Root of Christian/Atheism disagreement

[Captain Cardio]

This thread is not about whether or not god exists.

This thread's purpose is to try to debate, whatever who posts here believes is the actual cause for the inability to find common ground or agreement between christians and atheists.

Ideally, it would seem that if people are truly open-minded, seperate their ego from their rhetoric and use basic logic - that disagreement should only arise when two parties have received different information. This would presumably be remedied by communication.

This does not seem to be the case with the Christianity/Atheism argument. There have been between 100-1000+ threads (and growing) on this site about various angles of this topic, yet the issue is still brought up in a slightly different light, again and again.

I presume that the two sides of the argument will likely point to a lack of virtue in the court of the opposing side of the debate, but hopefully some form of new insight can be drawn from this.

[Milton Bradley]

The issue remains constant. One group is always trying to dictate terms to the other, while the other has no recourse whatsoever, other than to oppose all of their agenda driven behavior.

[gela]

Basicly, when christain beliefs are challenged, the only response given is:
'because the bible says so'.

Unfortunatly, this doesn't cut it as a good enough explanation for some.

I have no problem with people having faith in an almighty deity. Its when they depend on a contrary book, above their own logic.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The issue remains constant. One group is always trying to dictate terms to the other, while the other has no recourse whatsoever, other than to oppose all of their agenda driven behavior.

Don't act so innocent.

While you personally might act in accordance with your philosophy that is not true for every non theist. A number of them seek debate or disagreement and attempt to force their stance unto others.

Of course many theists are just as guilty of this but you can't claim that non theists are the innocent defenders here.

[Jack]

I don't perceive atheism as trying to "force" our way of thinking on anyone. What we do is ask everyone to think for themselves, to think skeptically, to be honest with themselves. We refuse to grant religion the validity it assumes for itself and ask for evidence. We abstain from believing until sufficiently convincing evidence is presented.

Yes we disagree with theists. But we aren't out on street corners shouting about atheism to passing pedestrians. We don't go door to door pushing atheistic literature into the hands of those who answer the door. We don't gather together to condemn believers to eternal damnation.

We do ask theists to keep their beliefs to themselves. We ask them questions about the reason for their faith in order to make them think about them. We oppose establishing any religious teaching in public schools and the attempts to establish a state religion.

We disbelieve, and that's wrongly perceived as an attack or persecution.

This sums up my position:

[HelioPrime]

^ that's just where the debate starts from I think.

Don't take this an insult: But non theists use that stance as "just thinking for yourself" as a way to say their not really debating, they are only promoting a perfectly innocent view. Non theists seem to have a view where if everyone thought for themselves then everyone would be an atheist, so those who still have faith have yet to use any thinking and need to be shown the truth.

It seems to stem from the atheist stance that their view is the absolute correct view. Some people, both theist and non theist clearly hold this view. Loser, Zhavric are perfect examples and I doubt you can deny they share a similar debate style.

[Jack]

It seems to stem from the atheist stance that their view is the absolute correct view.

I don't want to use other members as representative of either position, but let me mention this. Atheism maintains that theism isn't founded on solid evidence, that there's no logical or substantiated reason to believe in any god. Theists will say that there's proof of gods, but it's personal, not empirical evidence.

So of course both sides of the issue believe they are correct. Theists offer evidence, it's just not the kind of evidence atheists find convincing or acceptable. That's the dividing line for me; evidence. It's also where I find another disagreement. Theists are absolutely convinced their position is correct. Atheism isn't absolute. All we say is show us evidence that will convince us. Do that and we'll believe as well.

[Anmon]

We don't care if you make your own choices gay lobbyists, just don't push them onto our kids.
As the cartoon above is portrayed as very skewered to a left wing point of view in the depiction of the angry Christian and the plaintive left winger, when it could just as well be the opposite way around.

If as the small plaintive left winger asks 'if you want to believe in god and teach your kids about Christianity, thats your right, but please let us make our own choices too'

Well gee thanks for letting us have something thats ours anyway, and we will teach our kids about Christianity.
The only problem now is, socialists have pushed through laws making it a crime to speak against gays in any way as a hate crime, as discrimination, which then naturally conflict with Christian teachings which do not favour homosexuality as ideal for children to learn about.
And to certainly not have it pushed sneakily onto them anywhere, under the guise of political correctness's brain washing golden warm buzz words, of tolerance, open mindedness and understanding, as it is now.

So the right to teach kids without government interference has gone it seems, if you say anything that disagrees with gays, you are now committing a hate crime, if you don't teach children about tolerance and open mindedness on gay issues you are committing a hate crime, for not including it in the schools curriculum.
Socialists are pushing for it to go even further, with sex education to begin at 6 year old level in school, how ridiculous and unnecessary is that?

So you see, we can not possibly have the right to teach children at our schools properly, if its compromised by outside destructive influences.
The only choice soon I believe will be to take our kids out of schools if they are not taught Christianity's values properly, and teach them at home.

[Jack]

The "hate crime" designation does not abridge the right of free speech. You are obviously free to think and say what you wish about anyone. What that designation does is make it a crime to commit a crime against someone based on their gender or sexual orientation, among other factors. Once you escalate from speech to advocating or committing violence, you cross the line.

[Sonart]

.

You really don't get it, Helio. Milton was dead right; atheists have been INSTITUTIONALLY persecuted by believers throughout history. Even today, top rated, nationally televised ministers have condemned atheists to millions of our fellow Americans as the equivalent of murderers, rapists, child molesters and communists, each of us worthy of suffering intolerable agony for all eternity.

And for what?

Quote by: Helio Prime Don't take this an insult: But non theists use that stance as "just thinking for yourself" as a way to say their not really debating, they are only promoting a perfectly innocent view. Non theists seem to have a view where if everyone thought for themselves then everyone would be an atheist, so those who still have faith have yet to use any thinking and need to be shown the truth.

Except atheists - in general - don't proselytize. We aren't out to create a nation of non-believers, we just want people to a) quit comdemning us and b) as Isherwood's cartoon so wonderfully illustrates, quit forcing their antiquated morality down everyone's throats. We're not telling the religious to stop praying, get an abortion or invite gays over for dinner. Just to get over yourselves.

Those atheists that do make a lot of noise I'll venture do so in retaliation to a lifetime of universal condemnation. In other words, they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more.

.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Isherwood The "hate crime" designation does not abridge the right of free speech. You are obviously free to think and say what you wish about anyone. What that designation does is make it a crime to commit a crime against someone based on their gender or sexual orientation, among other factors. Once you escalate from speech to advocating or committing violence, you cross the line.

True freedom of speech is compromised however by the race/sex/gender code now enforced.
It covers anything that socialism wishes to put further into it.
It is of course not right to discriminate against anyone because of their colour, sex or preference, but if that persons sexual preference goes against your faith, then an understanding must be reached, so as not to compromise your own beliefs.
And true freedom of speech should allow that.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Anmon So the right to teach kids without government interference has gone it seems, if you say anything that disagrees with gays, you are now committing a hate crime, if you don't teach children about tolerance and open mindedness on gay issues you are committing a hate crime, for not including it in the schools curriculum.

Oh WaaaaaAAAAaaaaah... see panel 2 and 6 of Isherwood's cartoon.

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, seems to have no problems with the institutions of slavery, or with polygamy. Should advocates of slavery, racial discrimination and polygamy be allowed to preach those beliefs in schools as well?

Or is perhaps some moral relativism worth considering?

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Anmon True freedom of speech is compromised however by the race/sex/gender code now enforced. It covers anything that socialism wishes to put further into it. It is of course not right to discriminate against anyone because of their colour, sex or preference, but if that persons sexual preference goes against your faith, then an understanding must be reached, so as not to compromise your own beliefs. And true freedom of speech should allow that.

At what point does your right to flap your yap make it acceptable to deny American citizens who are harming no one the right to participate in their own society as equals?

.

[Jack]

True freedom of speech is compromised however by the race/sex/gender code now enforced. It covers anything that socialism wishes to put further into it.

Hate crime statutes also cover crimes committed against the religious when those crimes are motivated by religious intolerance. Is that equally socialist?

if that persons sexual preference goes against your faith, then an understanding must be reached, so as not to compromise your own beliefs.

What kind of "understanding"? Why should your beliefs impose on anyone else? Theists need to come to grips with their intolerance. Gays, atheists and the rest are under no obligation to adjust their lives to accommodate your beliefs, which in large part they don't share.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Sonart You really don't get it, Helio. Milton was dead right; atheists have been INSTITUTIONALLY persecuted by believers throughout history. Even today, top rated, nationally televised ministers have condemned atheists to millions of our fellow Americans as the equivalent of murderers, rapists, child molesters and communists, each of us worthy of suffering intolerable agony for all eternity.

It goes both ways.

I live in China where you hear about it frequently.

However what your stating is this problem humans have about attacking minorities because they're different.

But lets do this one by one. I don't say that do I? So your fight isn't with this Christian.

Except atheists - in general - don't proselytize. We aren't out to create a nation of non-believers, we just want people to a) quit comdemning us and b) as Isherwood's cartoon so wonderfully illustrates, quit forcing their antiquated morality down everyone's throats. We're not telling the religious to stop praying, get an abortion or invite gays over for dinner. Just to get over yourselves

Again, you seem to dump Christians into one big pile. I'm not like that am I?

Quote by: isherwood We do ask theists to keep their beliefs to themselves. We ask them questions about the reason for their faith in order to make them think about them. We oppose establishing any religious teaching in public schools and the attempts to establish a state religion.

You have to see it from this point of view. Theists think that they need to save the world from eternal damnation, they just suck at advertising (normally).

I've been maliciously trying to send subliminal messages by spreading the idea that not all Christians are stupid and that conversion works differently for each person so I can't dictate to others how to covert. All I can do is ask that you keep it in the back of your head as possible until proven otherwise. And that Buddhist meditation is good for exploring that possibility as well as helping your metal and physical health.

[Morality Games]

Atheists and theists disagree because there is a sizeable difference in the logic behind their standards of truth, at least on the subject of God. Theistic logic maintains God is real as long as his existence is imaginable. The only criteria for testing the reality of God's existence is the imagination. Since human imagination is virtually limitless, there is no capacity in theistic logic for the idea of God to be false. They can imagine he exists, somehow someway, so he does. Hence, they can flip back in forth between literal and allegorical interpretations of their respective religions whenever it is necessary to preserve the faith. Ultimately, the only possible outcome of the paradigm of theism is that God exists.

Atheistic logic is more strict than that. God is real only so far as his existence is demonstratable. The only criteria for testing the reality of God's existence is scientific observation. Since human imagination is virtually limitless, it is no sure standard of the truth of ideas. Since we can imagine God exists, we can be on the look out for him, but since it presently appears he does not exist, we assume the position he does not exist. If evidence of his existence ever comes to light, then we revise our position and move on.

There are countless ongoing debates between theists and atheists because no resolution is possible between two groups using opposing logic to construct their standards of truth -- since God is real in so far he is imaginable, anything an atheist can say about the historical, psychological, aesthetic, logical, and scientific shortcomings of religious texts is irrevelant. To a theist, God is only not real when it becomes impossible to imagine his is real (which is impossible). On the other hand, atheists are unwilling to treat the idea of God with more reverence than anything other hypothesis about the nature of reality (that is, as any different from evolution or the Big Bang -- both of these theories rested on a pile of evidence before they were considered true, so God must sit on a pile of evidence too).

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Sonart . You really don't get it, Helio. Milton was dead right; atheists have been INSTITUTIONALLY persecuted by believers throughout history. Even today, top rated, nationally televised ministers have condemned atheists to millions of our fellow Americans as the equivalent of murderers, rapists, child molesters and communists, each of us worthy of suffering intolerable agony for all eternity. And for what? Except atheists - in general - don't proselytize. We aren't out to create a nation of non-believers, we just want people to a) quit comdemning us and b) as Isherwood's cartoon so wonderfully illustrates, quit forcing their antiquated morality down everyone's throats. We're not telling the religious to stop praying, get an abortion or invite gays over for dinner. Just to get over yourselves. Those atheists that do make a lot of noise I'll venture do so in retaliation to a lifetime of universal condemnation. In other words, they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. .

And like everyone else you ignoring the facts.....

Do theists proselytize much on this forum?

Who creates more debate threads, non theists targeting theists, or theists targeting non theists.

The question at hand is why there is debate, and thats because each side refuses to accept specific terms to the debate. It's something both theists and non theists have in common.

[HelioPrime]

One issue I always think of is the attack on anything religious in public life.

Even simple matters, such as the word god in school prayer, or a footballs teams tradition to have a prayer before a game, all these are attacked as promoting religion.

It's attacks seeking to end religion by trying to remove all traces of it from the public realm, in the hope by some non theists that children will grow up never heading of the word god or of a church because all religious ideals have been taken out of society and placed only in peoples private homes.

Because religion needs to be taught to be spread properly, then many believers will instantly come into conflict with attempts to remove faith from the public realm.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: HelioPrime One issue I always think of is the attack on anything religious in public life. Even simple matters, such as the word god in school prayer, or a footballs teams tradition to have a prayer before a game, all these are attacked as promoting religion. It's attacks seeking to end religion by trying to remove all traces of it from the public realm, in the hope by some non theists that children will grow up never heading of the word god or of a church because all religious ideals have been taken out of society and placed only in peoples private homes. Because religion needs to be taught to be spread properly, then many believers will instantly come into conflict with attempts to remove faith from the public realm.

Unless you are willing to tolerate Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet systematically giving speeches encouraging atheism and describing the shortcomings of religion in every elementary and high school auditorium, you should abandon this logic. Living in a democratic society means no faction can use neutral territory to encourage their ideals. That's what it means to be equal, and that is fairness in a democracy.

Since I have to be considered equal to you, the least you could do is stop complaining about not receiving special status.

[Jack]

Quote by: HelioPrime One issue I always think of is the attack on anything religious in public life.

Again, philosophical opposition is not an "attack". Perhaps using fewer emotionally charged terms would facilitate civil debate.
The point is, as you say, we're talking about public life. What you do in your private life is your own business. But public life belongs to every American, White, Black, Oriental, Christian, Jew and atheist. Our public institutions either represent all Americans or they don't represent the America of the Constitution (not to mention the America I and many others have fought to defend).

Even simple matters, such as the word god in school prayer, or a footballs teams tradition to have a prayer before a game, all these are attacked as promoting religion.

It's opposed because it favors one religion over all others.

It's attacks seeking to end religion by trying to remove all traces of it from the public realm, in the hope by some non theists that children will grow up never heading of the word god or of a church because all religious ideals have been taken out of society and placed only in peoples private homes.

How is keeping religion in its proper place, the church and home, going to remove all traces of it? Why does Christianity demand predominance, why can't it accept equality with other beliefs?

Because religion needs to be taught to be spread properly, then many believers will instantly come into conflict with attempts to remove faith from the public realm.

It doesn't need to be taught in public institutions that my taxes help support. It can be taught in churches and private homes.