What do you *REALLY* think of Atheists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

That is a transparently hypocritical point.

"I get to say whatever I want about your position but you can't question it or respond in any way".

Post 8 was not a threadjack - totally relevant to what people think about atheists. Totally reasonable to want to offer information that might change that opinion.

You are incorrect and part of why the forum is unusable. Op didn’t ask for you to comment. Op didn’t say-atheists, come change minds along the way.

A good alternative would be ask an atheist thread. That would specifically ask for give and take on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

This isn’t just a conversation; it is a forum that has rules to govern discussion. That’s why it’s for the best to confine threads to the topic of the thread.

op is an atheist who asked for the opinion of religious people. The thread was swiftly consumed by atheists who were “defending” themselves and then evolved into another thread of why God doesn’t exist, why Christianity is wrong, and multiple posts on Christians being evil, taking rights away from the general populace, and being the most abusive people in America.

It became so egregious the mod commented on it.

So, people can say what they think about atheists.

People can say why they think that about atheists.

But atheists can't respond with any substance on the issue.

Got it! Sounds very fair!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are close minded.
I wasn't raised in a particular religion, and would consider myself "spiritual," So I don't have a dog in this fight.
Agnostic is totally fine.
But to be convinced that there isn't something just because you can't prove it exists seems dumb

Most atheists are also agnostic. Few atheists claim they are 100% certain there isn't a god of any type because that is a claim you would have to prove - so in that case you are correct that it is "dumb".

Correct- I never heard an atheist say they were "sure". Atheist means not being a theist and agnostic means not knowing. Other definitions are simply incorrect and, I suspect, are believed by people who prefer that atheists look unreasonable.

Right now, it's somewhat of an act of bravery for a person who doesn't believe in God to call themselves an atheist, because the term is so misunderstood.

Hopefully, readers here will help change that.

Nobody cares if you are atheist. That’s a drama you’re foisted upon yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

This isn’t just a conversation; it is a forum that has rules to govern discussion. That’s why it’s for the best to confine threads to the topic of the thread.

op is an atheist who asked for the opinion of religious people. The thread was swiftly consumed by atheists who were “defending” themselves and then evolved into another thread of why God doesn’t exist, why Christianity is wrong, and multiple posts on Christians being evil, taking rights away from the general populace, and being the most abusive people in America.

It became so egregious the mod commented on it.

So, people can say what they think about atheists.

People can say why they think that about atheists.

But atheists can't respond with any substance on the issue.

Got it! Sounds very fair!

The op asked for religious people to give their opinion. Why can’t you understand that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a number of relatives on my side and in-laws on my husband's side, plus colleagues and friends who are religious (Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, mostly). Sometimes we talk about religion and I'm comfortable saying that I am Atheist, sometimes I'm not comfortable so I talk about them but don't share my view (I never share with work colleagues).

If you consider yourself religious, what do you think of Atheists? My father-in-law won't say it but I'm pretty sure he thinks I worship the Devil and I know he thinks I'm going to hell. There is more to this story but it sometimes gets me thinking that those who practice their faith openly may have some strong opinions they're not saying.

Hoping for some honest replies but if you feel inclined to tell me how wrong my choice is I promise you I've already heard it so I probably won't read more than the first few words of what you post. I respect others' choices and just want the same.

An atheist who tries to engage colleagues in religious conversations? I think I know you. Your coworkers also don't invite you to lunch, but it's not because you're an atheist.

dp- people don’t care for atheists, but it’s not because they are atheists.

It’s their personality.

People don’t avoid engaging other people because of their religious beliefs or because they are atheists or vegans or crossfitters or whatever…it’s that the person behind the belief is insufferable or hard to relate to on a level that’s needed to have actual connection.

It’s humorous to me that atheists stomp about this thread claiming they are silenced and the man (Christian) is keeping them down because they are atheists. Haha, no- you don’t have personal-people skills and are extremely off-putting. People as a whole don’t engage with you because your personality is insufferable.

I don’t worry about atheists or atheism because who with any choice would choose to hang out with people who don’t have degrees but claim to know more than scholars and academics, to talk about gish galloping and strawmen and Santa and God are twin flames and
the stuff repeated here 24/7/365? NOBODY.

Let the atheists “have” the dcum religion forum and enjoy it. It’s their life, so they better enjoy it.

I know insufferable religious people who are insular, sometimes a few friends or family members tolerate them- atheists can be the flip side of that coin.

Except the atheists misconstrue their social situation as “I am an atheist. I know the truth and these sheeple won’t listen! These ignorant idiots idiotically believe a Sky daddy gave them a book and if they are good they get to go to heaven, what a steaming load.”

I am shocked atheists can’t see this.

LOL. Speaking of insufferable.

I hate to break it to you, but no one here gives AF what you believe. We enjoy discussing/debating various topics. If you feel personally offended by discussion, then these are not the threads for you. You can go copy & paste irrelevant blog posts somewhere else.

The moderator even said this thread blows.

Actually he said:
"The bottom line is that if you enjoy debates between atheists and those who are religious, you will enjoy this thread. For the rest of us, this is one that can be skipped."

The moderator also said this:
"Members of both groups involve themselves in threads in which they really are not welcome and have no beneficial role to play. This thread itself is an example of a thread in which atheists really have nothing to offer and probably should just skip the thread. After all the original poster requested answers from religious people."

After pp posted this, op left the thread.

My question is: why have atheist folks involved themselves in this thread, when op specifically asked for comments from non-atheists?

Did op just create a thread to facilitate (for lack of a better term but also accurate) fighting between atheists and religious people?

I'm the pp who posted the moderator's recommendation that atheists stay away, and I really don't think so. As you say, OP specifically asked for comments from non-atheists.

OPs on various subjects, on various forums, ask about different things. Threads often evolve into different or related subjects, depending upon responses.

There's no rule or law that responders must only address the specific question originally asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

That is a transparently hypocritical point.

"I get to say whatever I want about your position but you can't question it or respond in any way".

Post 8 was not a threadjack - totally relevant to what people think about atheists. Totally reasonable to want to offer information that might change that opinion.

Puhleez. Post 7 didn't say a single thing about why they think atheism is wrong. Post 7 simply said "they're wrong," which is pretty much a given when distinguishing believers from atheists.

It's hard to imagine anybody needing to "defend" themselves against basic definitions.

Then Post 8 (you?) comes along to demand specifics to fight over. That's a shameless hijack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

This isn’t just a conversation; it is a forum that has rules to govern discussion. That’s why it’s for the best to confine threads to the topic of the thread.

op is an atheist who asked for the opinion of religious people. The thread was swiftly consumed by atheists who were “defending” themselves and then evolved into another thread of why God doesn’t exist, why Christianity is wrong, and multiple posts on Christians being evil, taking rights away from the general populace, and being the most abusive people in America.

It became so egregious the mod commented on it.

So, people can say what they think about atheists.

People can say why they think that about atheists.

But atheists can't respond with any substance on the issue.

Got it! Sounds very fair!

FFS. The poster said she thought atheists "were wrong." That's simply the difference between atheists and believers.

There's zero to need to defend yourself against this. Nothing nefarious at all about pointing out that your philosophy is different.

The martyrdom here is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a number of relatives on my side and in-laws on my husband's side, plus colleagues and friends who are religious (Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, mostly). Sometimes we talk about religion and I'm comfortable saying that I am Atheist, sometimes I'm not comfortable so I talk about them but don't share my view (I never share with work colleagues).

If you consider yourself religious, what do you think of Atheists? My father-in-law won't say it but I'm pretty sure he thinks I worship the Devil and I know he thinks I'm going to hell. There is more to this story but it sometimes gets me thinking that those who practice their faith openly may have some strong opinions they're not saying.

Hoping for some honest replies but if you feel inclined to tell me how wrong my choice is I promise you I've already heard it so I probably won't read more than the first few words of what you post. I respect others' choices and just want the same.

An atheist who tries to engage colleagues in religious conversations? I think I know you. Your coworkers also don't invite you to lunch, but it's not because you're an atheist.

dp- people don’t care for atheists, but it’s not because they are atheists.

It’s their personality.

People don’t avoid engaging other people because of their religious beliefs or because they are atheists or vegans or crossfitters or whatever…it’s that the person behind the belief is insufferable or hard to relate to on a level that’s needed to have actual connection.

It’s humorous to me that atheists stomp about this thread claiming they are silenced and the man (Christian) is keeping them down because they are atheists. Haha, no- you don’t have personal-people skills and are extremely off-putting. People as a whole don’t engage with you because your personality is insufferable.

I don’t worry about atheists or atheism because who with any choice would choose to hang out with people who don’t have degrees but claim to know more than scholars and academics, to talk about gish galloping and strawmen and Santa and God are twin flames and
the stuff repeated here 24/7/365? NOBODY.

Let the atheists “have” the dcum religion forum and enjoy it. It’s their life, so they better enjoy it.

I know insufferable religious people who are insular, sometimes a few friends or family members tolerate them- atheists can be the flip side of that coin.

Except the atheists misconstrue their social situation as “I am an atheist. I know the truth and these sheeple won’t listen! These ignorant idiots idiotically believe a Sky daddy gave them a book and if they are good they get to go to heaven, what a steaming load.”

I am shocked atheists can’t see this.

LOL. Speaking of insufferable.

I hate to break it to you, but no one here gives AF what you believe. We enjoy discussing/debating various topics. If you feel personally offended by discussion, then these are not the threads for you. You can go copy & paste irrelevant blog posts somewhere else.

The moderator even said this thread blows.

Actually he said:
"The bottom line is that if you enjoy debates between atheists and those who are religious, you will enjoy this thread. For the rest of us, this is one that can be skipped."

The moderator also said this:
"Members of both groups involve themselves in threads in which they really are not welcome and have no beneficial role to play. This thread itself is an example of a thread in which atheists really have nothing to offer and probably should just skip the thread. After all the original poster requested answers from religious people."

After pp posted this, op left the thread.

My question is: why have atheist folks involved themselves in this thread, when op specifically asked for comments from non-atheists?

Did op just create a thread to facilitate (for lack of a better term but also accurate) fighting between atheists and religious people?

I'm the pp who posted the moderator's recommendation that atheists stay away, and I really don't think so. As you say, OP specifically asked for comments from non-atheists.

OPs on various subjects, on various forums, ask about different things. Threads often evolve into different or related subjects, depending upon responses.

There's no rule or law that responders must only address the specific question originally asked.

Actually, there is a rule or law, and it's called hijacking. Especially when the OP asks for comments from non-atheists. Even the moderator seems to think you were out of line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With all the biblical stories for which they find evidence,wonder how they cannot deny the existence of God.

The Bible discusses the Judeo-Christian God. Are you implying that other religions can/should be denied?

Can we not use "Judeo-Christian" please? It's not a thing.

Isn't it?

What do you call the god who is in the old and the new testament?

"Judeo-Christian" assumes a lot more shared theology than there really is between Judaism and Christianity. Christians deciding to base their religion on the Tanakh doesn't mean that Jewish and Christian interpretations of those texts align or could really be coherently joined together into a "Judeo-Christian" worldview.

Not to me it doesn't. It simply means they acknowledge the same God - Jehovah. Lots of evangelical Christians read the "Old Testament" very literally.

You can't read the Tanakh "very literally" and also read Jesus into it.

Who said anything about reading Jesus into it? Think Noah's ark and Jonah and the Whale, etc.

Maybe you didn't realize that the Catholic Church has a reading from the Old Testament in every mass. It's called The Epistle. The reading from the New Testament is called The Gospel.

I have Catholic and Lutheran grandparents, so, yes, I'm familiar with the OT and Gospel readings at those services.
Christians see signs of Jesus in the Old Testament. They point to lines from the prophets and use Greek mistranslations of Hebrew and then say Jesus fulfilled all the signs of Messiah. A reading from the Old Testament doesn't mean they are reading it the way Jews read it.

You're speaking very generally about what Christians do. Maybe some of them do these things. Most Christians I know don't talk or care much about the OT.

Sorry to diverge from main point of thread (OT I am of the camp that atheists are fine and we all need to follow same basic rules for kindness and respect).

But PP This is not true. All the Christian’s I know care deeply about OT and NT.

Our church has both OT and NT readings every week. You can’t understand the message of the NT without the OT.

Most weddings and funerals have messages from both - such as from Ecclesiastes and Psalms as well as from the gospel. Jesus’ sermons don’t make sense without appreciation for the OT prophets especially Isaiah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

This isn’t just a conversation; it is a forum that has rules to govern discussion. That’s why it’s for the best to confine threads to the topic of the thread.

op is an atheist who asked for the opinion of religious people. The thread was swiftly consumed by atheists who were “defending” themselves and then evolved into another thread of why God doesn’t exist, why Christianity is wrong, and multiple posts on Christians being evil, taking rights away from the general populace, and being the most abusive people in America.

It became so egregious the mod commented on it.

So, people can say what they think about atheists.

People can say why they think that about atheists.

But atheists can't respond with any substance on the issue.

Got it! Sounds very fair!

FFS. The poster said she thought atheists "were wrong." That's simply the difference between atheists and believers.

There's zero to need to defend yourself against this. Nothing nefarious at all about pointing out that your philosophy is different.

The martyrdom here is real.

So I am not allowed to say a post is wrong but you are allowed to say mine is wrong.

Got it again! I am catching on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

This isn’t just a conversation; it is a forum that has rules to govern discussion. That’s why it’s for the best to confine threads to the topic of the thread.

op is an atheist who asked for the opinion of religious people. The thread was swiftly consumed by atheists who were “defending” themselves and then evolved into another thread of why God doesn’t exist, why Christianity is wrong, and multiple posts on Christians being evil, taking rights away from the general populace, and being the most abusive people in America.

It became so egregious the mod commented on it.

So, people can say what they think about atheists.

People can say why they think that about atheists.

But atheists can't respond with any substance on the issue.

Got it! Sounds very fair!

FFS. The poster said she thought atheists "were wrong." That's simply the difference between atheists and believers.

There's zero to need to defend yourself against this. Nothing nefarious at all about pointing out that your philosophy is different.

The martyrdom here is real.

So I am not allowed to say a post is wrong but you are allowed to say mine is wrong.

Got it again! I am catching on!

Your reading compression is abysmal and your martyrdom complex is off the charts.

OP didn't ask for your opinion. Maybe you can say "And I think you're wrong too." But you asked for specific areas of disagreement so you could hijack and troll the thread, so GTFO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

This isn’t just a conversation; it is a forum that has rules to govern discussion. That’s why it’s for the best to confine threads to the topic of the thread.

op is an atheist who asked for the opinion of religious people. The thread was swiftly consumed by atheists who were “defending” themselves and then evolved into another thread of why God doesn’t exist, why Christianity is wrong, and multiple posts on Christians being evil, taking rights away from the general populace, and being the most abusive people in America.

It became so egregious the mod commented on it.

So, people can say what they think about atheists.

People can say why they think that about atheists.

But atheists can't respond with any substance on the issue.

Got it! Sounds very fair!

FFS. The poster said she thought atheists "were wrong." That's simply the difference between atheists and believers.

There's zero to need to defend yourself against this. Nothing nefarious at all about pointing out that your philosophy is different.

The martyrdom here is real.

So I am not allowed to say a post is wrong but you are allowed to say mine is wrong.

Got it again! I am catching on!

Pp was expressing themselves, which is allowed on the DCUM, just as you and others, can express yourself here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

This isn’t just a conversation; it is a forum that has rules to govern discussion. That’s why it’s for the best to confine threads to the topic of the thread.

op is an atheist who asked for the opinion of religious people. The thread was swiftly consumed by atheists who were “defending” themselves and then evolved into another thread of why God doesn’t exist, why Christianity is wrong, and multiple posts on Christians being evil, taking rights away from the general populace, and being the most abusive people in America.

It became so egregious the mod commented on it.

So, people can say what they think about atheists.

People can say why they think that about atheists.

But atheists can't respond with any substance on the issue.

Got it! Sounds very fair!

FFS. The poster said she thought atheists "were wrong." That's simply the difference between atheists and believers.

There's zero to need to defend yourself against this. Nothing nefarious at all about pointing out that your philosophy is different.

The martyrdom here is real.

So I am not allowed to say a post is wrong but you are allowed to say mine is wrong.

Got it again! I am catching on!

Your reading compression is abysmal and your martyrdom complex is off the charts.

OP didn't ask for your opinion. Maybe you can say "And I think you're wrong too." But you asked for specific areas of disagreement so you could hijack and troll the thread, so GTFO.

But you are not also hijacking the thread with this post - that's completely OK.

I am learning! Thanks for the education. I will endeavor to do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of people here have never had a conversation, which evolves as points are made and get responded to.

For instance, the seventh post in this thread said "I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. "

The next post asks "What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?"

And it went from there.

Was post 7 not supposed to add "they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe"?

Was post 8 not allowed to ask what was meant by that?

DP. Yes, post 8 was wrong because they were hijacking. Post 7 was simply a vague "no opinion" with a sidebar about vague facts they disagreed on. It was wrong to try to take the thread in a totally new direction that debates religion itself. If you can't see that, I wonder about your own conversational abilities.

This isn’t just a conversation; it is a forum that has rules to govern discussion. That’s why it’s for the best to confine threads to the topic of the thread.

op is an atheist who asked for the opinion of religious people. The thread was swiftly consumed by atheists who were “defending” themselves and then evolved into another thread of why God doesn’t exist, why Christianity is wrong, and multiple posts on Christians being evil, taking rights away from the general populace, and being the most abusive people in America.

It became so egregious the mod commented on it.

So, people can say what they think about atheists.

People can say why they think that about atheists.

But atheists can't respond with any substance on the issue.

Got it! Sounds very fair!

FFS. The poster said she thought atheists "were wrong." That's simply the difference between atheists and believers.

There's zero to need to defend yourself against this. Nothing nefarious at all about pointing out that your philosophy is different.

The martyrdom here is real.

So I am not allowed to say a post is wrong but you are allowed to say mine is wrong.

Got it again! I am catching on!

Your reading compression is abysmal and your martyrdom complex is off the charts.

OP didn't ask for your opinion. Maybe you can say "And I think you're wrong too." But you asked for specific areas of disagreement so you could hijack and troll the thread, so GTFO.

But you are not also hijacking the thread with this post - that's completely OK.

I am learning! Thanks for the education. I will endeavor to do better.

Why is this particular atheist such a troll?*

* I'm asking everybody but you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With all the biblical stories for which they find evidence,wonder how they cannot deny the existence of God.

The Bible discusses the Judeo-Christian God. Are you implying that other religions can/should be denied?

Can we not use "Judeo-Christian" please? It's not a thing.

Isn't it?

What do you call the god who is in the old and the new testament?

"Judeo-Christian" assumes a lot more shared theology than there really is between Judaism and Christianity. Christians deciding to base their religion on the Tanakh doesn't mean that Jewish and Christian interpretations of those texts align or could really be coherently joined together into a "Judeo-Christian" worldview.

Not to me it doesn't. It simply means they acknowledge the same God - Jehovah. Lots of evangelical Christians read the "Old Testament" very literally.

You can't read the Tanakh "very literally" and also read Jesus into it.

Who said anything about reading Jesus into it? Think Noah's ark and Jonah and the Whale, etc.

Maybe you didn't realize that the Catholic Church has a reading from the Old Testament in every mass. It's called The Epistle. The reading from the New Testament is called The Gospel.

I have Catholic and Lutheran grandparents, so, yes, I'm familiar with the OT and Gospel readings at those services.
Christians see signs of Jesus in the Old Testament. They point to lines from the prophets and use Greek mistranslations of Hebrew and then say Jesus fulfilled all the signs of Messiah. A reading from the Old Testament doesn't mean they are reading it the way Jews read it.

You're speaking very generally about what Christians do. Maybe some of them do these things. Most Christians I know don't talk or care much about the OT.

Sorry to diverge from main point of thread (OT I am of the camp that atheists are fine and we all need to follow same basic rules for kindness and respect).

But PP This is not true. All the Christian’s I know care deeply about OT and NT.

Our church has both OT and NT readings every week. You can’t understand the message of the NT without the OT.

Most weddings and funerals have messages from both - such as from Ecclesiastes and Psalms as well as from the gospel. Jesus’ sermons don’t make sense without appreciation for the OT prophets especially Isaiah.

+1. The OT readings tend to be pretty curated, however. The readings never encompass the Canaanites or David's behavior, for example. But every Sunday School kid does know about David in general, Noah, Moses and the tablets, etc...