What do you *REALLY* think of Atheists?

[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!

DP. As a Christian, I wouldn't go into a thread on the topic "atheists what do you think of Christians" to talk about how I think atheists are wrong. That would be pointlessly picking a fight.

[Anonymous]

There are very few true atheists. Even many people who consider themselves atheists are actually agnostics or just opposed to organized religion.

The true atheist just seems broken or incomplete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are very few true atheists. Even many people who consider themselves atheists are actually agnostics or just opposed to organized religion.

The true atheist just seems broken or incomplete.

You can be both atheist and agnostic.

Theism means belief in god. A-theism means no belief in god.

Gnostic means "to know". Agnostic means "to not know"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are very few true atheists. Even many people who consider themselves atheists are actually agnostics or just opposed to organized religion.

The true atheist just seems broken or incomplete.

DP. Even Dawkins says he's agnostic. https://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic

I wouldn't call true atheists necessarily broken or incomplete. But the atheists here who are trolling on a mom's board, yeah, they're broken or incomplete.

[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.

It's fine for individual Christians to know some basics of stories in the OT and have that be the extent of their interaction with half of their religious texts. I have no objection to individual Christians engaging with their theology on whatever level they want - minimal or cultural or big-picture. Individual Christians can choose not to care much about the OT, which makes sense, since Christian theology establishes a new covenant through Jesus that invalidates many of the central laws there (circumcision and kashrut, for example), so I get that the focus would be much more on Jesus and NT teachings.

But we're talking about the term "Judeo-Christian" so yes, I'm speaking broadly about Christian theology and interpretation of texts, not the practices of individual Christians. For that matter, I'm speaking broadly about Jewish interpretation too. Whether individual Christians focus on or "care much about" the OT in their day-to-day religious lives is not really the point. Christian theology (the religion's teachings, not necessarily the personal beliefs of individual practitioners) reads Jesus into the OT and builds the NT on those OT texts. Christianity (as a religion, not necessarily individual Christians) uses and interprets OT texts differently than Judaism (as a religion, not necessarily individual Jews) uses and interprets those texts. Hence my continued objection to "Judeo-Christian" as a concept.

[Anonymous]

Let’s start a thread called “Atheists, Talk about Christians” and then not let Christians post any comments.

[Anonymous]

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.

You should stop caring what your religious relatives think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s start a thread called “Atheists, Talk about Christians” and then not let Christians post any comments.

As if we didn't know you guys are all about trashing Christians and only Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s start a thread called “Atheists, Talk about Christians” and then not let Christians post any comments.

As if we didn't know you guys are all about trashing Christians and only Christians.

No - it’s mostly Christians on this thread saying atheists should not be commenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s start a thread called “Atheists, Talk about Christians” and then not let Christians post any comments.

As if we didn't know you guys are all about trashing Christians and only Christians.

No - it’s mostly Christians on this thread saying atheists should not be commenting.

You don't know that, you just made that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s start a thread called “Atheists, Talk about Christians” and then not let Christians post any comments.

As if we didn't know you guys are all about trashing Christians and only Christians.

No - it’s mostly Christians on this thread saying atheists should not be commenting.

No - it was OP and the moderator who said atheists should not be commenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s start a thread called “Atheists, Talk about Christians” and then not let Christians post any comments.

As if we didn't know you guys are all about trashing Christians and only Christians.

No - it’s mostly Christians on this thread saying atheists should not be commenting.

No - it was OP and the moderator who said atheists should not be commenting.

No - OP did say atheists shouldn’t comment. Moderator said we might want to skip it but didn’t say we couldn’t. Why do you think it’s Christian to squash other peoples’ views?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s start a thread called “Atheists, Talk about Christians” and then not let Christians post any comments.

As if we didn't know you guys are all about trashing Christians and only Christians.

No - it’s mostly Christians on this thread saying atheists should not be commenting.

No - it was OP and the moderator who said atheists should not be commenting.

No - OP did say atheists shouldn’t comment. Moderator said we might want to skip it but didn’t say we couldn’t. Why do you think it’s Christian to squash other peoples’ views?

/\ OP did *not* say

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s start a thread called “Atheists, Talk about Christians” and then not let Christians post any comments.

As if we didn't know you guys are all about trashing Christians and only Christians.

No - it’s mostly Christians on this thread saying atheists should not be commenting.

No - it was OP and the moderator who said atheists should not be commenting.

No, Jeff said they probably should skip but also:

"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."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really have a general opinion of atheists beyond thinking they're wrong on some basic facts about the universe. Some are good people, some aren't, some have well developed intellectual underpinnings for their beliefs, some don't. All groups are like that though.

What basic facts about the universe do you think that atheists are wrong about?

Whether God exists. Whether God became man in the person of Jesus Christ. That kind of thing.

Again, these are not facts. They are beliefs. In fact they are set out in the creed as such: "I believe in God, etc..."

You're splitting hairs in the dumbest possible way. Atheists and I have different beliefs about the answers to certain questions, like does God exist, and I think their beliefs are untrue. That's what I was saying.

....so you don't know the difference between creed, belief, and fact?

Atheists BELIEVE God doesn't exist; religious folks BELEIEVE God does exist - both are beliefs, neither are facts. God has not been made into a Thermodynamic or Physical law.

Facts can be proven - i.e., if an apple falls from a tree gravity will pull it down. We don't BELIEVE it will fall down, we know it by Newton's law.

Now you may think you know these things about religion, but if your beliefs were law this particular forum would not exist. We are not still debating Newton's Law or the Laws of Thermodynamics. These are accepted and applied to demonstrate other principles that are not yet Laws.

The FACT that you don't understand these differences demonstrate our shortcomings in the educational system.

.... and I'm religious and BELIEVE in God but know the difference between fact and belief.

This is a really confusing post because you're mixing up the word "fact" with the scientific concept of a "law." They're not the same.

Here's a few definitions of the word fact for you:

1) something that has actual existence
2) an actual occurrence
3) a piece of information presented as having objective reality
4)the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
(Those are all from Merriam Webster)

American Heritage gives us:
Something believed to be true or real

American Heritage also adds: "fact has a long history of use in the sense of "an allegation of fact" or "something that is believed to be true." Collins states that "When you refer to something as a fact or as fact, you mean that you think it is true or correct." Both include statements that speaker believes to be true be cannot prove as things that the speaker is free to describe as a "fact." It's not synonymous with a physical law.

When I say that "God exists" is a fact about the universe, I'm using the word "fact" in the sense 3 or 4 described above; as in "the objective reality of the question is that God exists" and I'm stating my belief about that objective reality in line with the American Heritage discussion of using "fact" to mean "something that is believed to be true." This is also pretty clear if you read more than the word "fact" because my statement begins with describing what I "think" about atheists. The normal usage there signals that what follows is an opinion or belief not a scientific law.

This is, of course, all pointless since my statement can easily be understood to mean "I think atheists are incorrect, as a matter of truth, about the answers to certain questions about the universe." You were never confused about what I meant.

NP. This is the Republican thinking on fact. The “objective reality” is fact, when it’s really, truly subjective and not proven at all.

I really don’t care if you think I’m wrong on the “basic facts of the universe,” because I think you’re wrong in how you interpret “fact.”

Exactly. PP doesn’t understand the word “objective”.

“God exists” is absolutely not a “fact”, it’s a belief.