception of God.

Anything else I should look up?:sarcastic:

OctoberMist wrote:
Oh really? -- How funny.

I see such comments by atheists all the time on this forum in multiple threads. But when someone (eg. me) uses the same rhetoric that they do, it is somehow 'inflamatory and disparaging'?

It happens all the time. I'm merely being direct about it.

The message that I am getting from you is: "It's ok to be inflammatory and disparraging as long as it's suble and direct toward theists. However, directing it toward specific atheists is not cool."

How sad for them. Pity the martyrs.


If that is the message you get rereading these posts would do you some good. Never, not once, did I even suggest that the use of spiteful, inflammatory rhetoric is appropriate for anyone, regardless of their spiritual beliefs.

If this topic has become so personal that you read messages in my posts which do not exist, step back and take a breather. You are not compelled to reply.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 05:56 am
@OctoberMist,
OctoberMist wrote:
Let me start out by insulting a huge number of people:


I think you managed to accomplish this on a wider scale than you might think.

What's disappointing here, is that throughout your post, I sense you have some very good thoughts on the entire subject. But posting them in such an inflammatory manner doesn't do justice to the value of your thoughts. What's ironic is that what bleeds through - via the insults - is that same quality of "blind anger" that, it appears, you're railing against.

I think phrased not quite so caustically, this could be a good topic. Might I suggest you try phrasing your position again; this time without (what appears to be) all this hate?

Good luck
 
Justin
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 12:34 pm
@OctoberMist,
Start over. This thread is closed.

WARNING!
The type of flaming going on in this thread is not considered a positive contribution to the forum or it's community. There's nothing wrong with discussing a topic such as this but try to refrain from insulting other members and causing flame wars.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » The Outright Ignorance of Anti-Christian-based Atheism
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2019 at 11:21:11