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?

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.

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.

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) ...

Didymos Thomas said:
I disagree. An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not believe in a god / higher power / supernatural intelligence / etc.

Then that would make you a Agnostic; not 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 my 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.

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.

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

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

Care to explain yourself or are you just here to throw out random comments?

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.

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.

.. 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 theists (most of whom entered into theism through indoctrination into the theism of their parents):

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.

-rolling my eyes-

Whatever you say.

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

How about addressing the argument at hand rather than jumping at phantoms?

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.

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.

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

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.

Perhaps you should look up what these terms mean.

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

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.

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