Jump to content

Which Christian Behaviors Most Annoy Atheists?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PennySerenade said:

I am sorry. I am rather a disappointment. I’m not really an apologist or a defender of the faith or anything like that. 

 

I understand the mindset of thinking that there must be answers even if you can't think of them. Many of us have been there at some point. Apologists are presented as educated people who have done thorough investigations and know that the Bible is true. Those of us who have come to see the serious holes in Christianity realize that that is not true, but it can be hard to see through that when you believe the Bible just has to be true.

 

Don't be so hard on yourself. Christianity makes you out to be nothing on your own, but I sincerely hope that you get to the point where you can stop seeing yourself as a disappointment. Simply honestly assess the claims that Christians have made to you and any counterargument you hear. Follow the evidence and logic wherever it leads.

 

Imagine the apologetics arguments being made by someone of a different religion and then ask yourself if those arguments would be convincing to someone who wasn't already predisposed to believing that religion. Hopefully this will help you more reasonably assess religious claims.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 402
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Because he/she gets to escape the terrifying doctrine, myth and belief in hellfire that each and every one of us had to break free from. She gets to believe in the magical sky god that is 'all love''

See, in my mind, that makes god an abuser. He demands I believe in him and all that entails (worship, etc...) or I will be subjected to horrific punishment. In human law, this is called extortion and

Hi, Penny. I think it's cool of you to sign up because your friend asked you to, that's already way more decent of you than some friend responses many of us have experienced. Of course if it's your "w

3 hours ago, PennySerenade said:

Because people are unable to follow God’s law. We can not keep it. 

 

Your indoctrination is quite deep.  Living mostly via your brain's limbic system ignores the value of your brain's frontal cortex.

 

...

I’m not really an apologist or a defender of the faith or anything like that. 

 

Sure you are.  It's quite obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

I mostly agree, but I would say that the closest thing to advocating monogamy in the Bible would be the "husband of one wife" references in 1 Timothy and Titus. Of course, those are specifically referring to bishops, deacons, and elders.

 

It is indeed true that there's nothing in the Bible specifically limiting men in general to one wife, all the while the OT Law specifically allows for multiple wives and Bible God himself specifically gives David multiple wives.

 

 

 

An alternate translation is "Faithful to his wife". The reference to a singular wife seems to have been a later addition or translation.

 

It's also worth noting that both Timothy and Titus are post Gospel books. Timothy and Titus were both followers of Paul. Even Paul never met Jesus directly, at least not in his lifetime. He did not know him prior to Jesus's execution.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, Paul did not change his name. Saul is his Jewish name, Paul would be what the Romans would have called him. It's the same name, but the change is because of where his travels took him, not because he was using an alias and changed his identity due to his conversion.

 

Paul contradicts Jesus a lot actually. He adapted Christianity to Rome and adopted many of their customs and ideals into Christianity, not the other way around. I'm pretty sure Christianity in general's early roots in Roman Catholicism are the only reason his part of the bible is even really included.

 

Even when I was a Christian, this group of books is the part of the bible I trusted the least.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PennySerenade said:

...

I know God is good and God is love.

...

No matter what, God is good and God is love. This I know. 

 

Just not in anyway you can demonstrate.

 

Cherry picking is easy peasy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

An alternate translation is "Faithful to his wife". The reference to a singular wife seems to have been a later addition or translation.

 

It's also worth noting that both Timothy and Titus are post Gospel books. Timothy and Titus were both followers of Paul. Even Paul never met Jesus directly, at least not in his lifetime. He did not know him prior to Jesus's execution.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, Paul did not change his name. Saul is his Jewish name, Paul would be what the Romans would have called him. It's the same name, but the change is because of where his travels took him, not because he was using an alias and changed his identity due to his conversion.

 

Paul contradicts Jesus a lot actually. He adapted Christianity to Rome and adopted many of their customs and ideals into Christianity, not the other way around. I'm pretty sure Christian's early roots in Roman Catholicism are the only reason his part of the bible is even really included.

 

Even when I was a Christian, this group of books is the part of the bible I trusted the least.

 

Interesting point about the alternate translation. I just looked up a bunch of Bible versions; there are a lot that say one wife, but there are also a lot that render it as you suggest. I don't know Greek, so I can't really add anything. Regardless of which rendering is accurate, the texts are very specific as being guidelines for bishops, deacons, and elders, so either way it isn't directed at men in general. (Of course, I'm in full agreement about the discrepancies you mention.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Your indoctrination is quite deep.  Living mostly via your brain's limbic system ignores the value of your brain's frontal cortex.

 

 

Sure you are.  It's quite obvious.

Lol, ooga, ooga. You are quite right, I do not use my prefrontal cortex much at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

I understand the mindset of thinking that there must be answers even if you can't think of them. Many of us have been there at some point. Apologists are presented as educated people who have done thorough investigations and know that the Bible is true. Those of us who have come to see the serious holes in Christianity realize that that is not true, but it can be hard to see through that when you believe the Bible just has to be true.

 

Don't be so hard on yourself. Christianity makes you out to be nothing on your own, but I sincerely hope that you get to the point where you can stop seeing yourself as a disappointment. Simply honestly assess the claims that Christians have made to you and any counterargument you hear. Follow the evidence and logic wherever it leads.

 

Imagine the apologetics arguments being made by someone of a different religion and then ask yourself if those arguments would be convincing to someone who wasn't already predisposed to believing that religion. Hopefully this will help you more reasonably assess religious claims.

 

I’m not really trying to convince anyone of my faith. I will proclaim quite truthfully, that I have zero proof and it makes no sense at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

If a Muslim used an argument similar to this in response to someone pointing out something in the Quran that conflicted with the Muslim's belief, would you accept it as a valid argument?

 

I guess it is because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, only stating what I believe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, PennySerenade said:

No, I can not prove or demonstrate anything. 

 

This is kind of why we ended up leaving. No one can really. That's the whole problem.

 

If the cameras on the Mars Rover broke tomorrow, and I said that it was because sand elves attacked the rover in its blind spot, you couldn't prove that it wasn't true.

 

At some point in the future you might be able to prove what did happen, but the fact that you couldn't prove it right then does not validate my claim that sand elves broke the camera.

 

The burden of proof is a big part of rationality and logic. You can't prove negatives, no one should have to prove what isn't true. Asking someone to do so is an unreasonable request.

 

The burden or proof lies on the one making the claim. It is up to them to prove that something is true, not prove that the opposing views are not true.

 

In other words, no one should have to prove that what someone else believes isn't true. It's up to the believer to prove that it is. If they can't, their belief doesn't amount to much no matter how sincere.

 

You also can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. That's called circular reasoning and it is a huge logical fallacy.

 

So is an emotional plea. How something makes you feel has no relevance to how true or false it is. Facts aren't created by emotions, nor does it have anything to do with what we want to be true.

 

What then, do you really have left to argue your case for your beliefs?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ContraBardus said:

 

 

This is kind of why we ended up leaving. No one can really. That's the whole problem.

 

If the camera on the Mars Rover broke tomorrow, and I said that it was because sand elves attacked the rover in its blind spot, you couldn't prove that it wasn't true.

 

The burden of proof is a big part of rationality and logic. You can't prove negatives, no one should have to prove what isn't true. Asking someone to do so is an unreasonable request.

 

The burden or proof lies on the one making the claim. It is up to them to prove that something is true, not prove that the opposing views are not true.

 

You also can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. That's called circular reasoning and it is a huge logical fallacy.

 

So is an emotional plea. How something makes you feel has no relevance to how true or false it is. Facts aren't created by emotions, nor does it have anything to do with what we want to be true.

 

What then, do you really have left to argue your case for your beliefs?

I’m not arguing, though. I don’t think you understand. I’m not attempting to convert anyone. I absolutely 100% agree, I can prove nothing. Faith does not require proofs- you either believe or do not. If you do not, there is nothing I can say. I have no evidences and no proofs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

I’m not arguing, though. I don’t think you understand. I’m not attempting to convert anyone. I absolutely 100% agree, I can prove nothing. Faith does not require proofs- you either believe or do not. If you do not, there is nothing I can say. I have no evidences and no proofs. 

 

You kind of are. Not in a formal debate sense, but in an informal discussion one. You are making a case for your faith, even if it is a weakly presented one where you're avoiding a firm stance.

 

You're bending like a reed as a defense and avoiding a commitment to any firm statement regarding broader philosophy regarding your belief.

 

Presenting your beliefs as you are is a form of argument in a loose sense regardless. Not every argument or debate is serious or formal.

 

We're weren't even really arguing about faith itself here, but rather the specifics of scripture as it is written versus how it is interpreted and what sort of license can really be taken with that.

 

It's only just now gotten any broader than that really.

 

I will say that I don't really view believing in something for which you have no real evidence, rationality, or proof of any kind for as a good thing. It's not a positive or a virtue. We have a word for people who think that way and are so blindly trusting: "gullible". That's harsh, but it's also true.

 

It makes no sense to believe things for no reason, and that's basically what you're stating is the case here. Beliefs should make sense and have some sort of rationality or basis behind them, some form of logical foundation to support them.

 

How exactly is your faith any different from someone who believed that Zeus came to a mortal woman while her husband was away and impregnated her with Hercules, and that he was the son of God? Why do you think that it's any less silly and still buy into it?

 

Feelings shouldn't be enough, they aren't a solid foundation for a belief you frame your life and moral core around. Especially when it's the basis for a lot of serious life choices you'll be making in the future.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

You kind of are. Not in a formal debate sense, but in an informal discussion one. You are making a case for your faith, even if it is a weakly presented one where you're avoiding a firm stance.

 

You're bending like a reed as a defense and avoiding a commitment to any firm statement regarding broader philosophy regarding God.

 

Presenting your beliefs as you are is a form of argument in a loose sense regardless. Not every argument or debate is serious or formal.

 

We're weren't even really arguing about faith itself here, but rather the specifics of scripture as it is written versus how it is interpreted and what sort of license can really be taken with that.

 

It's only just now gotten any broader than that really.

 

I will say that I don't really view believing in something for which you have no real evidence, rationality, or proof of any kind for as a good thing. It's not a positive or a virtue. We have a word for people who think that way and are so blindly trusting: "gullible". That's harsh, but it's also true.

 

It makes no sense to believe things for no reason, and that's basically what you're stating is the case here. Beliefs should make sense and have some sort of rationality or basis behind them, some form of logical foundation to support them.

 

How exactly is your faith any different from someone who believed that Zeus came to a mortal woman while her husband was away and impregnated her with Hercules, and that he was the son of God? Why do you think that it's any less silly and still buy into it?

 

Feelings shouldn't be enough, they aren't a solid foundation for a belief you frame your life and moral core around. Especially when it's the basis for a lot of serious life choices you'll be making in the future.

I don’t think it is any different, in the sense that they are both faiths. I believe Christianity is the true faith, or I would ascribe to other faiths. 

 

Yes, I suppose it does seem to be gullible and silly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

I don’t think it is any different, in the sense that they are both faiths. I believe Christianity is the true faith, or I would ascribe to other faiths. 

 

Yes, I suppose it does seem to be gullible and silly. 

 

Then you understand that we kind of see this as talking with someone who is otherwise normal but still really believes in Santa Claus when they are 35 years old and are putting out presents for their own kids after they put them to bed on Christmas Eve?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

 

Then you understand that we kind of see this as talking with someone who is otherwise normal but still really believes in Santa Claus when they are 35 years old and are putting out presents for their own kids after they put them to bed on Christmas Eve?

Yes, I know it seems very silly to you. I think that is a good analogy, actually. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PennySerenade said:

Because people are unable to follow God’s law. We can not keep it. 

 

Nice skirting right over the fact that god sanctioned the death penalty for picking up sticks on Saturday. If you allowed yourself just 5 seconds to think about this you'd realize that he's a monster. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PennySerenade said:

Yes, I know it seems very silly to you. I think that is a good analogy, actually. 

 

I wouldn't call it "silly" so much as a total logical disconnect.

 

Not saying that to be mean, but that's pretty much the best description for it.

 

It's always been an odd realization that Christians believe that their beliefs are special and true when they can see the absurdity of other belief systems.

 

Christian beliefs really aren't any different when you actually examine them. I mean, it centers around a magical Jew born of a virgin who is the son of a rather irritable and sensitive deity. It doesn't make any more sense than a cross dressing Nord with a magic hammer that fights Frost Giants or an absurdly strong demi God that travels around punching monsters who is the son of a shape shifting Thunder God with a habit of shape shifting to shag mortal women. There are plenty of mythical creatures mentioned in the bible, a talking snake, dragons, giants, etc...

 

Somehow, their religion is true despite the absurdities, but all these others are wrong.

 

I also fail to understand the concept that the all powerful creator of the Universe wants to have a special relationship with us as individuals. It's an absurdly arrogant supposition that any such being would grant us such attention, give us special rules, or get annoyed when we say mean things about it. It's about as self important and egocentric an idea as is possible to have.

 

If such a being does exist, I don't think it would concern itself with the things any deity in any organized religion concerns themselves with. Their traits and personalities are far too human and flawed to be a realistic representation of what such a being would be like. That includes God and Jesus in Christianity.

 

I'm not even a true Atheist by the way. I'm Ignostic, and I refuse to discuss the existence of God unless the term has been clearly defined.

 

I don't like the word impossible at all, but I do understand the concept of probability. Christian beliefs, and really any human religion past or present, are absurd to the point that humoring them is pointless in my view. Jesus and Yaweh are just as much absurdities as Krishna, Zeus, Allah, Baal, Ra, Amaterasu, Aslan, or Crom.

 

The existence of a "God" is probably unlikely but something I'm willing to humor and consider it as a concept given evidence for it. I also don't consider it a topic really worth the effort of much thought, as such a being wouldn't really care what I thought of it, how well I behaved on our little dust speck in the universe, or desire that I send positive mind vibes to it or ask it for favor. Even if such a God does exist, it doesn't really matter if I know it is there or not. I'm not so arrogant as to believe I would warrant the attention or concern of such a being.

 

If a "personal" God was a thing, I don't see how everyone would have a completely different idea of what it is and what it wanted. Especially if you factor in the Omnipotent and Omnipresent elements that are attributed to such a being by most religions. The idea of "testing" us makes no sense if we were really dealing with such a being.

 

Nothing about any concept of God humanity has ever organized a religion around makes any sense. It's not because "God is beyond our understanding" either. It's because we humanize the idea too much when we make this stuff up and always come up with flawed imperfect beings that don't fit the traits we imagine them to have. Gods as they exist in religion and faith are human concepts, not divine ones.

 

That's why "God" makes up absurd rules that make no sense such as having a special day that the punishment for working is death, we shouldn't call him naughty names, or specific rules for sacrificing calves, and other rules that sound suspiciously like something a human thought up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vigile said:

 

Nice skirting right over the fact that god sanctioned the death penalty for picking up sticks on Saturday. If you allowed yourself just 5 seconds to think about this you'd realize that he's a monster. 

I can’t defend God. If you think He is a monster, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I can only say what I know. And then, I am told I am indoctrinated.

 

There is nothing I can say. 

 

I know Him to not be a monster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

I wouldn't call it "silly" so much as a total logical disconnect.

 

Not saying that to be mean, but that's pretty much the best description for it.

 

It's always been an odd realization that Christians believe that their beliefs are special and true when they can see the absurdity of other belief systems.

 

Christian beliefs really aren't any different when you actually examine them. I mean, it centers around a magical Jew born of a virgin who is the son of a rather irritable and sensitive deity. It doesn't make any more sense than a cross dressing Nord with a magic hammer that fights Frost Giants or an absurdly strong demi God that travels around punching monsters who is the son of a shape shifting Thunder God with a habit of shape shifting to shag mortal women. There are plenty of mythical creatures mentioned in the bible, a talking snake, dragons, giants, etc...

 

Somehow, their religion is true despite the absurdities, but all these others are wrong.

 

I also fail to understand the concept that the all powerful creator of the Universe wants to have a special relationship with us as individuals. It's an absurdly arrogant supposition that any such being would grant us such attention, give us special rules, or get annoyed when we say mean things about it. It's about as self important and egocentric an idea as is possible to have.

 

If such a being does exist, I don't think it would concern itself with the things any deity in any organized religion concerns themselves with. Their traits and personalities are far too human and flawed to be a realistic representation of what such a being would be like. That includes God and Jesus in Christianity.

 

I'm not even a true Atheist by the way. I'm Ignostic, and I refuse to discuss the existence of God unless the term has been clearly defined.

 

I don't like the word impossible at all, but I do understand the concept of probability. Christian beliefs, and really any human religion past or present, are absurd to the point that humoring them is pointless in my view. Jesus and Yaweh are just as much absurdities as Krishna, Zeus, Allah, Baal, Ra, Amaterasu, Aslan, or Crom.

 

The existence of a "God" is probably unlikely but something I'm willing to humor and consider it as a concept given evidence for it. I also don't consider it a topic really worth the effort of much thought, as such a being wouldn't really care what I thought of it, how well I behaved on our little dust speck in the universe, or desire that I send positive mind vibes to it or ask it for favor. Even if such a God does exist, it doesn't really matter if I know it is there or not. I'm not so arrogant as to believe I would warrant the attention or concern of such a being.

 

If a "personal" God was a thing, I don't see how everyone wouldn't have a completely different idea of what it is and what it wanted. Especially if you factor in the Omnipotent and Omnipresent elements that are attributed to such a being by most religions. The idea of "testing" us makes no sense if we were really dealing with such a being.

 

Nothing about any concept of God humanity has ever organized a religion around makes any sense. It's not because "God is beyond our understanding" either. It's because we humanize the idea too much when we make this stuff up and always come up with flawed imperfect beings that don't fit the traits we imagine them to have. Gods as they exist in religion and faith are human concepts, not divine ones.

I did not say Christianity was logical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

I did not say Christianity was logical. 

 

Then why believe it?

 

No decision like that should be based on feelings, and if your'e not using logic, that's all you've got.

 

You've pretty much admitted that believing in it is...well dumb. You've not literally said that specifically, but if everything you've posted is true that's the case.

 

You know it's just as absurd as any other mythological faith, but still think it's true anyway.

 

Belief in things you know are absurd is not a virtue. It's not something to be proud of and I doubt you'd apply the same standards to anything else in your life, especially not something you likely frequently base important life decisions on.

 

What makes "faith" so special that it gets a pass exactly? Why not treat Christianity with the same logical standards as anything else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

Then why believe it?

 

No decision like that should be based on feelings, and if your'e not using logic, that's all you've got.

 

You've pretty much admitted that believing in it is...well dumb. You've not literally said that specifically, but if everything you've posted is true that's the case.

 

You know it's just as absurd as any other mythological faith, but still think it's true anyway.

 

Belief in things you know are absurd is not a virtue. It's not something to be proud of and I doubt you'd apply the same standards to anything else in your life, especially not something you likely frequently base important life decisions on.

 

What makes "faith" so special that it gets a pass exactly? Why not treat Christianity with the same logical standards as anything else?

I agree it is absurd and illogical and dumb. Why do I believe it? I believe it is true. 

 

I can not give you any proofs or satisfactory answers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

I agree it is absurd and illogical and dumb. Why do I believe it? I believe it is true. 

 

I can not give you any proofs or satisfactory answers. 

 

If you really think it is absurd, illogical, and dumb, then you don't really believe it.

 

You're either lying to yourself, don't really understand what the implication of that statement is, or are just trying too hard to be non-confrontational and agreeable.

 

"I believe it." is not an answer to "Why do I believe it?" It's just an affirmation. It provides no relevant information and explains nothing. It's circular reasoning, a nonsense statement, and an attempt to sidestep the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

I can’t defend God. If you think He is a monster, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I can only say what I know. And then, I am told I am indoctrinated.

 

There is nothing I can say. 

 

I know Him to not be a monster.

 

I can't tell you how to arrive at a conclusion, but it seems to me that you are choosing to ignore what is clearly written in the book that you use to understand who god is. 

 

E.g., the idea of god makes me feel good, therefore he's not a monster, what the book says doesn't matter. I understand it as I remember doing the same thing when I was still a believer. Eventually my desire to know what the truth is and my impulse to ask questions got the better of me. But it seems most people don't struggle with these so you'll probably be all right. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

If you really think it is absurd, illogical, and dumb, then you don't really believe it.

 

You're either lying to yourself, don't really understand what the implication of that statement is, or are just trying too hard to be non-confrontational and agreeable.

 

"I believe it." is not an answer to "Why do I believe it?" It's just an affirmation. It provides no relevant information and explains nothing. It's circular reasoning, a nonsense statement, and an attempt to sidestep the issue.

Sure, it is nonsense. I know the implication. I believe in something completely absurd, dumb, and illogical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Vigile said:

 

I can't tell you how to arrive at a conclusion, but it seems to me that you are choosing to ignore what is clearly written in the book that you use to understand who god is. 

 

E.g., the idea of god makes me feel good, therefore he's not a monster, what the book says doesn't matter. I understand it as I remember doing the same thing when I was still a believer. Eventually my desire to know what the truth is and my impulse to ask questions got the better of me. But it seems most people don't struggle with these so you'll probably be all right. 

I believe I know the truth already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.