Do CC atheists accurately portray Christian positions?

[CoffeeCream]

yeah, dave's definitely lost it again

[pimpdave]

[DangerBoy]

Perhaps dave could post a pro-atheist or anti-Christian picture. It's never been tried before, and will probably persuade a ton of people.

[PLAYER57832]

Most atheists refuse to give a real try at understanding Christianity. They have found things they dislike, even disdain and stop there. They have decided that anyone not thinking as they do is not being sensible and therefore have no real desire to even try to understand the other thinking. This is partly because, today, to even admit to being an atheist tends to be a more "extreme" type position. Moderates tend to more often portray themselves as agnostic or simply say "I don't know". (at least those that engage in debate on the matter)

Lol, look at how hypocritical you are in these two threads. In the "Christian on Christian" thread it was all about the diversity of the religion, in this one its all the Atheists fault for not taking the time to understand.

Nothing hypocritical at all.

Its semantics you debate. If the references were to religions that are atheistic, my answer would have differed. Atheism, particularly in the west is an absolute statement. "There is no God". Atheistic religions can vary a great deal, but the term is definite, unlike Christianity about which there is no agreement even on what I (and most self-identified Christians) would consider pretty fundamental points.. such as that Christ is divine, etc.

The other side to this is that atheism in the west is still largely composed of people who have fairly recently rejected Christianity or Judaism. This is not true in the East, but very few posters here are from those backgrounds. Those posters here who post about atheism are, to a large extent taking the stance of atheism being a kind of "anti-Christianity". They reject Christianity, and so lean toward atheism. But.. and this is important, many, many people question the Christian faith and other faiths without necessarily declaring they are atheist. Only those who are very against the "God-based" religions tend to identify themselves as atheists. Those who vary tend to identify themselves as agnostic or to say something like "I don't really consider myself Christian/Jewish/etc, but..."

For both of those reasons, there is nothing hypocritical about my answer. Atheism is fundamentally different than Christianity in that it IS a very specific idea, whereas Christianity is not and becuase those who self-identify as atheist are far more likely to be firm in their rejection of opposing ideas than those who subscribe to Christianity.

[pmchugh]

Most atheists refuse to give a real try at understanding Christianity. They have found things they dislike, even disdain and stop there. They have decided that anyone not thinking as they do is not being sensible and therefore have no real desire to even try to understand the other thinking. This is partly because, today, to even admit to being an atheist tends to be a more "extreme" type position. Moderates tend to more often portray themselves as agnostic or simply say "I don't know". (at least those that engage in debate on the matter)

Lol, look at how hypocritical you are in these two threads. In the "Christian on Christian" thread it was all about the diversity of the religion, in this one its all the Atheists fault for not taking the time to understand.

Its semantics you debate. If the references were to religions that are atheistic, my answer would have differed. Atheism, particularly in the west is an absolute statement. "There is no God". Atheistic religions can vary a great deal, but the term is definite, unlike Christianity about which there is no agreement even on what I (and most self-identified Christians) would consider pretty fundamental points.. such as that Christ is divine, etc.

The other side to this is that atheism in the west is still largely composed of people who have fairly recently rejected Christianity or Judaism. This is not true in the East, but very few posters here are from those backgrounds. Those posters here who post about atheism are, to a large extent taking the stance of atheism being a kind of "anti-Christianity". They reject Christianity, and so lean toward atheism. But.. and this is important, many, many people question the Christian faith and other faiths without necessarily declaring they are atheist. Only those who are very against the "God-based" religions tend to identify themselves as atheists. Those who vary tend to identify themselves as agnostic or to say something like "I don't really consider myself Christian/Jewish/etc, but..."

For both of those reasons, there is nothing hypocritical about my answer. Atheism is fundamentally different than Christianity in that it IS a very specific idea, whereas Christianity is not and becuase those who self-identify as atheist are far more likely to be firm in their rejection of opposing ideas than those who subscribe to Christianity.

Lol this makes no sense. No one was talking about atheistic views. Let me illustrate with your two posts even in this thread.

unlike Christianity about which there is no agreement even on what I (and most self-identified Christians) would consider pretty fundamental points.. such as that Christ is divine, etc.

Most atheists refuse to give a real try at understanding Christianity.

First quote says, "Christianity is loosely defined" and the second one accuses Atheists of not taking time to understand Christians points of view as if they were clearly set out.

What makes this even funnier is that you openly admit in your post that most western Atheists were Christians not so long ago, surely then they have considered and perhaps even have experience of the Christian POV.

[PLAYER57832]

First quote says, "Christianity is loosely defined" and the second one accuses Atheists of not taking time to understand Christians points of view as if they were clearly set out.

It is because they are not clearly set out that many atheists decide not to look into them fully. Its only a problem if they declare that they DO understand.. when it is clear that they do not. I reject Islam, but never declare myself familiar with the religion except in the most basic terms.. and I don't declare my thinking intellectually superior becuase I think differently. Too many atheists here do just that.. declare themselves superior without recognizing that what they reject has nothing to do with what many real Christians actually think.

What makes this even funnier is that you openly admit in your post that most western Atheists were Christians not so long ago, surely then they have considered and perhaps even have experience of the Christian POV.

Having experience with Christianity does not mean they understand Christianity. In fact, that is the point. Many come to atheism becuase they came from what believers would say is a distorted version of Christianity.

And before you say the reverse is true, remember.. atheism is purely the belief that there is no God. How one can come to that idea, what it means, etc.. in other words, the religion of the atheist, do differ. However, the idea itself is very basic. This is not true for Christianity. You are attempting to compare one very narrow thought to a whole diverse range of religion.

[pmchugh]

Fully? Fully? By your logic, no one can ever knowingly reject any Religion as they have not looked fully into all variations of it. You generalise and patronise atheists as if we don't look at all the facts. You need only admit that Christianity says that Jesus (a real man) was the son of a supernatural being that exists outside time and space and already Christianity is ludicrous idea. If you don't accept this then I cannot see how you can be called a Christian at all. Any other claims a Christian makes are just bonus material to highlight the immorality, improbability and lack of sense that their religion is home to.

Also that last paragraph, who are you arguing against? You accused me of attempting to do something that I never did.

[PLAYER57832]

Fully? Fully? By your logic, no one can ever knowingly reject any Religion as they have not looked fully into all variations of it.

Essentially, though you can reject those pieces you have examined.

BUT.. and this is a key point, there is a big difference between saying "I don't believe x" and saying that "people who believe x are wrong and not thinking correctly". The first is perfectly legitimate, even if the reasoning and evidence are "flimsy". The second requires a very high level of proof. That is the distinction.

\You generalise and patronise atheists as if we don't look at all the facts. You need only admit that Christianity says that Jesus (a real man) was the son of a supernatural being that exists outside time and space and already Christianity is ludicrous idea. If you don't accept this then I cannot see how you can be called a Christian at all. Any other claims a Christian makes are just bonus material to highlight the immorality, improbability and lack of sense that their religion is home to.

Such statements pretty much prove my point.

You can have whatever opinion you wish, but to claim that your idea represents some kind of superior logic or thinking is blindness. And no, that is not enough to say you understand Christianity, at all.

That kind of reasoning would never fly in any scientific discussion. In fact, premises far more ludicrous than the idea of a supernatural being fathering a man have been proven by science many times over. All such began with someone who had a crazy idea, often facing ridicule.

[Phatscotty]

Oh Oh! The Poll on Racism has met it's match!

About time!

[pmchugh]

BUT.. and this is a key point, there is a big difference between saying "I don't believe x" and saying that "people who believe x are wrong and not thinking correctly". The first is perfectly legitimate, even if the reasoning and evidence are "flimsy". The second requires a very high level of proof. That is the distinction.

Do not make me get out the invisible unicorn/teacup/fsm argument out again. There is no need for proof ever, reasoning yes, proof never.

You can have whatever opinion you wish, but to claim that your idea represents some kind of superior logic or thinking is blindness. And no, that is not enough to say you understand Christianity, at all.

Please enlighten me then, I was a Christian and I have heard many a Christians reasoning but never one that makes sense.

That kind of reasoning would never fly in any scientific discussion. In fact, premises far more ludicrous than the idea of a supernatural being fathering a man have been proven by science many times over. All such began with someone who had a crazy idea, often facing ridicule.

It actually would. If you claimed that in a "scientific discussion" (whatever that is) then you would rightly be ridiculed unless you had evidence, proof or even a workable theory.

[PLAYER57832]

BUT.. and this is a key point, there is a big difference between saying "I don't believe x" and saying that "people who believe x are wrong and not thinking correctly". The first is perfectly legitimate, even if the reasoning and evidence are "flimsy". The second requires a very high level of proof. That is the distinction.

Do not make me get out the invisible unicorn/teacup/fsm argument out again. There is no need for proof ever, reasoning yes, proof never.

You can have whatever opinion you wish, but to claim that your idea represents some kind of superior logic or thinking is blindness. And no, that is not enough to say you understand Christianity, at all.

Please enlighten me then, I was a Christian and I have heard many a Christians reasoning but never one that makes sense.

And? Do you understand all of nuclear physics? Do you understand every climate theory? Do you truly know how the oceans work?

No.. then put Christianity in the category of just one more thing you don't understand and one you don't happen to believe to be true. Just don't claim you have the knowledge to declare us idiots or just plain wrong and illogical.

That kind of reasoning would never fly in any scientific discussion. In fact, premises far more ludicrous than the idea of a supernatural being fathering a man have been proven by science many times over. All such began with someone who had a crazy idea, often facing ridicule.

It actually would. If you claimed that in a "scientific discussion" (whatever that is) then you would rightly be ridiculed unless you had evidence, proof or even a workable theory.

Uh, no. You obviously have not traveled much in REAL scientific circles.

However, there is a big difference between publishing and discussion. Publications are almost wholly reserved for the presentation of data. No where in any of this discussion did I make any claim of having scientifically viable proof. However, ALL ideas begin with a concept, and idea. Some are based on a lot of evidence, some are not. The ones that are not based on loads of evidence, the ones that seem to be based on nothing more than a hair's breadth of an idea are often the ones winning the nobel laureate.

You, like many here mistake the tasks of technicians and data collectors for true scientific thinking. You confuse the data collector for the thinkers and dreamers.