Christians touchier than atheists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I find atheists generally are rather defensive about their views and tend to be unable to explain their position without espousing some negative stereotype about religions or some vague attack on "organized" religion.

I think this confuses two threads of argument. Yes, atheists will of course talk about the negative impact religious belief has had throughout history and in the modern world.

The argument that most Christians put forth here are that a) religious belief is a force for good in the world; and b) religious belief is "rational".

Having made that argument, "believers" are shocked, shocked I tell you, that the people they're arguing against construct an argument that a) religious belief is *not* a force for good in the world (i.e. teaches morals, brings people together, etc...); and that b) there's no rational basis for religious belief (e.g. "Why not Poseidon?").

I mean, seriously, what on Earth did you think was going to happen when you made these two claims in a forum that has a reputation for vigorous debate? Your problem isn't with atheists, but with dialogue.

PS. You are confused. Scorn and mockery and references to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" are not the same thing as "constructing an argument." Don't par yourself on the back so hard, you might get even more twisted up about what the phrase "construct an argument" actually means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In general, religoius people tend to be open, loving, welcoming, and kind.

Atheists generally tend to have a chip on their shoulder, appear angry, unhappy, and disagreeable.

+100

[Anonymous]

"News flash: nobody is here to debate specific points on theology or history."

And here, I think, is the root of the problem. For most atheists, this is exactly what we're here to debate. For most "believers", it's validation they're looking for. So obviously they're going to spend a lot of time being offended.

If you want unquestioning validation of your faith, go to church and avoid the public sphere. Otherwise you're likely to be offended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find atheists generally are rather defensive about their views and tend to be unable to explain their position without espousing some negative stereotype about religions or some vague attack on "organized" religion.

I think this confuses two threads of argument. Yes, atheists will of course talk about the negative impact religious belief has had throughout history and in the modern world.

The argument that most Christians put forth here are that a) religious belief is a force for good in the world; and b) religious belief is "rational".

Having made that argument, "believers" are shocked, shocked I tell you, that the people they're arguing against construct an argument that a) religious belief is *not* a force for good in the world (i.e. teaches morals, brings people together, etc...); and that b) there's no rational basis for religious belief (e.g. "Why not Poseidon?").

I mean, seriously, what on Earth did you think was going to happen when you made these two claims in a forum that has a reputation for vigorous debate? Your problem isn't with atheists, but with dialogue.

PS. You are confused. Scorn and mockery and references to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" are not the same thing as "constructing an argument." Don't par yourself on the back so hard, you might get even more twisted up about what the phrase "construct an argument" actually means.

Dont't feel bad--the FSM argument isn't particularly nuanced, but your not the only one to completely miss the meaning and take offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I notice that when something negative is said about Christians, they tend to respond with some version of "how dare you insult my faith?"

In contrast when something negative is said about atheists (e.g. "atheists have no morals.") they tend to respond with facts and explanations.

Why do you think this is?

OP's premise is false. I don't think this is true at all. You're probably just as likely to meet as many sneering, hysterical atheists as you are Christians. Thanks for playing, OP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"News flash: nobody is here to debate specific points on theology or history."

And here, I think, is the root of the problem. For most atheists, this is exactly what we're here to debate. For most "believers", it's validation they're looking for. So obviously they're going to spend a lot of time being offended.

If you want unquestioning validation of your faith, go to church and avoid the public sphere. Otherwise you're likely to be offended.

Nobody ON THIS PARTICULAR THREAD is here for that purpose. Yes, I'm sure most of us could trade stats on the crimes of atheists Stalin and Pol Pot. Go back and check the thread header, that's not the topic here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dont't feel bad--the FSM argument isn't particularly nuanced, but your not the only one to completely miss the meaning and take offense.

The lack of nuance - let's say sheer stupidity - of the FSM thing is actually the whole problem. It's a throw-away insult that takes no thought and 2 seconds to type. If you want to reason with me about the problem of evil and why a loving God let's bad things happen, we could have a dialogue. I would even respect you, because I would know your atheism comes from thinking and reasoning.

Instead, your behavior here makes it look like your atheism comes from a cesspool of negative emotions, esp. anger. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous]

^^^ lets not let's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ lets not let's

No

[Anonymous]

"The lack of nuance - let's say sheer stupidity - of the FSM thing is actually the whole problem. It's a throw-away insult that takes no thought and 2 seconds to type."

It's not an insult, and it's clear you don't understand the critique at all. Which is indicative of the larger "respect" problem. The persecution complex interferes with the ability to respectfully listen, digest, and respond to those you are debating with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The lack of nuance - let's say sheer stupidity - of the FSM thing is actually the whole problem. It's a throw-away insult that takes no thought and 2 seconds to type."

It's not an insult, and it's clear you don't understand the critique at all. Which is indicative of the larger "respect" problem. The persecution complex interferes with the ability to respectfully listen, digest, and respond to those you are debating with.

Oh please. To put in terms you might be able to relate to, let me declare, for the sake of argument, that Atheists worship the Almighty Dollar.

Does that work for you?

[Anonymous]

12:30 again. And just so we're using the same playbook, if you try to argue that the Almighty Dollar is untrue for Atheists (but FSM is still true for believers), I'm going to ignore your every argument why not. Like a 3-year old, I'm just going to keep repeating Almighty Dollar, Almighty Dollar... .

Are we good now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In general, religoius people tend to be open, loving, welcoming, and kind.

Atheists generally tend to have a chip on their shoulder, appear angry, unhappy, and disagreeable.

Seriously?

Religious people are some of the scariest, most hateful people I've ever met in my life. I am afraid of religious people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, religoius people tend to be open, loving, welcoming, and kind.

Atheists generally tend to have a chip on their shoulder, appear angry, unhappy, and disagreeable.

Seriously?

Religious people are some of the scariest, most hateful people I've ever met in my life. I am afraid of religious people.

Lose one argument, switch subjects. We saw what you did there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:30 again. And just so we're using the same playbook, if you try to argue that the Almighty Dollar is untrue for Atheists (but FSM is still true for believers), I'm going to ignore your every argument why not. Like a 3-year old, I'm just going to keep repeating Almighty Dollar, Almighty Dollar... .

Are we good now?

Sure! You still don't understand why FSM is a critique that has nothing to do with "insults" or the proposition that "believers" "believe in the FSM".

In case anyone else is interested in what you're on about (or if you'd like to give comprehension another shot):

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21837499/#.Ud7kRvnVCSo